New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[bubblegumjello]

maybe it should be like:
1 rare = 2 euc = 4 vuc = 6uc

not a nice 2:1 ratio but just a +2 method when it comes to trading up to a rare. then the rules can change a bit when it comes to rares+

maybe a 3:1 or 4:1 will work for rare-omgsr for example:

1 omgsr = 3 er = 9 vr = 27 rares
1 omgsr = 4 er = 16 vr = 64 rares

and i know everyone is like UMMM I WOULD NEVER EVER TRADE AN OMGSR FOR 27 RARES, but they aren’t as “rare” anymore? there is a lot more. also this is just a super rough outline and i SUCK so bad at ratios so my math may be off LOL. i wouldn’t trade my omgsr for 9
vrs but maybe something between like 40-50 rares, seeing as though they really are not that elusive to get now.

the only thing that really gets in the way of this is dates, because yes a 2023 rare = 2009 rare TECHNICALLY but no one is going to follow that, i sure as heck do not. i would also definitely not take 64 2023 rares for my omgsr so again, thats where things get tricky and the 3 year limit should be put in place

[SolarSonnet]

(Snip)

I want to add, I think people might not be considering how crazy 3:1 would get when moving between rarities. Let’s look at rares to uncommons using 3:1.

Rare: 1
Euc: 3
Vuc: 9
Uc: 27

I feel like that starts to be a bit much. How many people are going to trade 27 uncommons for a rare? I know I definitely wouldn’t.

That's why I like the 3:1 between different rarities, 2:1 between same rarities

Rare: 1
EUC: 3
VUC: 6
UC: 12

More than halves the amount of UCs you need to get a rare in 1:3. I agree that 12 is a lot, compared to

Rare: 1
EUC: 2
VUC: 4
UC: 6

But I also think it's situational. I don't think people will be valuing uncommons in the same way they used to. Keep in mind that before, there was nothing between uncommon and rare, and a lot of uncommons changed into being EUC, VUC or even Rare themselves.

Overall, your valuation of pets just gets more precise than ever, sure, more uncommons are needed to equal a rare, but now you have a more accurate valuation of those pets.

Right now, nobody wants to trade 12 or even 6 uncommons for a rare, because it feels like trading 6 Extremely Uncommons for a Rare, with how the old rarity system worked, but that isn't the case. Some commons are uncommon now, some uncommons moved up in value. Sure, some moved down in value as well, but everything shifted around like that, and now we're at a point where we can properly estimate the real value of pets better than ever before.

Keep in mind that you won't only be docked with trading more uncommons for rares, your rares are also worth more now. The rich get richer, I guess, but it makes trading and knowing valuations a lot easier.

[musicgurl333]

(Snip)

I want to add, I think people might not be considering how crazy 3:1 would get when moving between rarities. Let’s look at rares to uncommons using 3:1.

Rare: 1
Euc: 3
Vuc: 9
Uc: 27

I feel like that starts to be a bit much. How many people are going to trade 27 uncommons for a rare? I know I definitely wouldn’t.

That's why I like the 3:1 between different rarities, 2:1 between same rarities

Rare: 1
EUC: 3
VUC: 6
UC: 12

More than halves the amount of UCs you need to get a rare in 1:3. I agree that 12 is a lot, compared to

Rare: 1
EUC: 2
VUC: 4
UC: 6

But I also think it's situational. I don't think people will be valuing uncommons in the same way they used to. Keep in mind that before, there was nothing between uncommon and rare, and a lot of uncommons changed into being EUC, VUC or even Rare themselves.

Overall, your valuation of pets just gets more precise than ever, sure, more uncommons are needed to equal a rare, but now you have a more accurate valuation of those pets.

Right now, nobody wants to trade 12 or even 6 uncommons for a rare, because it feels like trading 6 Extremely Uncommons for a Rare, with how the old rarity system worked, but that isn't the case. Some commons are uncommon now, some uncommons moved up in value. Sure, some moved down in value as well, but everything shifted around like that, and now we're at a point where we can properly estimate the real value of pets better than ever before.

Keep in mind that you won't only be docked with trading more uncommons for rares, your rares are also worth more now. The rich get richer, I guess, but it makes trading and knowing valuations a lot easier.

Eh, I’m still not sure I agree. Without knowing otherwise, I’ve been working on the assumption that the rarities are now pretty evenly spaced out. This may not be true, but since we don’t know, but that’s the best we’ve got to work with. So doing 2:1 within rarities and 3:1 between feels
1. Overly complicated and
2. A bit arbitrary. Why do we have any reason to believe the gap between rarities is bigger than a single step within the same rarity?

As far as rares being worth more and uncommons being worth less, that’s still the case with a consistent 2:1 ratio. Before, using the 2:1 ratio, rares were worth 2 uncommons (not something I agreed with, but it was what a LOT of people used). Now, a rare would be worth 6 uncommons using the “2:1 rule”. That’s still 3 times more. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Interesting to hear everyone’s opinions on how to value trading going forward! I’ll be really interested to see what the community settles on!

[Loelya]

It does seem like maybe enough users have been reading the thread that the idea of “3 year rule” might have caught on. :> that “smaller gap” bar is catching up to the “5 year” bar.

As far as rares being worth more and uncommons being worth less, that’s still the case with a consistent 2:1 ratio. Before, using the 2:1 ratio, rares were worth 2 uncommons (not something I agreed with, but it was what a LOT of people used). Now, a rare would be worth 6 uncommons using the “2:1 rule”. That’s still 3 times more. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

this is also a very fair point I think! it’s good to be able to think through these things on several levels.

[Solloby]

I don't think OMGSR should even factor into trading standards, because there is a very big difference between some of them.
As an example, this OMGSR was just a regular Sept 08 dog, maybe an "uncommon" outcome, but plenty of people had them.


Back in 08 it was worth waaaaaaay less than the Moonswirl which was one of 3 "rare" outcomes from the July 08 litter.


Same rarity tag, worlds apart in value. I wouldn't take even 2 Pink Septs for a Moonswirl, the difference is much higher than that surely. Nobody would have back in 2008, and I can't imagine that they would now? I don't think OMGSR can be considered a trading category like the others, it's really an umbrella for the highest of rarity pets.

Having a quick look at "ER" pets, I am not seeing that same huge distance in value between pets within the tag. So I am thinking whatever trading standards are proposed for the community, that ER would have to be the cut-off. OMGSR needs to consider the individual pet.

As for dates, older pets are more likely to bump up into the next rarity sooner than newer pets, so I agree that it's valid to consider older pets a little more valuable than newer pets within the same rarity tag.

[Chronixium]

2:1 between rarities seems ok, but less so between years. There’s enough rarities now that doing trade ups/downs between different years and rarities will be frustrating to calculate. I liked doing bulk trades before the update, but now I’m less likely to if the 2:1 rule between years is adopted; to be frank, I would rather not give myself a headache. That being said, dates should still matter, at least for rarer pets.

At first I was fine with the 5 year gap idea, but after thinking about it, it seems a bit large? For example, an EUC from 2015 will a) likely have less in circulation bc more of them are already in locked/collection groups and b) are more likely to be on abandoned accounts, whereas a 2019 EUC will be more commonly traded between active players and more likely to be on accounts where the user will return at some point.

I’m on board for 3y! but I have one concern, as I’ve already seen it a few times - make sure to count the year you’re subtracting from when doing ranges, or at least look at the months. January 2020 is closer to four years ago than it is three.

[SolarSonnet]

(Snip)

Eh, I’m still not sure I agree. Without knowing otherwise, I’ve been working on the assumption that the rarities are now pretty evenly spaced out. This may not be true, but since we don’t know, but that’s the best we’ve got to work with. So doing 2:1 within rarities and 3:1 between feels
1. Overly complicated and
2. A bit arbitrary. Why do we have any reason to believe the gap between rarities is bigger than a single step within the same rarity?

As far as rares being worth more and uncommons being worth less, that’s still the case with a consistent 2:1 ratio. Before, using the 2:1 ratio, rares were worth 2 uncommons (not something I agreed with, but it was what a LOT of people used). Now, a rare would be worth 6 uncommons using the “2:1 rule”. That’s still 3 times more. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Interesting to hear everyone’s opinions on how to value trading going forward! I’ll be really interested to see what the community settles on!

(Realized after typing this that some of it might sound condescending? I don't mean it to come off that way! Just spewing my opinions on the trading system and how it works between people. Not meaning to be rude. ^^; Read it in a more quizzical/introspective or lighthearted way. )

I don't think the 3:1 thing between rarities is necessarily value-based, it feels more demand-based to me. "Rare" always feels better than "Uncommon", in people's minds, and people never want to trade their Rares down to Uncommons. I don't know if the "Extremely" before the "Uncommon" is going to change that mentality very much. Feels the same for commons to uncommons, just less-so because people care about them less.

Everyone feels so focused on "Uncommons are worth less now" and less on the "Extremely Uncommons have replaced where regular Uncommons were on the food chain, they're not the same Uncommons as they were before." Regular Uncommons are likely, on average, less Uncommon than they were before. See the charts on this thread. Some commons likely became uncommon in the switch over, meaning some of the uncommons today are worth more than they were before the switch. You get more out of some pets, and less out of others. Kind of how the rarity overhaul works, imo.

Even if 2:1 is more realistic in terms of their actual value, I think 3:1 for Extremely Uncommons to Rares is going to be the 'standard', because people will always want more out of their rares, while not wanting to offer more to other people for theirs. I try to speak from both sides at once- trading away rares, and trying to trade up to Rares. Personally, I wouldn't trade away (most) rares for two EU, unless an EU has particular demand that balances it out, or the rare is low-demand (like a rare rat for 2 EU dogs) but I would for three. You might think differently. And that's how trading works.

The way this works is cyclical, trade someone a rare for 3 EUs. Trade someone 2 of those EUs for a rare, repeat. Once you've traded 2 rares for 3 EUs each, you have enough for 3 Rares from someone who values them at 2:1.

You gain value over time because different people value pets differently and that's how the entire trading system works when you're trying to gain value. Some people are willing to lose more value than others for certain pets or gambles, take the people trading 09 rares for tokens during token season, for example. Token demand fluctuates throughout the events and you have to buy/sell them for C$ or older rares at the right time to make a "profit". If you start with a '10 Rare (~25 C$ value? thats what it used to be, idk anymore cause rarity overhaul), trade it for 10 tokens, and sell those tokens at 5 C$ each, (token market goes crazy at the beginning of the events) you've made a huge profit. Buy another '10 rare or two for 25-ish C$ each from a player who's selling them and do it again. Then you've quadrupled your initial value. If you're a new player who doesn't have a '10 rare, guess what? You can still sell your tokens to the people who buy them for 5 C$ each, instead of trading them to the '10 rare person. Or if you don't value C$ like that or don't wanna deal with the hassle of trading it off, then do trade them to the '10 rare person.

This is really divisive, since there are people who say "3 EUs are worth 1 Rare" and people who say, "Well, an EU is basically a rare already." That's how I felt about 09 Uncommons. I was like, "Well, 09 Uncommons are basically 09 rares, just give them until the next rarity update and they'll be up there.". So it might be harder to get someone to trade 3 EUs for 1 Rare than others. If someone wants to 1:1 Swap an EU for a Rare, that's how losing and gaining value works with supply and demand. If you want something bad enough, you're willing to trade more value for it, even if the rarity tag doesn't match the price. For a little while, I was trading 09 rares for these lil goat guys, 'cause I wanted them that bad. Are they worth 09 rares? No.
Are they to me? Yes.
Does what anybody else values them at matter to me, at all? Not really. Unless they value them at more than 1 09 rare, then I might be willing to let go of one of them. :p

On an vaguely related note: I think it was a bad move to make EUs the same color that regular Rares were before. Should've shifted the color a little so people won't go, "Omg, EU's are just retextured Rares." That was my first association with it, because it had the Rare color, but then I realized that they weren't rare after reading the text and it left me confused. I was thinking, "Are they rare or not?"

In the end, I doubt there will ever be a majority agreed upon "value" to rarity tags. I think the 2:1/3:1 split is always going to be here, because without it, nobody would lose or gain value from their pets, all swaps would be even to all parties and we wouldn't need the Fair Trade Thread. Even if I value EUs at 3:1 for Rares, of course I'm going to send trades to people with 2:1, because I want more value from my pets. It's up to the other person if they think that my pets are the value that I am offering for, not me. If they decline, that's just how trades go. If everyone is happy with the trade at the end, does it matter what the 'true' value is?

[Solloby]

Just popping some notes here for everyone to consider. Feel free to copy/paste/edit any of this to improve it.

Highest Rarities

OMGSR

• Should only ever be valued on a case-by-case basis
• Some pets within this rarity are worth far more than others, including over double or even triple
• Dates are not always meaningful in this category due to the existence of URs
• Value differences should be compensated with ER or OMGSR pets as appropriate.

Extremely Rare (ER)

• Might be worth valuing these on a case-by-case basis
• Most are from 2008 & 2009. Outliers (e.g. 2012 lions) have similar worth to older ERs.
• Sept 08 ERs are likely worth more than 09 ERs as they may go OMGSR sooner, but we don't know this for sure.
• Value differences should be compensated with R, VR, or ER pets as appropriate.

2:1 Ratio
The 2:1 ratio has been suggested in this thread. Excluding ER & OMGSR from the equation, that would give you a table like so:

--1 VR
--2 R
--4 EU
--8 VUC
-16 UC
-32 C
-64 VC
128 EC
256 OMGSC

This assumes similar date & demand. Once you look at large date gaps, adjustments should be made. We should try to avoid valuing any pet at double its rarity tag, because then we are suggesting that 1C = 1UC if the dates are big enough, which isn't really accurate. I do think this is unavoidable for OMGSC being the lowest rarity, and also for R & VR where the value gaps may be large enough to warrant doubling their values here, especially if looking at older pets.


Mixed Ratios
Would a 3:1 Ratio for R and above work better, while maintaining 2:1 below?

--1 VR
--3 R
--9 EU
-18 VUC
-36 UC
-72 C
144 VC
288 EC
576 OMGSC

3 Year Exceptions
The guideline of valuing pets of the same rarity/demand that are within 3 years of age to be worth about the same, has been proposed in this thread and seems to have a fair bit of support. I would like to suggest some exceptions be made. I think the following years are not comparable even though they are within 3 years.

• 2008
• 2009 (including 2008 pets still available for adoption in 09)
• 2010 / 2011 - I think it's ok to group these years together
• 2012 onwards - the 3 year guide could start applying from here (note that this is currently 11 years ago)

3 Year Gap Suggestion
Would something like this work as a rough guide for trading pets with notable age gaps?
Note that 2011 and older pets would not be included in the 9+ year gap category, and this also assumes similar demand.

Common - VR
3 - 6 years gap = add 1 pet of rarity 3x lower
6 - 9 years gap = add 1 pet of rarity 2x lower
9+ years gap = add 1 pet of rarity 1x lower

VC
3 - 6 years older = VC + OMGSC (2x lower)
6 - 9 years older = VC + EC (1x lower)
9+ years older = VC + EC + OMGSC (0.5x lower)

EC & OMGSC
Add OMGSC if gap is larger than 5 years

Please don't take any of this as a rule that should be immediately used. I am just proposing some guidelines based on what's been discussed in the thread already, and these suggestions are for discussion and refinement by the community.

[SolarSonnet]

Personally, for trading over years, I think I'll be using a different method. Not something I would suggest to other people, and definitely not with tangible 'rules', kind of being silly and goofy, but.

Assuming all are same species and demand.

Common-VR
3 Year Gap = Usually a fair trade, 1:1.
4-6 Year Gap = 2:1 ?
7+ Year Gap = Might as well not even try, especially for Rares+. You will get 0 of my 2012 Rares for any less than 4 2019 Rares.

VC
Ngl, probably would gift these if I wasn't 2:1ing them for Commons to get Uncommons.

EC & OMGSC
Negligible. Would literally rather gift these pets than deal with figuring out how to make the trade "fair" in most cases. If someone sends me a trade for these, I literally accept 99% of the time no matter what crap they have offered on their side, especially if it has a higher rarity pet in it or something that looks cooler. I'd trade like 10-20 of these for an uncommon, Idc about their actual value.
Please, take them.
Literally trade me dirt I will take it.
--

In any of these, newer side may need to add, depending on the trade. Especially with rarer pets. (I.E. A 3 year gap between two older VRs is going to require a quite bit of add, as opposed to a 3 year gap between two commons being negligible.)

I don't think a formula is really ever going to work for stuff like this. Not for me, at least, it's all just vibe checks.

[Lanayru]

I'll still be using 2:1 when trading up/down between years tbh. Maybe it's because I'm old and set in my ways but also, why fix what isn't broken?

For rarities it's a bit more complex. I personally do not have the time, energy or care to actually consider Very Common and Extremely Common/Very Uncommon and Extremely Uncommon separate rarities, so those I'm probably going to just swap around interchangeably. Issue is the gap from Very Common -> Common and Uncommon -> Very Uncommon... 2:1 rule would be a bit extreme here but I'm unsure how else to do it. 1 Very Common and an OMGSC for a Common? 1 Uncommon and a Common for a Very Uncommon?

Edit// Backread a bit and also agree with Solloby - I think people expecting all OMGSRs to swap equally based on years are in on a rude awakening because unfortunately, not all OMGSRs are created equal and just because they have the same tag doesn't mean they're equally rare numbers-on-site wise.