NEW POLL CS Community Wants YOUR help on Trading Guidelines!

[Solloby]

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)

That's a really good point! I am wondering if a new items guide we make should include lists of token trade in items. It would be a decent sized project, but would make things a heck of a lot easier for item traders.

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

You're very welcome! I'm so pleased that it's only been up a day or so and we already have over 40 responses! That is so many more people than are posting in the discussion threads, and I'm really glad we've been able to reach these people and can hear their voices. I am really loving the valuable feedback they are giving us.

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.

I understand where you are coming from. I am wondering if the 3 year grouping with a value range might be useful for allowing people some flexibility to deal with not only dates, but demand as well though.

So in your example, if we have a 15 - 20C$ value range for 2023 pets on a particular rarity, a high demand 2020 pet might be 20C$, a medium demand 2020 pet might be 18C$, a low demand 2020 pet might be 16C$, a high demand 2023 pet might be 18C$ etc. So it might prompt people to go, they are within the 3 year group, one is a bit older but the other has nice line edits so I'll consider it higher demand, so overall I think it's fair.

EDIT:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Guide notes...

Survey - Current Responses

Should a sliding scale be used to value items, where older items trade for higher rarities?
> 86.5% = Yes, items are never rereleased so older onesshould trade for higher rarities

How do you think an average item should be valued? (Note: an average item is a free item not requiring a token trade in)
> 51.4% = Similar to the average pet rarity from their time period (e.g.average 09 item would beconsidered VR)

How much do you think an average item is worth compared to a pet of the same age? You can choose multiple options. (Note: an average item is a free item not requiring a token trade in)
> Very mixed responses here


Item value framework draft

Highest Value Items
Link to existing guides for these


Store Items
Current Store Item = C$ value
Recurring Store Item = C$ value when available, more expensive in other months (we should look up how much people sell the jewellery sets for out of season)
Past Store Item = check individual values (we need a list at some point)


Free Items (attempting a sliding scale, no idea if this is accurate though? These should probably have more value ranges too)
2008 - OMGSR
2009 - ER
2010-2011 - VR
2012-2013 - R
2014-2015 - EUC
2016-2017 - VUC
2018-2019 - UC
2020-2021 - C-UC
2022-2023 - C

Token Items (using easter bunnies for comparison)
2009 - OMGSR
2010-2011 - ER
2012-2016 - VR
2017-2023 - Rare

[SolarSonnet]

-snip-

Item value framework draft

Highest Value Items
Link to existing guides for these


Store Items
Current Store Item = C$ value
Recurring Store Item = C$ value when available, more expensive in other months (we should look up how much people sell the jewellery sets for out of season)
Past Store Item = check individual values (we need a list at some point)


Free Items (attempting a sliding scale, no idea if this is accurate though? These should probably have more value ranges too)
2008 - OMGSR
2009 - ER
2010-2011 - VR
2012-2013 - R
2014-2015 - EUC
2016-2017 - VUC
2018-2019 - UC
2020-2021 - C-UC
2022-2023 - C

Token Items (using easter bunnies for comparison)
2009 - OMGSR
2010-2011 - ER
2012-2016 - VR
2017-2023 - Rare

I don't think this quite works. I get these are vague labelling, but Idk if it quite works like this.

items are more complicated than pets in a couple of ways.

1: Large scenery items, plushies, and wigs tend to go for more than smaller items. So think of your large scenery items, plushies, and wigs like dogs and lions, and your small items like rats or horses, except it's not quite like that. There are a lot of small items that are highly-desired, even if they're not worth as much because they're "smaller". A lot of times, smaller items come in groups (like the h'ween candles this event!) so if you have a 'coin' item, it might not be worth as much as another item released the same year, even if a lot of people want "coin" items.

2: Tokens tend to have a weird value after events end, as not many people actually keep them for after the event. I kept a lot of the 'Error Code' tokens from the Internet Event because I wanted to use them to dress up pets.

3: Items in sets tend to trade better as a whole set and not in pieces. So for example, the scarecrow set as an entire set has trades that value them at 1n together, but the scarecrow set in pieces goes for less. (Ex, Hat and Paws despite being worth 0.25n often goes for a little over 2 MA when traded separately)
(The reason I keep referencing the scarecrow set is because I have two, personally, so it's where I have my most personal investment.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Basically, all of this means that items might not be able to have a 'base' value like that. There are too many parameters to consider.
A "small" 2019 Christmas item (like the ornaments/baubles) might be worth less than a common from 2019. But one of those Crown Wigs might go for an Uncommon or Very Uncommon since they look good and people like wigs. (Just spit-balling, I didn't look up any item values here.)

After looking it up, it seems like the only price for the wig I could see was a 2019 Very Common, and the advice was given by 1 person in 2020 with no reference to where they got the information from. So they probably made it up lol.

I found no information for the 2019 ornaments.

(Keep in mind a lot of item trades are old because they aren't actually logged very often. Trade data is hard to find.)

[Solloby]

Hmm. Would adding a rarity onto either side address this at all?
So e.g. for free items:

2010-2011 - R-ER
2012-2013 - EUC-VR
2014-2015 - VUC-R
2016-2017 - UC-EUC
2018-2020 - C-VUC
2021-2023 - VC-UC

I think we'd need an extra guideline specifically for item sets with tiny pieces. Especially the ones that frequent the Lost & Found.

Token Items means items you traded tokens for, not the tokens specifically. I'm not sure how tokens themselves would be counted though, now that you mention it.

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

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?)
absolutely, when i got back into cs not having a equal value actually made me very hesitant to get back into trading as i was not sure if i should trade by c$ or pet value

i agree with c$ value should reflect how pets are valued, but i don't agree with the 2:1 ratio as i think the new rarity categories has allowed us to understand better where on common/uncommon ect scale a pet sits, but not that a rare pet is now worth x many times more. i also believe not doubling c$ between rarity tiers should help combat c$ getting too high at the extreme end of the table

2: How do you value pets in C$? (Do you go by year? Rarity? Species? All of the above? What about pets outside of C$, are they the same?)
largely by rarity, with a bit of consideration for year. I rarely consider species as i am not someone who is interested in very specific about demand outside of the few pets i actively collect.

3: Do you value C$ trades as highly as pet trades? (Why or why not?)
yep, as i have use for both pets & c$

4: In your personal opinion, is C$ hard to get your hands on? Is it hard to trade off, or does it have standard demand?
not the best person to ask as i have sold a couple of very high value pets for c$ and obtained a lot through art commissions, however i see many people with c$ pet shops and seeking c$ in their trade rules. the thing i find most difficult is actually finding people who value pets at a similar C$ to me. i have seen quite a few people say c$ has lower demand so ask for a higher quantity of c$, but i don't personally value c$ as lower so i tend to not trade with these people.


some other general opinions
A. if demand of c$ vs pets is going to be take into account could there be a poll to actually see how demand of c$ compares to pet demand? making it clear that if c$ chart lined up with pet values or if c$ didn't line up with pet values. mainly because i don't like being in a position of x people said this is lower demand so it must be true, as we have seen from the omgsr popularity poll there can be a lot of variation in demand.

B. i think there should be more allowance for overlap of c$ values in the new chart i.e if people agree that an uncommon of a year/year range trades fairly for a rare of a year/year range these values should be at the very least similar. at the moment i am seeing many c$ values double between rarity in a way that does not allow for easy trading of pets of the same perceived value, low rarity higher year for lower year higher rarity.
side note to this point, i personally agree with the 1:1.5 not 1:2 which is influencing these thoughts but i do think the overall point applies.

C. i agree that some species are higher/lower demand so will trade for more or less c$, but i don't think should be so extreme as rats being a 3rd of the value of dogs ect (as i have seen suggested/in people trading rules), maybe 1.5-2 times at the absolute max. maybe a method would be to not use dogs as the standard species to base c$ prices off. although i would be more comfortable with a clear range of c$ vales so that i know if other's c$ values are more dictated by their own species preference or a more general agreed species preferences.

[SolarSonnet]

@Screemnigcheesepuff

A counter-point to the 1:1.5 argument that has been brought up, but you seem to have been popping in and out of the conversation since the old thread (Hi again!) so I'll re-iterate it:

Before the rarity update, a lot of people wouldn't trade their rares for uncommons at all due to the uncertainty of how uncommon they were (which was a problem), and quite a few had valuations like 5-8 UC = 1 R, for those people (including myself) 2:1 now makes more sense than ever as 8 UC = 1 R with the 2:1 method
(1 R = 2 EUC = 4 VUC = 8 UC)

The 1.5 method is a little more complicated, as well.

1 R = 1 EUC + 1 VUC(?)

I just don't want multiple rarities in my trade-downs, it's hard to remember and makes math complicated, in my personal opinion. It would put me off of trading lower rarities or helping on the FTT because the math would be weird.

I also just don't think I'd accept any less than 2 EUC for a rare if the years were the same*, but I am more than happy to have what the exact maths/pet values are explained to me.

*Generically. Historically I've traded rares for much less if I wanted the pet enough.
-

Also, for your point B:

A lot of values in my latest chart do overlap, sort of. (There's a lot of decimals, which I tend to find kind of irrelevant when it comes to C$, but they're useful to show people the exact values so they can round as they please)



So for example, a 2011-2012 Uncommon (5 C$) would have an about even swap with a 2020 VUC.
A 2020 Rare would swap pretty evenly with a 2011-2012 EUC.

I also didn't do any 2:1 at the end like I usually do (my highest ratio is 1:1.5 between 2010 and 2011)

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

A counter-point to the 1:1.5 argument that has been brought up, but you seem to have been popping in and out of the conversation since the old thread (Hi again!) so I'll re-iterate it:

Before the rarity update, a lot of people wouldn't trade their rares for uncommons at all due to the uncertainty of how uncommon they were (which was a problem), and quite a few had valuations like 5-8 UC = 1 R, for those people (including myself) 2:1 now makes more sense than ever as 8 UC = 1 R with the 2:1 method

i appreciate the re-iteration, a combo of busy life and faulty text to speech has meant i have defiantly missed some things so this helps:)

the reason why i am more in favour of the 1:1.5 rule currently is that it allows for more flexibility and easier transition between rarity levels. I have many times accepted trades where my higher value are exchanged for multiple lower values, and been perfectly happy with this. i am not an optimised trader, i very rarely am particularly fussed on having an 100% value match so log as it looks good enough i am happy. Essentially i am in favour of any trading rule that would allow for more flexibility across rarities as this is much less stressful for me and makes trading far more enjoyable.

When trading by the 1 R= 8 UC, i am personally not willing to pay that. Pre rarity update the majority of people i saw were happy with a 2:1 with a smaller percentage (of players that i saw) asking for a higher trade ratio. From my perspective as some pets there defined as rare, alongside some that were uncommon now make up the VUC and EUC, shows that these pets have a closer value than the previously used 2:1 method. I would prefer a more incremental system, i would be fine with a non 1:1.5 method so long as there was more flexibility.

A lot of values in my latest chart do overlap, sort of. (There's a lot of decimals, which I tend to find kind of irrelevant when it comes to C$, but they're useful to show people the exact values so they can round as they please)



So for example, a 2011-2012 Uncommon (5 C$) would have an about even swap with a 2020 VUC.
A 2020 Rare would swap pretty evenly with a 2011-2012 EUC.

I also didn't do any 2:1 at the end like I usually do (my highest ratio is 1:1.5 between 2010 and 2011)

my point B was a possible suggestion for trying to help reduce the very high values c$ as it has been pointed out how with the larger number of rarity categories c$ values are much higher as a standard than the previous guide. i do appreciate that 2:1 was not used for every difference in year/rarity in this table, however many of these values are still higher than i would be willing to pay. for example when trading a 2023 rare i would not offer or expect c$14/15 but that is the value obtained by using 2:1 in the above chart.

as for decimal points i would be ok with this in a guide so long as it stayed at one decimal point to be a bit less intimidating (very maybe 2 decimal points if absolutely needed).

from my perspective there are two ways to including flexibility/overlap of values.

Left;(ignore the 2017 my mistake) shows a possibility of commons having a range where some lower year unc overlap with common c$ value ect. This would acknowledge combinations where a more recent higher rarity pet is possible to be traded for an older lower rarity pet. i.e all new Euc pets fall on the higher level of c$ value ascribed to older VUC pets. i.e each coloured bar shows 2024-2009 with some overlap of values between years

right; allowing for the overlap of rarities across years
under the 2:1 system a rare would be counted as equal value to an Euc of the previous year. (going to put some random c$ values here to illustrate this point, not actually recommending we value pets at this c$ price)
if a 2017 rare=20 and by the 2:1 2017rare=2x 2017Euc, i would expect a 2017Euc= 10
if a 2017 EUc=10 and a 2017 EUC= 2x2018 EUC, i would expect a 2018 EUC=5
at the same time 2x 2017 EUC= 1x2016 EUC, so i would expect a 2016 EUC=20
therefore the c$ value of a 2016EUC= the c$ value of a 2017 rare both being c$20

sorry if this is confusingly worded i am happy to try and re-explain anything that doesn't make sense but currently my brain needs a lil break from the maths

[SolarSonnet]

if a 2017 rare=20 and by the 2:1 2017rare=2x 2017Euc, i would expect a 2017Euc= 10
if a 2017 EUc=10 and a 2017 EUC= 2x2018 EUC, i would expect a 2018 EUC=5
at the same time 2x 2017 EUC= 1x2016 EUC, so i would expect a 2016 EUC=20
therefore the c$ value of a 2016EUC= the c$ value of a 2017 rare both being c$20

I think you're mixing up the 2:1 System between year and rarity! I'm not suggesting that, the 2:1 between years has been largely thrown away by a lot of the community.


If a 2017 R = 20 C$, and by 2:1, 2017 R = 2017 EUC. 2017 EUC = 10 C$ - Correct
If 2017 EUC = 10 and 2017 EUC = 2x 2018 EUC, 2018 EUC = 5.
2017 EUC =/= 2 2018 EUC. That's a 2:1 Year Gap method, which we aren't doing anymore.

On my chart, 2017:2018 is a 1:1.06 Ratio. Making 1 2017 Rare = to 1 2018 R + 1 2018 Common using that math all the way down. Using the C$ chart though, 1 2017 Rare (25) is worth a 2018 Rare (23.5), a Common (1), and an Extremely Common (0.5). Which is far less than 2 2018 Rares, and people would likely just accept the Rare + Common or even just 1:1 swap occasionally because the Extremely Common is negligible, and sometimes the Common is, too. This is the kind of value table that allows for 1:1 Swapping between people who don't care for the 0.06 of a rare in value, but also allows for a steady trade up/down with minor gaps in value between years.

If you want to use the EUC and not the Rares, as well as strictly using the C$ chart and not ratios:
1 2017 EUC = 12.5 C$
1 2018 EUC = 11.75 C$

So to get from 2018 to 2017, you need to have your 2018 EUC, and add a Very Common (11.75 + 0.75 = 12.5)


Here's an explanation of the chart with some more ratios:
(For ratio decimal reference!)
1 R = 2 EUC = 4 VUC = 8 UC
EUC = 0.5 R
VUC = 0.25 R
UC = 0.125 R
C = 0.06 R*

*Not quite, because 1 C$ =/= to 0.06 R in some instances, but worth mentioning.

1:1 from 2009-2010
1.5:1 from 2010-2011
1:1 from 2011-2012
1:1.14 from 2012-2013
1:1.07 from 2013-2014 (Which is 1 R + 1 C, which also would be reflected in the C$ chart if all commons weren't = to 1 C$. A 2013 C would = ~2 C$, and 32.5 + 2 = 34.5 which is half a C$ off of 35. As-is it's 1.5 C$ off.)
1:1.06 from 2014-2015
etc.

So in reality, the highest gap between two years is like, 1 Extremely Uncommon.

Using strictly C$ from the chart, no other ratio/decimal math, if you look at 2023, a rare is 16 C$. Which means it's worth 1 Rare and 1 Common-Uncommon from the future 2024 pets. Not 2 2023 rares.

Your chart on the right is exactly what my chart is doing, it just looks different.

--

I also have to mention that I'm not as hard and fast on rules as I seem to be either.

I say theoretically I wouldn't accept less than 2 EUC for a rare, but if you offered me an EUC and a VUC I'd probably go "Eh why not" if I liked the pets on the other side. Trades are subjective.

The important part to me, though, is acknowledging that what I'm willing to accept is a little bit of underpay as to what is technically 'fair'.

Even I recommended 2:1 UC:R back in the day, but I never traded my Rares for Uncommons because I didn't think it was fair and had no other ratio to go off of, and often tried to overpay for my Rares. We don't know how many people like me are out there, where they were stuck using a ratio they weren't entirely sure about, and then refused to trade uncommons and below for rares because they didn't feel that the fairness or value of 2 Uncommons was equal to 1 Rare. I didn't run in to that many people who said 2:1 UC:R was unfair, but considering the amount of people who are still using 2:1 After the rarity update, it must have been quite a few, right?

I do think 8 might be a bit excessive. I like the idea of it being like 6 UC for 1 Rare. I just don't agree with 1:1.5 from Rare to EUC in theory. In practice, in a real-life actual trade somebody sends me, it may be different.

Keep in mind my C$ Chart also is not accounting for demand or lack thereof, so I expect the values to slide around depending on demand.

I.E. if you have a 2009 VR Rat, and you look at an 09 VR being 120 C$, you'd go, "Oh. This rat has low demand, I'll sell it for 90-100 C$."

The biggest problem I have with my chart, is that realistically I'd like to value 09 VRs at closer to 90-120 C$. I went on the high end because I think 90 is about what rats should go for. Dogs should hit like 110-120 and I was trying to keep the 1:5 Ratio between 2023 without making 2023 VRs be worth nothing. I like the idea that 2023 VRs are about = to a current store pet, and I like the idea that trading 4 2023-2024 Rares, you can get 1 09 Rare. So that's where I started
But if 09 rares were 90 C$, then 3 2023 rares would = 1 09 R, which I don't think I'd typically take?
Which leaves them kind of stuck where they are, I don't know how to edit this any more to make it look 'better'. Ik it seems really high but the other option is making 2023-2024 Very Rares be worth ~22.5 C$ and 09 Very Rares be worth 90. Which puts us at our 1:4 but does not satisfy the criteria of a "current year" Very Rare about equaling a store pet that's in the store right now.

Edit:

Forgot the chart. Here it is;

[Solloby]

Probably a waste of time, but I made a simple pet trade calculator to use for testing. The idea is we can plug in pets to simulate a trade, and see whether it thinks they are fair or not based on the programmed guidelines. We can then judge the trade for ourselves to see if our opinions line up with the calculator. So if the calculator says it's fair but we don't agree, that suggests our guidelines need adjusting.

The current guidelines it has are: (tried to use the survey results so far)
Rarity = 2:1 ratio up to VR (higher rarities excluded)
Age = Groups of 3 years, with a bit of a sliding scale towards the older years
Demand = 10% multiplier up/down (had no idea what to put for this)
Flexibility = considers a trade within 5% range to be fair

Age groups:
2009 (triple value)
2010-2011
2012-2013 (double value)
2014-2016
2017-2019
2020-2022
2023-2025 (single value)

If anyone wants to play with it I'm happy to share. It's a set of 2 files, HTML and JS. I didn't want to share them publically in case people thought "oh a calculator I'm going to use it straight away to judge all my trades" when it's really just a testing tool.

[SolarSonnet]

I'd love to do some testing with it!

I do think that there are going to be some trades, like a massive amount of OMGSCs for an 09 R, that just will never feel fair if OMGSCs are worth like, 0.25 or less C$

Ex: 100 OMGSCs is only 25 C$.

If an 09 Rare is like 50 C$ then 200+ OMGSCs is 1 09 Rare. Does that mean I think that having that price is unfair? No. But I think "bulk" in an of itself has a value.

Ex, this trade The person who I traded with also did 1000 Sheep each for a TD Blue Rose and Red Rose dog, just not with me. (It was a part of an auction, though!)

[Solloby]

I sent it! I'll be interested to know what sort of results it will come up with c:
I'll take your word for it rather than clicking that trade link haha. I never know what to think of mass trades like that.