da wrote:you seem to forget that the majority of active high-value traders are older players.
I Agree with quite a few of the points being made here - but i wanna focus on this one first. I underlined the first sentence because it honestly is a very solid point that needs to be talked about.
A majority of "High Value" traders are the same group. A
LOT of the names in these replies are very familiar - This is a good chucnk of the "Main" high value list traders - all in one chat. Da, Shian, puffy, me, jps, bluefly, night, wired, ect. ALL of us are commenting on this - agreeing the system needs to be changed and turned into something better. That has to say something. I mean Shian alone has literal HUNDREDS of "Nons" on his account - Id bet more than a thousand MA honestly; and even he is sitting here saying the current system doesn't actually do it's job.
Obviously, something is wrong. When all of the "high list traders" are telling you we know this system - we are saying it because we also know why it's messed up. None of us like the current system - But it will take more than just high list traders to change the system.
Currently - most of the userbase comes on for very small amounts of the year, and then goes away untill the next event or dec. 18th. Half the trades i've gotten in the last 2 weeks are people saying "Hey, im not on much - how do i make this fair" in one way on another.
We need a majority user base behind this idea, so it becomes solid. But to do that - the kinks need to be ironed out and a lot more people need to actually trade with it. Which, is hard when a lot of users are about to go back offline.
Daxx wrote: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 demand. 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 said this earlier in the discussion - and i still agree with it. Quite a few comments have said "Just lower those pets, like the banana" but
What about the people who have already paid the current going value for these pets - especially recently. I know myself - and many others, have been doing a lot of trading recently; Especially because of the 18th. No one who recently paid 1N for a banana is going to be happy about dropping it's value down below what they just paid. I know other list traders here will agree that just because it sounds easy - doesn't mean it is. Especially trying to keep other lists from going up; most people will see things starting to be declared a lower value, and try to push it right back up by not trading it for less - which will split users between the "new" method and the "old" method. Which is one of the big issues that happened with "Horror's list."
If you weren't here when horror's list first got introduced, half the user base - especially a lot of high value traders - refused to use it. They would say "I won't use that until it's more solid" and "i don't use horror's i use the old list." - because it was brand new and people were so unsure of using this new system. And yet, couple years go by and now it's the holy grail of trading and the standard for all list trading; by a majority of the user base. But when it was just beginning, a lot of values got jumped up on pets, new pets were treated as lists, and tons of stuff that was previously not list was now on the list - and a lot of people didn't value the new list pets as list pets. It split the userbase in half for a while - people declaiming "I use horror's list" in their rules or going against it was standard, and it made trading confusing and annoying for a while.
But then, more users adapted, started using it, trading with it, and talking about it - Especially after the last big rarity update it became pretty standard as it was much easier than the old list - That would have to be the same here. It needs more visibility, more usage, and more gossip; and there needs to be more proof that it's already happening.
the pets that were formerly listed as .25n are now sitting at 3-4 MA, and you yourself admit that .25n=3-4 MA by saying 'we call it 3-4 ma'. you are still actively acknowledging .25n = 3-4 MA. there also still is ".25" nons on horrors, you can see there are multiple pets listed 1.25n. I would also like to point out pets that are labeled 3-4 MA were once pets that were labeled .25n. just because they are now labeled differently doesnt erase the fact they are inherently 3-4 MA, which further proved my "inflating .25n" point.
To finish the original quote, ill throw this in here - This is exactly what i mean. Multiple high list traders in these comments agree that no one uses the term ".25N" as it used to be used, furthering the point bluefly was making. This is a term that was carried over from the original list - Nons was meant to be the cornerstone because it was based around 4 solid 1Non dogs, that had Non built into the name. Then people would say things like "Thats worth a sorb" and it would be broken down into "known" pet names and values. These values are not used the same way anymore; which is only furthering the confusion and making the terms meaningless. Horror only references things that way because it's the current common standard. Anytime new standard are made in trading, he usually updated his list to accommodate them - so im sure this would be the same.
Regardless tho - Inflation is the reason these terms no longer work. Inflation of high value pets to match demand and values moving. C$ value has risen so much, and alot of the high value well demanded pets have aswell. A raven was 2N less than 5 years ago - but half the "store list pets" weren't even on the list back then; and within less than a year alot of these pets have even doubled in value. Trying to make things like this work means many people finding a common agreement - and we need more solidity between pets that have shaky values, or it simply won't work. The dragoncat is currently wavering 1N-1.25N, some cases getting up to 2N; when it was .5N last year. So what do we even do with pets like that when the value is all over the place? Because this system only works if there is less room for people to take a value and max it over and over. There will always need to be fluidity, but we need smaller gaps so things sit closer in value and less reliant on demand forcing the gap.
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.
This is a great example of what i mean - The new UR's just dropped and the amount of people i saw saying they wouldn't pay more than 1.5N because all foods end up somewhere less than 2N is honestly funny. Users are literally focing it to sit somewhere at the 1.5N bracket just because it's already been labeled with bad demand - and it's barely been out 3 days. The entire userbase has decided the most hated UR's are the food ones, and as such they get labeled with bad demand and most high list traders won't even take them unless it's to complete a collection. And a majority of them will never swap for other UR's or list pets, due to the labeled bad demand. Peas as an example get .5N, sometimes dropping to .25N just because they are a food UR. I'll use a kitsune for example; most people would not trade a kitsune, for a set of peas. Regardless of whether you value kitsunes at 5MA, 4MA, 3MA - you still likely wouldn't trade them for peas. Even tho peas have a mostly solid state at .5N - most people simply wouldn't touch it - even if you lower them, and added a second set of peas. The demand difference between the 2 is simply too high, and to try to fix that it would mean making 1 go up way hgiher than it should, and dropping one way lower than it needs to be. However, Peas would swap evenly with grapes - due to the demand being similar.
The issue around the demand is that these pets don't swap with a majority of other lists, but they do swap fine in their categories with other pets on a similar bracket; and deleting the word Non would do nothing to affect that. There will have to be a secondary system being made to try to adjust this as an issue, because it in itself is a very different issue than just dropping the word Non.
