New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Palimpsest]

it would be a BIG help by the way if anyone who voted/feels strongly that we should do away with the idea of a numerical value system entirely could post what you think the alternative should be~ ^^ if we shouldn't count up worth/value in terms of things like old rares/extremely rares/nons/advents/etc - what do you think we should use instead? knowing what alternatives would be easier for community members to understand would go a long way towards helping those who make guides to accommodate everyone.

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4899188&start=100#p142999995

I like this post that horror laid out from ideas / feedback of other users in the thread...
What the exact tiers / numbers should be is beyond me, but I think having a system that bridges between categories, in a similar way to lower rarities, makes the most sense to me... not saying 2:1, just saying it's laid out in a way that we could go "oh, a VR can trade up to an ER like this, and an ER up to an OMGSR like this, and we account for the differing value of pets by grouping them in more categories within rarity"
People can still use currency words, and put the effort in to value individual pets, but not everyone has to this way... to be able to trade fair (for the majority of higher rarity pets)

[Loelya]

it would be a BIG help by the way if anyone who voted/feels strongly that we should do away with the idea of a numerical value system entirely could post what you think the alternative should be~ ^^ if we shouldn't count up worth/value in terms of things like old rares/extremely rares/nons/advents/etc - what do you think we should use instead? knowing what alternatives would be easier for community members to understand would go a long way towards helping those who make guides to accommodate everyone.

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4899188&start=100#p142999995

I like this post that horror laid out from ideas / feedback of other users in the thread...
What the exact tiers / numbers should be is beyond me, but I think having a system that bridges between categories, in a similar way to lower rarities, makes the most sense to me... not saying 2:1, just saying it's laid out in a way that we could go "oh, a VR can trade up to an ER like this, and an ER up to an OMGSR like this, and we account for the differing value of pets by grouping them in more categories within rarity"
People can still use currency words, and put the effort in to value individual pets, but not everyone has to this way... to be able to trade fair (for the majority of higher rarity pets)

I didn’t see this post before now and I have to agree actually that it’s a very effective mock-up, maybe even giving some extra clarity that previous guide structures have lacked. I’m so sincerely impressed by how well Horror combined all these ideas & suggestions. 💪

also for anyone interested, I've put up a brief summary of the cross-rarity trading discussion here, and updated the first post with a link!

[SolarSonnet]

Personally, I think I'll be fine as long as pets do have an "X amount of Old Rares" valuation next to them. Because what's confusing for me is jumping through the tiers of pets without the old rare calculations.

For example, seeing

"High OMGSR (July Tier) = unnamed UR Tier from below + Low OMGSR --- OR --- 2 Standard OMGSR" from Horror's post.

Makes 0 sense to me. Absolutely uncalculatable, my brain refuses to compute. The words make sense together, but the math is does not fit together in my brain.

Versus

"High OMGSR (July Tier) = 10-15 Varying ER === 40-50 Very Rares === 75-100 Old Rares"

THIS makes sense.

[Loelya]

Personally, I think I'll be fine as long as pets do have an "X amount of Old Rares" valuation next to them. Because what's confusing for me is jumping through the tiers of pets without the old rare calculations.

For example, seeing

"High OMGSR (July Tier) = unnamed UR Tier from below + Low OMGSR --- OR --- 2 Standard OMGSR" from Horror's post.

Makes 0 sense to me. Absolutely uncalculatable, my brain refuses to compute. The words make sense together, but the math is does not fit together in my brain.

Versus

"High OMGSR (July Tier) = 10-15 Varying ER === 40-50 Very Rares === 75-100 Old Rares"

THIS makes sense.

yeah, I REALLY like the multiple ways of valuation as well. it's a good approach that accommodates more than one method.

- - - -

okay everyone, the third poll has completed and I'm switching over to a continuous poll so that players who are making guides and using this thread can have some input from the community! I'll be keeping an eye on the thread and jumping back in at the top of the next page in order to summarize the previous poll topic, but please feel free to continue discussing on this thread, maybe brainstorm guide and chart ideas and post them here if you'd like to.

I'm going to be stepping back from managing the thread as I have something else going on in another section of CS, but thank you so much to everyone who participated in discussion here! I've seen so much awesome back-and-forth and the work everyone has put in to sorting out our feelings/opinions on things has been super helpful.

[Wookieinmashoo]

Eh, I see the point, but personally, I never liked or used the "2:1 rule" for trading between rarities, except with the most common pets. For commons to uncommons, I did a 3:1 ratio, and for uncommons to rares I did anywhere between 3:1-5:1, depending on the pets involved. With the more granular rarity breakdown, I am personally MORE likely to use the "2:1 rule" for trading between rarities. 4 commons for an uncommon doesn't seem crazy to me. Same with 4 uncommons for a rare. I was already pretty much trading that way anyway.

I haven't been checking this thread, mostly because I read while at work and it's been busy. I just wanted to point out that I agree with this. I never used the 2:1 rule then because I felt it was completely unreliable. I went by similar ratios here when dealing with commons, uncommons and rares. I've even seen a poll ( I can't remember what thread it was) but most users didn't even do 2:1 for uncommons to rares and had other systems they went by.

I have been trading for uncommons (animal eggs) using rares 5:1 for years and have very, very rarely gotten any disagreement with it. Maybe it's because they're items and not popular, who knows.
I didn't originally post this because I don't think it matters, but this is what I will be doing for them

pet release year = same date as egg release year
1 uncommon each (2016,2019 egg - current year egg)
1 Very Uncommon each for (2012-2018 egg except 2016 egg )
1 Extremely Uncommon for (2010 and 2011 egg)

It's a work in progress, but I haven't had time to do trades to find if this works.

[SolarSonnet]

Personally my top two from the new poll are:

1: shows their work (rarity history or trading data)

Absolutely the MOST important thing for any valuation guide, list, etc, is to show your work.
What trades have been made in the past? When did this pet becomes as rare as it is? Is demand factoring in (positively or negatively) to its trading value?

This is what I loved about Horror's List pre-update, it had a list of all of the things, what they were worth and also how they were valued with demand.

--

2: stability (updates favor stable values for the sake of demand management)

The way I perceived this is in contrast to a guide that is constantly updating based on demand. I still want demand to be factored in and shown when a pet has "high demand" or "low demand" I want what that pet is being actively traded for to be represented along with its actual worth

--

I think more than three of these things are important, though, which is why I'm commenting and weighing in. Obviously my votes went for those two, first, but I had a lot of trouble deciding on a third.

While I personally love rigidity and hard rules in my trading, I couldn't bring myself to vote for that. I don't think it's the most important thing. I can put in my own rules after the guides are made, and if nobody wants to initiate a trade with me first, that's fine. I like sending trades more than receiving them anyway. I can and will do all the math myself.

--

I think having customizable guides and templates is fun, and I definitely would encourage them to be around, but everything else on this poll is so much more important and value-driven than that, that I think it'd be worthwhile to put in another poll later about extra side-things you would want in a guide. It feels like a bonus, not like a requirement. Shout-out to the one person who voted for it (as of rn) though. I also think it's good to have and important, just not as important as other things.

--

I also think it's highly important for the guide to be popular. If there's the best guide EVER out there, but nobody uses it, then what's the point?

--

In the end, the one I voted for as my third option was:
collaborative (more than one user has contributed to the guide)

I think having only one person come to a conclusion and then post it and have everyone follow it is kind of a bad idea. Which shouldn't be a very hot take.

Even if they do all the research. Even if they show all of their work and guide people on what worth and value look like. The fact it was a singular user coming to a conclusion, and not a community of people putting in their inputs and having a discussion, gives that one person way too much power over the values of the highest pets on the website.

A singular person could cherry-pick trades and say "This is what this is valued at with demand, because these trades valued it here." When most trades are going for less. Or more. And not everybody would do their own research. Some would just follow the popular guide because it is popular.

Not only is it important for the community to come together to weigh in on trading, it's important that the community cite their own sources and do their own research, and not just blindly follow a guide. Remember to actually look up what things are going for when you're doing trades, rather than just following what a guide says. Just as much as all of the spreadsheets aren't a hard rule for what pets are worth and how to trade them between year gaps, neither are any list guides.

[Ebony Stardust]

Personally, I don't even look at date or species. Rarity is rarity. For trading different rarities, I tend to follow the 2:1 rule, so like 2 VU for an EU. If I really want a pet, I will overpay, but it's all personal preference for me. The rarities got updated for a reason, so that trading would hopefully be easier and you no longer have to put in a ton of guess work regarding a pet's worth. If it's Very Uncommon then it's Very Uncommon, regardless of species or date.

This. Pets are already sorted into rarities, there's no need to embellish their worths when they're already labeled.

[ShadowKatto]

Hear me out... CS should have an "eye for an eye" rule. It basically just means that a 3-star pet = another 3 star pet, a 2 star pet = another 2 star pet and so on, no "trading math" required.

I thought this would be a good idea because it's a rule that would be easy to remember, and it would make trading a lot easier, especially for new users. I felt like this was important because I often feel too intimidated to trade with others (outside of litter swaps) because of the fact that there's so much to know. I don't have the time nor the mental capacity to learn literal math equations just to earn pixels. It's not like I even own pets that are worth anything anyways, so why should I trade?

I thought with the new rarity system, trades would become something like this-

Them:
My pet is two stars, please add a two star pet.

You:
I have added a two star pet, our trade is now equal. Thanks for trading.

Not like this-

Them:
My pet is four stars which is basically five stars, so you pay with three store pets. Mine used to be a five star so it counts.

You: Cancelled trade.


------------- end scene ----------


I thought the new rarities were supposed to make things as simple as possible, not make things more vague; based on could, probably, be Very Rare.

[musicgurl333]

Hear me out... CS should have an "eye for an eye" rule. It basically just means that a 3-star pet = another 3 star pet, a 2 star pet = another 2 star pet and so on, no "trading math" required.

I thought this would be a good idea because it's a rule that would be easy to remember, and it would make trading a lot easier, especially for new users. I felt like this was important because I often feel too intimidated to trade with others (outside of litter swaps) because of the fact that there's so much to know. I don't have the time nor the mental capacity to learn literal math equations just to earn pixels. It's not like I even own pets that are worth anything anyways, so why should I trade?

I thought with the new rarity system, trades would become something like this-

Them:
My pet is two stars, please add a two star pet.

You:
I have added a two star pet, our trade is now equal. Thanks for trading.

Not like this-

Them:
My pet is four stars which is basically five stars, so you pay with three store pets. Mine used to be a five star so it counts.

You: Cancelled trade.


------------- end scene ----------


I thought the new rarities were supposed to make things as simple as possible, not make things more vague; based on could, probably, be Very Rare.

I mean, in THEORY that's a nice, simple rule, but it's not something that's realistic. Some species are just more liked. Most people are not going to swap a their lion for a rat, for example. Also, some pets are more popular...maybe they have a pretty design, or line art edits, or they're just extra adorable. Those pets are less likely to swap evenly for pets that people don't like as much. Plus, there's the date factor. I think dates should have MUCH LESS WEIGHT than the did pre-update, but they do still make a difference. Most people aren't going to swap a '10 rare for a '23 rare, even though the rarity is the same. That's because, ON AVERAGE, the '10 rare is going to be harder to find, and ON AVERAGE there's a better chance that it will turn VR before the more recent pet.

So yeah, swapping same rarity pets on an equal 1:1 trade, regardless of date/demand/species, is just not a thing that will ever happen. Sure, you might get lucky from time to time, and find someone who will swap their '10 uncommon dog for your '23 uncommon pony, but that's never going to be the norm.

[ShadowKatto]

I mean, in THEORY that's a nice, simple rule, but it's not something that's realistic. Some species are just more liked. Most people are not going to swap a their lion for a rat, for example. Also, some pets are more popular...maybe they have a pretty design, or line art edits, or they're just extra adorable. Those pets are less likely to swap evenly for pets that people don't like as much. Plus, there's the date factor. I think dates should have MUCH LESS WEIGHT than the did pre-update, but they do still make a difference. Most people aren't going to swap a '10 rare for a '23 rare, even though the rarity is the same. That's because, ON AVERAGE, the '10 rare is going to be harder to find, and ON AVERAGE there's a better chance that it will turn VR before the more recent pet.

So yeah, swapping same rarity pets on an equal 1:1 trade, regardless of date/demand/species, is just not a thing that will ever happen. Sure, you might get lucky from time to time, and find someone who will swap their '10 uncommon dog for your '23 uncommon pony, but that's never going to be the norm.

Oh yeah, you’re right about that. Forgot to take that into consideration.
Maybe somebody could edit this rule so it could be more feasible or something…? I’m clearly not qualified enough to be on this thread, lol