New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[SolarSonnet]

So! Regarding ~2020s to 2009 trades. Just realized that like, yeah, my stuff was probably rather overpriced still.

I just received (cw spider) this trade today, and I sat there and stared at it and went.

"This doesn't feel fair at all. My pets are much cooler. And this is supposed to be overpay on the spider's side?!"
(7 2020 rares and 2 2019 rares for a 2010 VR)

I did want the spider though, so I edited the trade and sent it back to them. But I just feel so.. Bad? About that trade. I like almost all of my pets individually better than that spider. Why am I trading for it? Because its worth more?

Typing this out made me go back and cancel my edited trade. I felt so wrong about it that I didn't want to do it anymore.

This feels like progress. I almost want to go up to the people who're arguing for similar values as me and send them trades like that to see if they feel as weird and.. gross. About it as I do.

In reality, I
don't
trade
with
my
rules
like, at all when I send trades. I'm totally aware I'm overpaying, currently doing it for a reason, but I usually send overpay when I trade, anyway. I spend all this time creating charts and graphs and doing rarity math and not once have I considered what I'm doing in actuality vs what 'feels' correct in my head.

.. So, if I usually 'overpay', and I felt bad about the trade for the 2010 VR.. Does that not suggest that that's such overpay that it felt unreasonable to me? In which case.. What feels better?

I'd still trade 2 2011 Rares for a 2009/2010 Rare. That doesn't feel unreasonable. The quantity feels unreasonable when we get up to like 9 or 10 Rare pets for one pet of the same rarity or a rarity above it. (Outside of list).. Maybe dates don't matter as much as I think they do sometimes?

I still like where my charts were, they just don't make.. too much sense. My view of newer pets is so lax because.. 2020-2023 feel like the same year to me sometimes, I'm ngl.

I've found the opposite happening where I'm like "2019 and 2023 are like a year apart- of course these pets can swap- wait- no they aren't." as well, lol.

But it feels like so much time passed between 2009 and 2011, and 2011 and 2013, and 2013 and 2016, and again between 2017 and 2019.. That like, 2016-2017 feels like a huge leap (and the jump in VRs almost suggest that? Was there a huge player influx in 2017?) There is also a tangible difference between 2010 and 2011.. It feels like things got less rare in the 2020s- I'd imagine there was a huge lockdown boom around then..

So for me, my groups are..
2009-2010
2:1 2011:2010

2011-2013
2:1 2014:2013

2014-2016
2:1 2017:2016

2017-2019
2:1 2020:2019

2020-2023

That still puts us at 8 though, which, felt unfair to me. Maybe its because they were event pets? In which case, there won't be a lot of 2023 Regular Release Rares for a long time. So maybe we should be factoring in the 'demand' of the event pets? Like, I'd argue that a good-looking/popular 'event' pet is worth 2 regular rares from a year. Or like, something with cool lineart is worth more than an "Unedited" pet. Maybe we should be calling them "Standard" and "Special" rares to counteract that. So while an 09 Rare could be worth 8 "Standard" rares, maybe its more like 4 "Special" Rares?

Ex: Even though this rabbit was from Easter, it's not very special. Its standard rabbit lines, neat design but its just colored in.



This cat is from the same Easter event. I wouldn't 1:1 Swap it with one of those rabbits, though, it has unique line art and is pretty cute.



If we want same-species, same year, same event, I also wouldn't swap the above rabbit with this rabbit:


I might be more willing to do it with a smaller amount of add than for the cat, but you'd be hard-pressed to find me 1:1 swapping that.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, that this Uncommon Dog, Regular Release March 2023, was a rare.



I'd swap this dog 1:1 with the first rabbit if they were the same rarity. I'd probably want a common or two of add on the dog's side if you wanted the cat in a basket or the cool rabbit though. I'd also trade 8 of those dogs (or dogs like it) for a 2010 VR, no problem, but I wouldn't swap 8 catbaskets or cool rabbits or pets like them for a 2010 VR.

To me, this implies that pets from events with different line art or non-standard aspects to them might need to be valued or taken into consideration differently. But this also is just how I personally feel about it, it could very well just be a side-note, but since most pets from recent years that're rare right now are event releases, maybe there's some kind of separation we need to be doing between years where just as many standard-release pets are rare+ as event pets, and years that only tend to have event pets as being rare+. Maybe it's just me.

I also think that using example pets helps me think about it better. Instead of just "Yeah, I'd trade 10+ 2023 rares for an 09 rare in theory" I have to look at the pet itself and say, "Would I trade 10+ of those, specifically for an 09 rare?"
And 9 times out of 10, the answer is no. I wouldn't. Not if they're from an event.

There's my rambling for the moment. Relevant to the trade I just got so thanks to that person /genuine ^^


-----------

I can understand the concern about having newer rares and VRs priced a lot higher than currently in relation to store pets as I personally wouldn’t want to trade a store pet for just 2 recent rares. I also agree that a single rare of any age for a store pet that is never going to be rereleased is ridiculous.

With that in mind maybe rather than raising the price of recent rares so much the better idea would be to lower the cost of older rares a little? Maybe rather than ‘09s being 50C$ they should be around 40C$? I’m not sure if the community would happy for it be taken lower though?

As for commons/uncommons from earlier years. I agree with like ~2015 VUC being like 9-10 C$.
I guess 2:1 would factor that as being like.
(in C$)
2.5 C = 5 UC = 10 VUC = 20 EUC = 40 R
or
2.25 C = 4.5 UC = 9 VUC = 18 EUC = 36 R
Which uh. Is like Double what is currently on the thing for rares and I disagree.

Consulting my old chart for math values (bc that's where I'm at rn) and using 5-7 C$ as a 2023 Guide.

(this took over an hour, oops)

It has examples of both starting at 5 C$ and starting at 7 C$ for 2023 Rares, with the rarity math used in my other chart.
Google Doc Chart

Images in case you don't wanna click the doc




I left some spots open because I don't know what to do with them, that's what the discussion is for lol.

Personally I think these charts are jumping in value way too much with the older pets and extremely over pricing them. I think it’s important to remember that we no longer go from common to uncommon to rare, there are two more rarities between uncommon and rare. What that means to me is that uncommon now simply means slightly less common than a common, it is no longer the big bridge between common and rare. I don’t think an Extremely Uncommon of any age should be valued anywhere near 42-56C$. That’s more than most ‘10-‘09 rares currently sell for. Likewise 83-112 for ‘10-‘09 rares is way too much. In my opinion VRs need a price increase to bring them inline with the 2 R= 1 VR guideline but we shouldn’t take the old rares above the current accepted amount, if anything maybe drop it a bit like I said above.

The reason I suggested a range rather than a set price is that different pets do go for vastly different prices. For example in my C$ store I currently have ‘09 rare rats at 25C$, horses, ponies and Bwolves at 35C$ and dogs and Malks at 50-55C$. Trying to ask the recommended 50-55C$ across the board would be unrealistic.

Not much to say to this other than: I agree now! Good take. I've actually seen your C$ Store before and thought they were reasonably/correctly priced.


(edit: grammar)

[kee;]

I just had a comment about one of the things you said SolarSonnet: I think it would be difficult to split rares/very rares in any year because whether a pet is more “special” or “cool” is subjective. using one of the examples you had, I personally would be fine swapping those bunnies — you wouldn’t. but desirability of pets can change so much between users that I think grouping the years (or however we end up listing it) makes more sense and allows users to decide for themselves how they value different pets.

I also really loved seeing your examples! I think it’s interesting to see user’s trades and what they actually will/want to pay for certain pets. I think it helps put our whole theoretical discussion in perspective.

also a little note: I have recently been trading for c$ more, so I can post some of my recent trades if that would help with c$ values. if more users could do so as well (only post-rarity overhaul I would say) maybe that would help us settle on values?

-kee

[SolarSonnet]

I just had a comment about one of the things you said SolarSonnet: I think it would be difficult to split rares/very rares in any year because whether a pet is more “special” or “cool” is subjective. using one of the examples you had, I personally would be fine swapping those bunnies — you wouldn’t. but desirability of pets can change so much between users that I think grouping the years (or however we end up listing it) makes more sense and allows users to decide for themselves how they value different pets.

I also really loved seeing your examples! I think it’s interesting to see user’s trades and what they actually will/want to pay for certain pets. I think it helps put our whole theoretical discussion in perspective.

also a little note: I have recently been trading for c$ more, so I can post some of my recent trades if that would help with c$ values. if more users could do so as well (only post-rarity overhaul I would say) maybe that would help us settle on values?

-kee

I don't think splitting them up between "special" or not is based on a guide of "special" vs "normal" pets. I'd imagine that, ideally, the way it'd work is that people would have "special" and "normal" trade groups or names on their pets, and so each person has their own personal demand-base for how they value their pets. It's more that there is a recognized split between what "special" and "regular" pets are worth, since it seems like there totally is one somewhere for each person. Where it's like, "Yeah. I think this pet is worth more than some other rares from this year.". For me at least. idk if its actually like that for everyone, it was just my first impression! So you get to look through someone's special or their regular groups depending on how you wanna trade. They may have a regular pet you think is special or vice versa, but you don't have to trade for that one. I was also using 4 and 8 as a baseline but it could be more like 5 and 7, or 6 and 8, or something like that if we don't wanna shove 2:1 on them like that.

[OriginalStar]

Ive been occasionally coming back to read and gotta gather some thoughts

Firstly, I cant really give opinions on commons and below, cause I value literally every common regardless of year at 1 C$ and every VC and below at 0.5 C$ and as long as you arent givng me a 2023 common rat for my 2015 common lion I would accept most. This does relate somewhat to the topic of "special pets" like a more original lineart being worth more than a generic one even if same rarity and same date, yeah thats very demand and varies with person to person. Those really shouldn't be considered cause I feel like the task right now is deciding a base, a starting point to trades that can build either up or down depending on demand. Though do correct me if I am wrong and need to change my POV lol
Uncommons idk, its kinda a mixed bag, dont think I would even fathom spending 20-30C$ for one though, unless its one of those really pretty ones from back in 2012, cause those are old and arent being re-released yet until they becomes R+ I feel as if dates matter a lot more here, not too much, but more than the VCs at least (esp the VUCs)
Rares are a whole other thing, ive seen some mentions of ERs being... 300-400C$ and I.. dont agree? I could see some being that yes, but you're telling me these pets can go up to 400C$ when I could barely sell them off for 150C$ before when they were VR and 100ish C$?

Rares feel very- confusing to me rn, especially ERs and OMGSRs where I feel as if some can get very little while others so much more. So having a set value for the entire group would be so difficult, but having nothing at all would just leave people confused if not easier to be lowballed and scammed out of the rarer pets.
Its really difficult if you cant tell already :'))
I dunno, I just feel like 400C$ for an ER is way to exessive and I dont even think there is many ERs I would even value that much to begin with. Mostly cause a lot of the old list is OMGSR now, could be wrong though
I just hope something can be universally agreed on when it comes to the rarer pets since thats kinda the only thing I trade now while everything else I sell off

Final thoughts unrelating to what I said, more on the solidifying new trading standards. I have some ideas and concerns. Concernes being the obvious, deciding new trading standards for an entire site with idk thousands of players, is hard. Especially when a very small portion of them will actually speak up, I mean I find it hard myself mostly out of uncertainty if the things I say even matter or if they were already discussed. So the polls really help getting more voices, cause its usually just 2 buttons, easy.
So I thought, later on maybe, there could be multiple charts and options with different values that people can vote on. It will be split up, like some charts with different C$ values for people to vote on, some charts with the replacement for the 2:1 whatever that's going to be, and even later on, the much harder one, deciding the values of the ER and new OMGSRs
A lot of voting yes, but I feel those work the best with getting the most people together, especially if advertised.
I also will suggest every poll to have a "I dont agree with any" jic. Does it sound tedious? Yeah probably, but I feel its the best way to get as many people possible. The challange now, is deciding the options lol

Edit I decided to elaborate more yipee more words
I feel like this place here is good with deciding ideas, but no final decisions. I feel as if slowly chipping away at values is the best way to go. Does that mean advertising polls with things like "should all VCs be .5 C$ regardless of year or no?" Yes. Will that take a long time? Yes. But going bit by bit feels like we can progress easier instead of trying to decide every C$ value of every pet all at once and hoping everyone agrees with it all. When it comes to voting though, I want it to take awhile, I dont want things rushed, so if theres a close tie with VCs being .5 or no, that doesnt mean ignore the 45% but instead think of something new. "Should all 2015 and older VCs be 1C$ and 2016+ be .5?" And see if that broadens the gap and have more people agree with one. Have outside discussions to possibly bring in more ideas for people to vote on and see if theres one that 70% if not more will agree on. Maybe even the or some polls having a "I dont like the options" to make sure there isnt a huge group who dont like the change
I cannot stress this enough, but I am pretty sure most people would rather vote on a poll in 30 seconds rather then spend over an hour typing up a huge post like me :"))


Edit edit LOL HELP
I should mention that nothing I say or my ideas are "law"
Even if there was a poll and hundreds if not thousands agree that all VCs should be .5 or somethint, thats simply the base, the starting point. If someone wants to make all their rats .25, or their lions 1, if not all VCs 1 C$ or the older ones 1C$. Then they should, I dont want variations of demand to influence the end result as for regardless if or not a trade is fair, that doesnt mean they have to accept. I am also not saying to completely ignore demand, but honestly demand is really more important when it comes to rarer pets anyways (ex PPS dragoncat)
I feel a universally agreed base, disregarding demand, should be established especially for the commoner pets as then we have something to work off of when deciding other factors like if or not 2 Cs should be an UC or 1 C and 1 VC should be an UC etc

[Solloby]

^ I think ER pets need to be looked at on their own separate from other rarities. I excluded them from my C$ draft because of the high variance in their values, and I think they are less reliant on date than other rarities.


So... I made a survey in Google Forms because I wanted to ask the community a few questions but a few became a lot and now I'm wondering if it should be split up or not, and if some questions should be removed, and some may need rewording. I'm not sure if it's good or not. Would someone like to review it?

Maybe it could be refined and improved and we could put it up to help gain some more opinions about everything. I love how many people are participaring in the discussion threads, but I feel like a survey will reach more players. Some people may not feel confident to post, but we can still include their opinions if they are willing to fill out the survey.

I'll also need someone to make the thread hosting it because I don't want people to think it's an official staff thing. I just like planning things and such c:

[SolarSonnet]

Not going to lie, I think we need a new thread.
Loelya (the poster of this thread) has quit CS, there will be no more polls on this thread. I'd be happy to make another one, summarizing our most recent talking points and linking back to here. I'd also be fine setting up multiple polls. I think I'd start with votes on rarities and their C$ worth. Something easy like OMGSCs. (We should discuss rares a bit more and then make the poll, imo.)

So the Poll would be:
"Disregarding any specific pet: How much are OMGSCs worth to you in C$"

And the options could be
- 0.25 C$
- 0.5 C$
- Depends on Year
- Depends on Species/Demand/Lineart
- Depends on both Year and Species/Demand/Lineart.
- I cannot answer, because my valuation depends too much on year and/or species to have a base.
- None of the above (Comment?)

Are there any objections to me making a new thread to continue discussion and host these polls? Since the owner of this one is inactive/has quit.

[Solloby]

That's literally one of the questions in my Google Survey! Would you be interested in looking it over and maybe posting it when you make the new thread? No worries if you don't want to do that though!

I just have so many questions I want to ask the community, so thought a survey would be quicker than individual polls.

[SolarSonnet]

That's literally one of the questions in my Google Survey! Would you be interested in looking it over and maybe posting it when you make the new thread? No worries if you don't want to do that though!

I just have so many questions I want to ask the community, so thought a survey would be quicker than individual polls.

Yeah! I do think that I'd like to do more than a google survey. I want to make a post with polls for each one, because google surveys are intimidating for some people and we might get less clickthrough.

[musicgurl333]

That's literally one of the questions in my Google Survey! Would you be interested in looking it over and maybe posting it when you make the new thread? No worries if you don't want to do that though!

I just have so many questions I want to ask the community, so thought a survey would be quicker than individual polls.

I could look over it for you, if you wanted. Just send me the link. If not, that’s fine too.

[Solloby]

Thank you both, I sent out the link in a PM! <3

I feel like the popular pets poll that's going on right now shows that people are happy to fill out surveys. I do think thread polls are more accessible, I just have too many questions I want the answers to! Maybe we could do both? Have the survey up for everyone who wants to fill it in, but also have a thread poll for some of the bigger questions we want answered as well.