*DISCONTINUED* Rares List Guide (1 March 2019)

[Erythro]

i said i'd never post here again, but here we are.

my list isn't the bandaid to yours and i really wish you would stop thinking that. i never took up this project to fix your problem. i actively speak against this list because i believe it's broken and a replacement needs to be made. if we're talking about reliability, my list based on actual numbers (regardless of active or inactive accounts) is significantly more reliable than a demand/rarity mix list that started out on decent understanding but is a complete guessing game now. you're forcing users to follow a set of demand rules that were put into place nearly 10 years ago. if i want to trade my sunback for a nonballon, you bet your booty i'm going to.

edit cause this isn't worth another post.
i'm going to say that it's quite demoralizing to have the work daryll and i have put into creating a program to count all pets and make it usable and runable for anyone, just to have it be reduced to "guess work." i'm fine with the data being used however it will, but please don't think i'm doing this for you or this list.

[Animall]

I only mentioned changing the lowest tier in order to make less hassle for us later. If we keep doing it how it is, all the low demand pets will be on the same tier. Its such a minor adjustment and helps with the de-cluttering of the list and removes work for us later. I understand if you want to make this hassle free but we are just giving everyone the same tiers for pets that are obviously worth more...
We can tackle the problem now with the simple solution of removing tiers that dont make sense. If we give every pet the same EXACT poll we are just undervaluing them, but differently than before.

What is the point of running a poll if we just are going to do it again in a little bit??? You all know that the low demand pets will end up on the aussie tier. Thats going to also effect the pets on that tier and make them seem less desirable as well.

As for not moving down the very rares.... you can say its not "omgsr vs vr" but it totally is. Even in the masterpost you (dadwarf) said that;

Why do all these pets need to be moved?

When looking at rarity alone, we can safely say that all omg so rare pets are rarer then any non omg so rare pet. In an effort to correct the list and make it useable again, we decided to start moving the current omg so rare pets, mostly the UR's, higher upon the list. We cannot truly decide which pet is rarer, but it seems obvious that the purple tag is rarer then the red tag. Demand, circulation, supply and availability are taken into account as well. But first and foremost, the rarity tag puts them at the top. We use the poll to decide on the other factors.

The coontail hasnt been trading for 2 nons for a while. Seems like we are just avoiding moving pets down for the sake of not losing value of our own pets... thats not right. If we are moving pets up we should move some down.

[s a g e]

The coontail hasnt been trading for 2 nons for a while.

I disagree.
The coontail still goes for fair trades (2 nons).
I did this trade a few days ago: trades/viewtrade.php?id=78820283&userid=576089&signature=84_2NLHju1-G79zV7o8HiA
I think a lot of people value the coontail at 1.5 nons just because it takes some patience to trade it down and they are too impatient to wait for fair offers.

[zenzi]

The coontail hasnt been trading for 2 nons for a while.

I disagree.
The coontail still goes for fair trades (2 nons).
I did this trade a few days ago: trades/viewtrade.php?id=78820283&userid=576089&signature=84_2NLHju1-G79zV7o8HiA
I think a lot of people value the coontail at 1.5 nons just because it takes some patience to trade it down and they are too impatient to wait for fair offers.

i agree with sage, i've traded down countless coontails down fairly. maybe 3-4 ish in the past few months (can dig to find the trades if need be.)

[DaDwarf]

The original idea of counting pets was to help update this thread. That was before the rarity list thread was made. Regardless, i dont see why we should not use information when its readily available to help update this list in part with a grain of salt. (for example any omg so rare that havent changed since 2012, which order rarity puts em could help immensly.)


I think it might be best to have a cool down before going back to name calling or pointing fingers. When information is available for all cs users to use, we on this thread can use it too to hopefully create something less demand influenced.

The rareslist combinds both rarity and demand, and we aim to get more rarity and less demand evolved. Cs is a demand based trading community so regardless which list will work best, demand will always be something that causes 'problems'.

Theres literally no need to cause an uproar. Like i said, we can use it as a guide line, or we dont.Any effort to bring this list back down to what it was supposed to be (a useable guide that helps instead of sets worth) is a good effort in my opinion. Nobody is being forced into using either lists, nobody is saying anything about a list being a bandaid or a replacement for one or the other and as far as i know, this list just like the rarity only list is mostly guess work and will always be a WIP. Im interested to see what the rarity only list will look like, as im interested to see what we can do with the rareslist in terms of making it useable again. People will get to choose which list works for them and i personally really like that idea.


@above, im not afraid of loosing value on any pets, ive completed my collection so i dont have to do any trading or worry about values :) so no worries there!

I said in my post that purely rarity alone puts them above. Nothing was said about good solid demand. Still, i get shortening the poll for older URs, regardless of very rares being higher on the list i feel like thats 2 seperate issues.

[ElementalInsanity]

Just to add in, if the true purpose is to make this list based more on rarity then demand I’m not sure what the point would be in even using this list once we got solid rarity numbers? Because then this would be the ‘demand’ list so to speak. Though that’s a bit off topic I guess and more for something in the future.

I’m neutral for removing tiers on the poll to add in, either way we decide is whatever with how this list is going as of right now. ^^” I see animal’s concern of things piling up, though at the same time large tiers I never see actually being a problem imo.

^^ the rarity list isn’t guesswork though? It’s solid numbers, compared to this that is guesswork that we’re doing off of what we have.

[nickjr]

The fact that the pet counting program doesn't distinguish between inactive and active pets really shouldn't be that much of an issue unless there's a significant proportion of just a few pets locked up in inactive accounts that we don't know about (I'm talking about low-profile but highly successful hoarders who did not disband their hoards before they stopped logging in to CS--no, I do not have any users in mind, this is entirely theoretical, and in fact I don't even know if there are any high-profile highly successful now inactive hoarders who didn't disband their hoards before going inactive...).

Having the raw numbers will already be a big step forward. Even though the raw numbers will be inflated because they include pets on inactive accounts, I really doubt the %s of inactive pets will be vastly different (this doubt is what I'm referring to above with low-profile highly successful now inactive hoarders) across different pets, and what variations there probably are are ones that we can make educated guesses about (e.g. there are probably a lot of inactive 2008 original adoption rats, the % of active pets from the 2010 rerelease is probably higher than the % of active pets from the 2009 rerelease, etc). So since there's no reason to believe that we can't predict the variation, having the raw numbers will really be a big help, because the rarity basis of THIS list for pets that have never been OMGSR is almost purely based on user observation and we all know how shaky that can be.

[Mozzy.]

I didn't mean to start a massive debate, I simply posted what I thought was something that would benefit the thread.

So will the rarities only list be something like what Mozzy posted? I actually quite liked that
version, I think it's quite easy to understand, especially for those who are newer to the concept

Thank you, I feel like adding a reason as to why pets are placed where they are is important, as some people might question it.

@ the ""omg v. vr "" issue
Honestly if something is rarer than something else, shouldn't it be placed higher?
No one said you couldn't still trade what the Coontail goes for now, it'll just be rightfully lower on the List because despite demand, it's still not as rare as other pets whom might have "bad demand".
You said so yourself DaDwarf, as Animall pointed out in their post.
"it seems obvious that the purple tag is rarer then the red tag"
"But first and foremost, the rarity tag puts them at the top."
You agree that omg so rare pets should be placed higher yet you don't want to lower the Coontail because demand says it's worth more. As I said before, you can still trade for whatever value you personally put on it. No one's stopping you, but to move towards a more rarity oriented List I feel like some rearranging needs to be done.

I also agree that the poll should be adjusted to each pet, to prevent things from being shoved onto the same tier and saving us the headache of having to repoll once things get shuffled. Why not just adjust it now, and then place pet where they'll eventually end up?
We're waiting for the Rarity Update to place the Bengal, so in the mean time we can get this done.

[EmberzTale]

Are we still going to run the poll for the grapes?

[Animall]

Are we still going to run the poll for the grapes?

We are trying to determine if we wish to remove lower tiers that don’t seem valid for the poll first. My argument is that if we use the same poll for every pet, all the low demand pets will end up on the Aussie tier, causing clutter and possible re-polling in the future to fix it. I say we remove the hassle by removing lower tiers that obviously don’t work for certain pets.
I understand we can’t assume one pet is more rare because it was omgsr longer, but it’s not an unsafe bet to make either. Especially if we are planning on “re-polling” if all the low demand pets end up on the lowest tier anyways.