New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Solloby]

^ I don't consider pets below C to have any value either tbh, I mostly use mine for gifts if I have any on peoples' wishlists. But newer players are unlikely to have pets above UC to start off with, so I included the lowest rarities since they would likely make up the majority of a newer player's trading stock. Giving them more tangible values could help a new player work their way up to higher rarity pets, even if their goal rarities are UC/VUC.

I'm not sure if we should be trading 1C for 2C for the case of a large date range, if we are also going to say 1UC = 2C. Because that essentially creates a scenario where 1C = 1UC with a date gap. I would never trade an UC for a C though, regardless of date. I can't

In the days of olde, date ranges were vital because the rarities were inaccurate as many old pets were trapped on inactive accounts. So an older UC was way rarer than a newer UC in terms of trade availability. Once old inactive accounts were excluded from the count, the older pets mostly moved upwards in rarity, so you were comparing a rare to an UC which is how it should have been.

Now that we have this new rarity update which brings a much higher granularity, I am not convinced that we will have many scenarios at all in which an old pet of a lower rarity should be worth the same as a new pet of a higher rarity, excluding VRs+. A 2012 common is less rare than a 2023 uncommon, so it should be worth a lower amount despite the date surely.

So if we have a 2:1 ratio between rarities, then the age gap should be closed at a lower ratio, is my proposal. So this means for a 2012 common, a 2023 common should add a (preferably old) VC. If the 2023 common has to add a second common, then this same pair of C pets would technically be the same value as a 2023 UC. This all assumes a 2:1 ratio for trading between lower rarity pets though. If the community decides a 3:1 ratio is better instead, then this would no longer be an issue (because 1UC = 3C, so it's fine for 1C = 2C that are newer since it would not bump the value up into the UC range).

[leopia]

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.

strongly agree with valuing OMGSR and ER pets on a case-by-case basis!
i had a few pets go omgsr but i don't think they'd ever be worth a ur pet, by any means

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.

agree, but i've never really used the 2:1 ratio, at least not since i joined - i think it was a little easier to trade back in 2012, though.
i think the 3-year gap is fair, and i probably won't deviate too much from that - as much as i prefer to overpay for wishlist, idk if i could ever allow myself to trade something like a 2013 rare for a 2023 rare... older pets are always going to be more 'valuable' to me, even with the new, more accurate rarity tags.

overall though i'm super excited about this update; i can't wait to get my pets/groups reorganized and get back to trading!
good lord it is 3am and i need to go to bed now!!

[Lanayru]

Now that we have this new rarity update which brings a much higher granularity, I am not convinced that we will have many scenarios at all in which an old pet of a lower rarity should be worth the same as a new pet of a higher rarity, excluding VRs+. A 2012 common is less rare than a 2023 uncommon, so it should be worth a lower amount despite the date surely.

While on paper I agree with this, I do want to say it ignores the factor where older pets are more likely to be permanently stashed away in locked collections. This can't obviously be tracked by CS (because the site has no way to determine if an "active" pet is actually in circulation or not) but it makes some seemingly more common pets harder to find.

I know I'm much more likely to hold onto a 2012 common I only have one of vs a 2022 uncommon I only have one of and I think a lot of people feel a similar way.

[LunaLate]

I am a newer player so I don’t have much to add, but please consider newer players too, who might want to trade uncommon and below pets for other uncommon and below pets. I personally would consider an extremely uncommon to be more valuable than an uncommon and I wouldn’t trade one for the other. Trading isn’t just old and the most valuable pets on the site and I wish more people wanted to trade the newer pets, I have been having a hard time with trading.
Even tho I consider extremely uncommon more valuable than uncommon, I’m not sure about the 1:2 rule and I don’t think an extremely uncommon would be worth 6 uncommons.

[Solloby]

That's a good point Lanayru. Even though inactive accounts are catered for, active accounts do contain pets that are not in circulation.

I'm glad you agree about the highest rarities Leopia! I have to admit I've never used any ratios or rarity math when trading either, I don't tend to trade outside of monthly swaps and missed URs. I do think that general guidelines could be useful for players trading lower rarity pets though.

2:1 ratio would put 1 EUC = 2 VUC = 4 UC.
3:1 ratio would put 1 EUC = 3 VUC = 6 UC.

LunaLate I would agree that 2:1 ratio looks better here, I think 6 UC sounds like too much for 1 EUC. I do think 3:1 is worth considering for above EUC though. I would not trade 1 VR for 2 Rs personally. So I think I like the Mixed Ratio (3:1 for VR - EUC and 2:1 for EUC - OMGSC).

[preservedfawn]

as someone who has been on since 2009 and made dumb trading decisions until we started to have “The List”, and even then I couldn’t grasp it, to now Horror’s guide which I’ve taken the time to grasp and actually do grasp…
there has been a massive increase of insanely unreasonable trading that I am so excited to see go away. like this is such a huge relief, because every large tier trade has felt almost like I’ve been successfully scammed lol 😭 I think in a year we’ll all look back at what we traded for what and cry a little bit

anyways,
I agree with Solloby. the OMGSR’s are an umbrella of the rarest pets on the site and each pet has its own value. I think introducing a guide SOLELY on how to trade that tier of pet is necessary. my OMGSR boar pps is not the same as my OMGSR zonkey by any means.
the 5 year gap is reasonable but I like the 3 year gap a bit more! although a 2013 R is now ranked the same as a 2023 R, it feels icky to trade one like that?? tbh I look at 2008-2011 as one conglomerate, 2012-2015 as the next, 2016-2019 as its own, and 2020-2023 as the newest era. like generations I guess.

as far as how much we should be trading to achieve a rare, I don’t really have a firm opinion but I agree that 27 UC is way too much. instead of multiplying like the 2:1 rule, I like the suggestions of just adding to each rank. maybe instead, 2-4 of each rank = one.
for example:
1 R = 2 EU
1 EU = 2 VU
1 VU = 2 U
1 U = 2 VC
etc.
which means a R is 8 UC, or 16 VC.

my big question is, how are we charging C$ for each tier??

[lil rascal]

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.

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.

Agree completely with this. Personally I would prefer that either some of the rarer pets are reshuffled down or a higher tier added above OMGSR as the new tiers have just made higher value trading even harder and more complicated than it was rather than helping as we’d hoped. However if this is the mess we are left with than expecting that new OMGSRs will be happily exchanged for pets that have been OMGSR for ages is unrealistic.

With lower value trades though, such as Rares and below, I personally think that the added tiers have made it so that the gaps between tiers are much less and a 2:1 rule to move between rarities would be far too much. I don’t believe that there is now so much difference between a very common and common that you would need to pay 2 very commons to bridge the gap. Nor do I believe that there is such a big gap between extremely uncommon and rare that it would require 2 extremely uncommons to bridge it.
Maybe in a similar vein to the 3 year gap suggested we could go with a 3 tier gap eg:
1 Rare = an Extremely Uncommon + an Uncommon
1 common = a Very Common + an OMGSC
And so on
I do think once up to Extremely Rare and OMGSR it’s a whole new ball game and trying to make up rarity math for high value trading is just going to lead to a lot of disappointed people.

I have personally traded happily within lower rarities without too much weight on dates so would love to see more people adopt that. I always feel sorry for newbies trying to understand why a common does not just equal another common according to the old standards.

[Solloby]

^ Those are some good points about lower rarities.

What about a sliding approach like this? If you wanted to trade less EC/OMGSC, you would just negotiate with age/demand. All of them would have slight adjustments for these factors anyway. Also, I'm not sure we want to put the trading tables together since people won't realistically be trading mass commons for a VR.

OMGSR = value individually
ER = value individually
1 VR = 3 R = 9 EUC ---------------------(3:1 ratio)
1 EUC = 2 VUC = 4 UC = 8 C -----------(2:1 ratio)
1 C = 2 VC = 3 EC = 4 OMGSC ---------(smaller again)

Less confusing format:
1 VR
3 R
9 EUC
18 VUC

1 EUC
2 VUC
4 UC
8 C
16 VC

1 C
2 VC
3 EC
4 OMGSC


I haven't looked at C$ or store pets, I'm not sure what my opinion on them is yet. But good questions are being asked around them!

[SolarSonnet]

Super tired so I hope this is coherent. I'm going to bed after this, but have been checking in on the thread every so often.

For C$, I have a lil more experience with pricing pets in that. I've seen 09 Rares go for anywhere from 35 to 55 C$ in the past.
I'd apply 55 ERs, apply 35 to rares, and hit somewhere in the middle with VRs.

The old "How much is this worth in C$" thread says

A 2009 rare/very rare is worth around 35-55C$
A 2010 rare/very rare is worth around 25-40C$
A 2011 rare/very rare is worth around 20-25C$
A 2012 rare/very rare is worth around 18-21C$
A 2013 rare/very rare is worth around 17-19C$
A 2014 rare/very rare is worth around 15-18C$
A 2015 rare/very rare is worth around 12-15C$
A 2016 rare/very rare is worth around 10-12C$
A 2017 rare/very rare is worth around 8-10C$
A 2018 rare/very rare is worth around 6-8C$
A 2019 rare/very rare is worth around 4-6C$
A 2020 rare is worth around 3-5C$
A 2021 rare is worth around 2-4C$
A 2022 rare is worth around 1-3C$

But I think I'd change their values a little.

09 R = 35 C$
09 VR = 45 C$
09 ER = 55 C$

10 R = 25 C$
10 VR = 35 C$
10 ER = 45 C$

11 R = 20 C$
11 VR = 25 C$
11 ER = 30 C$

12 R = 15 C$
12 VR = 20 C$
12 ER = 25 C$

So you end up with a system where an 09 VR is equal to a '10 ER, which if you follow 2:1 ratio between years, is correct.

This is me spitballing, and it starts to fall apart the more years you go, because values get lower and I wouldn't value a 2013 rare at any less than 10 C$.

Then you get into 2014 and rares become less than 10 C$ and Idk if that's quite right. I think this needs a rework but Idk how to make the prices look consistent or like they "flow" correctly, especially since I wouldn't start valuing rares lower than 10 C$ until like, 2015-2017. Meaning it gets kind of weird and stagnate-y around 2013-2015.

You'd have something like

2013: 13R/18VR/23ER
2014: 10R/15VR/20ER
2015: 7R/12VR/17ER ??

Technically, 09rs have been stagnating around 35-55 C$ since I joined CS, so they could potentially afford to get bumped up in pricing with the new rarity system, and so we increase the price of all above by like 5 C$ and suddenly you don't reach the 7 C$ Rare until 2016 which makes it feel a lot better. After that, you decrease the increment of price of pets between rarities to 3 C$, then even lower as you go through the years.

With that method it'd be:

09 R = 40 C$
09 VR = 50 C$
09 ER = 60 C$

10 R = 30 C$
10 VR = 40 C$
10 ER = 50 C$

11 R = 25 C$
11 VR = 30 C$
11 ER = 35 C$

12 R = 20 C$
12 VR = 25 C$
12 ER = 30 C$

13 R = 18 C$
13 VR = 23 C$
13 ER = 28 C$

14 R = 15 C$
14 VR = 20 C$
14 ER = 25 C$

15 R = 10 C$
15 VR = 15 C$
15 ER = 20 C$

16 R = 7 C$
16 VR = 10 C$
16 ER = 13 C$

17 R = 5 C$
17 VR = 8 C$
17 ER = 11 C$

18 R = 3 C$
18 VR = 6 C$
18 ER = 9 C$

19 R = 3 C$
19 VR = 5 C$
19 ER = 7 C$

20 R = 2 C$
20 VR = 4 C$
20 ER = 8 C$

21 R = 2 C$
21 VR = 3 C$
21 ER = 4 C$

22 R = 1 C$
22 VR = 2 C$
22 ER = 3 C$

23 R = 1 C$
23 VR = 2 C$
23 ER = 3 C$

Rares should never be worth less than 1 C$ lol.

One problem I see with this is that as of right now, Idk how many ERs there are in later years. It might be better to discount that one entirely and say "For every year after X, only R and VR are calculated" so for example, if we can't find many ERs in 2015, then the 2015 VR would be worth 20 C$ and the R would be worth 10 still. Also implies 1:1.5 for a few of these, but C$ has never really portrayed pet value entirely accurately so Idk.

Anyway, there's my 8 AM sleep deprived C$ thoughts. Enjoy that one, I'm gunna go pass out because the sun is up and I shoulda been sleeping a while ago.

[Trphlthdl]

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.

Would you be willing to explain your reasoning behind the first quote? Why the 3year would only be applicable to 2012 onwards?

As far as the second quote- while it's a good idea in theory I don't feel I would actually use it in practice. I think we're trying to find a more simple way of trading between rarities, and keeping it somewhat streamlined, for ease of understanding, and I'm just not personally willing to use that much math when trading pixel pets.