Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°]

I would totally Agree with this since Im also very confused! Someone told me people don't use nons anymore so I've been going off of MAs!

[Trans Leonardo]

NONs honestly confuse me so much
like. It took me a while to understand MAs and then I heard NONs and was like "...? what???"
so I honestly think this would be easier for so many people, especially new people learning how to trade

[Bluefly26799]

^ 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.

I totally get what you mean here but there is no where for these pets to go. Unless we made the change to 0.1 non , 0.2 non 0.3 non ect but then we may as well just switch it to ma value anyway and take out the term non. Its an outdated phrase from the old rares list that most people have to ask for meaning for anyways (ik ma is too but one problem at a time lol)

Well as i said in regards to the ba this is just a rough thing based on my experiences. Its hard to find a 1:1 swap for a nondog to a ba. Thats possibly just a skill issue on my part which is why it would have to be a community decision on values

If we just shift pets that dont fit the current terms we will still be doing 75% of this job might as well just follow through. If we include the ba in the 10ma group thats still only 5/19 of the pets here at the correct value

[Bluefly26799]

NONs honestly confuse me so much
like. It took me a while to understand MAs and then I heard NONs and was like "...? what???"
so I honestly think this would be easier for so many people, especially new people learning how to trade

I cant even begin to tell you how many times ive had to do the whole non/ma explanations lol and dont get me wrong im happy to. Having a good grasp of values is the cornerstone to enjoying the upper end of value trading side of this game but yeah even players who took hiatuses and were around during the old list days still have to ask

[maisie+flokez]

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.

I totally agree with the complexities of the current system being a big challenge for trading - 0.25nons being 3-4MA makes no sense if you're scaling up to 1non equalling 10MA. So there's definitely an argument to try and change/simplify terminology to change this.

I think Daxx's post above is a really well-explained summary of the issues re: continuing to push demand up, and to devalue other pets based on demand - disregarding their rarity. Obviously the system will always be influenced by demand, but with the proposed change, I can imagine that demand would become even *more* important (compared to rarity) than it currently is. I worry that the system would also become even more vulnerable to big jumps in demand (e.g., the example given about the Raven's demand changing by around ~3 nons just because of one overpay) if it was measured in these smaller units (i.e., MAs).

To add to this from another perspective, I worry about the proposed changes in terms of C$, and the "real" values of this. In order to pay for 1non/10MAs value (at 3000C$), someone would need to buy 8x380 C$ from the store, which is $160 USD (currently would be around $120 USD for 2000-2400C$, which is still a huge amount!!).
I think it's important that C$ values are considered separately from the demand-based trading culture and inflation of values, as if this "real" cost value continues to increase, it will eventually price out the majority of players (which IMO is already starting to happen), and then the entire C$ system will become too expensive, and collapse.
Similarly to the above, I also believe that this system would become vulnerable to big jumps in demand too, and would be unreasonably expensive for pets which are higher rarity/demand. Maybe 3000C$ doesn't feel too unreasonable for 1 non/10MA, but it's not feasible as it increases (e.g.,10 nons/100 MAs for a Raven would be 30,000C$, equivalent to $1,580 USD).

[immortality]

I completely support this. Even if the system you proposed has to be tweaked a little, it makes more sense to me.

[sunka]

i’m in support of a change, but kinda like i’ve been saying all along i really do not see the need to add additional value to pets that already are fairly expensive and have no basis to cost more. i am in agreement that pets such as the banana, cucumber and pineapple likely haven’t been reasonable to be valued at 1 non for some time now and should be reevaluated, but agree that an appropriate evaluation for them doesn’t quite fall on the metrics scale we have right now for values. i am, however, greatly against assigning any additional value to the good majority of pets on the list. truly, i do not think a lot of the pets we currently have on the lists and guides are more valuable. i think we have a lot of pets clumped up with them that are not as valuable, and leads people to see the pets with normal demand as being worth more in general when in reality, they just aren’t worth the same as the pet with lesser demand.

that being said, if this system is implemented i think it is in the best interest of the community to start by shifting those pets that don’t hold their current value down, while leaving those that hold their value where they are. give it a few months and then evaluate if any pets need to be moved up. but i think making a big shift and assigning additional values to pets that don’t warrant being worth more just because they trade normally isn’t necessary and likely will just make it more difficult to obtain a pet with normal value.

in adjusting the values for those pets that aren’t quite trading for their current value, i think it will offset things a bit and make it easier to actually trade pets such as the ur foods since they wont be competing with other pets that have held their value for years if that makes sense.

[Bluefly26799]

that being said, if this system is implemented i think it is in the best interest of the community to start by shifting those pets that don’t hold their current value down, while leaving those that hold their value where they are. give it a few months and then evaluate if any pets need to be moved up. but i think making a big shift and assigning additional values to pets that don’t warrant being worth more just because they trade normally isn’t necessary and likely will just make it more difficult to obtain a pet with normal value.

in adjusting the values for those pets that aren’t quite trading for their current value, i think it will offset things a bit and make it easier to actually trade pets such as the ur foods since they wont be competing with other pets that have held their value for years if that makes sense.

That bit I underlined I honestly think is an awesome point. I agree with there being no reason to add value before community agreement that it should move takes place and as you say that can take months edit: yes ik my example added value lol but it was just a rough example more to show the potential spread than actually how i think things should be numbered

I think the pets that benefit the most from this as you point out are the ones that dont fit into their price tags anymore due to demand which is a bit of a cycle really. No one wants them as theyre bad demand for there value and because of that no one wants them

[BraveEguana]

I never understood why 1 non should be worth less (in C$) than 10 MAs.
This whole proposal sounds like an amazing idea to me and I would love to see it implemented.

[jprspereira]

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.

Guys, let's end this word-of-mouth "rule". This is old. Horror's guide does not say that. 1 non is 10MA. Only the older players call 3-4MA pets 0.25n. This is old trading mentality but it's out of date and is not part of the current trading system. Only the old players say 1 non is 10 to 12MA. In reality, the new generation just gets confused by this because they read 0.25n and assume 2.5MA.

1 Old Rare = basic Rare pet from 2010/2011
10 Old Rares = 1 MA
100 Old Rares = 10 MA = 1 NON

No need to "change" anything if it's already changed. Just don't mention 0.25n again. Done!

The term "non" is just a way to simplify numbers. Why do dimes exist? A quarter? How much money is that? Then why would you want to end with the term "dollar"? We should be counting everything in dimes, shouldn't we. The Starbucks coffee cost me 50 dimes.

Proposed pricing structure
1 ma = 250-300 C$
10 ma = 2500-3000C$

Current MAs go between 300 to 400C$/each. 250C$ only rats really. 400C$ for high-demand stores is not absurd. Yes, inflation. However, inflation is caused by CS itself, not by users. That's another big debate, but that's the reality.

Raven is currently trading at around 8-9n. That's 80 to 90MA. Let's assume 350C$/MA. Who's ready to pay 28k to 31.5kC$ for one?