NEW POLL CS Community Wants YOUR help on Trading Guidelines!

[Solloby]

annoyed there's no options for lower than 10c$ on the 2022 rare question in the g. form. absolutely in no universe would I ever consider a recent rare worth more than maybe 5c$, and I wouldn't expect that exorbitant amount - yes, even if I was the one selling it - of a whole 10c$ MINIMUM like what????

also if anyone starts to expect 10 c$ for 10 omgsc horses from last month I may possibly never pay for pets with c$ again. that's absolutely insane. (on the other hand, means I don't have to give the site money for c$ anymore if that happens lol)

That question is about Very Rares, not Rares.

For OMGSCs I think a base price of 0.25 is good purely because it maths well with the 2:1 ratios if we start a Common off at 1C$. In reality I think people will be quite flexible with the C$ value of the lower rarity pets. At the end of the day if someone only wants to buy 1 pet and it's OMGSC, they have no choice but to pay 1C$ for it because you can't enter less into the field. On the flip side, I can see people buying bundles of a lot more than 4 OMGSCs for 1C$, and that's fine too. Honestly I don't think trying to find out the C$ value of an OMGSC is really that helpful in the grand scheme of things.

Looking at the current survey results, people seem to agree that we need a new guide and that the current pet values aren't right, but we are getting very mixed responses about what a new guide might look like. The current favourite options are tier list and set of guidelines, possibly flowcharts. I am wondering if maybe we should build a simple guideline set to show people what that might look like?

One of my first big questions is, should all UR pets be considered the same or similar value? I know we've had years where some UR pets were released more than others, so there was a bit of a rarity discrepancy. But after so many years I don't think that's the case anymore, and I think we'll find that all UR pets will always be OMGSR now. So I am wondering if we need to separate UR pets by anything other than demand these days? If this is the case, perhaps we could look at sorting UR pets into categories, or identifying outliers, and perhaps using this as the foundation of either a tier or a guideline. Thoughts?

[answrs]

annoyed there's no options for lower than 10c$ on the 2022 rare question in the g. form. absolutely in no universe would I ever consider a recent rare worth more than maybe 5c$, and I wouldn't expect that exorbitant amount - yes, even if I was the one selling it - of a whole 10c$ MINIMUM like what????

also if anyone starts to expect 10 c$ for 10 omgsc horses from last month I may possibly never pay for pets with c$ again. that's absolutely insane. (on the other hand, means I don't have to give the site money for c$ anymore if that happens lol)

That question is about Very Rares, not Rares.

For OMGSCs I think a base price of 0.25 is good purely because it maths well with the 2:1 ratios if we start a Common off at 1C$. In reality I think people will be quite flexible with the C$ value of the lower rarity pets. At the end of the day if someone only wants to buy 1 pet and it's OMGSC, they have no choice but to pay 1C$ for it because you can't enter less into the field. On the flip side, I can see people buying bundles of a lot more than 4 OMGSCs for 1C$, and that's fine too. Honestly I don't think trying to find out the C$ value of an OMGSC is really that helpful in the grand scheme of things.

I include very rare in the overarching category of rares, my opinion remains the same. ┐⁠(⁠´⁠ー⁠｀⁠)⁠┌ also if an omgsc is 1c$ then a very common to most people must be twice that much because it's worth more, a common twice *that*, and onwards. but hey, if I can buy a new inflated store pet for a few spare very commons from last month I'm sure that's sustainable for us that don't have sixteen grand of c$ to spend (heavy sarcasm)


as for the various levels of uncommon, to me it seems perfectly logical that the common/uncommon/rare is at the same differences as before, the "change for value clarification" just added decimals to the whole numbers we used to have. I don't understand why people are happily insisting an uncommon to rare should now be what, 8:1? 16:1? do we really hate the trading economy that much? want to refuse anyone that's not an already incredibly wealthy user the ability to trade for rares?

if I sound frustrated, it's because these threads and the insurance of things like the above are driving me insane (and depressed) to the point I'm only subjecting myself to posting on this particular thread out of self hatred. I've been trying to ignore them for my own mental health but then a month from now I'll be told to stop whining, I should have participated in the (what feels like an echo chamber) threads more. either way kills any love I have for the site anymore and I'm not allowed to win.

[Solloby]

I don't think everyone wants to math C$ like that, as neat and tidy as it would make things. I think a lot of people consider OMGSC, VC and EC all sort of the same thing. So they might pay 1C$ for 4 OMGSCs, then 1C$ for 4 ECs the next day. I think whatever value ends up being set as a guideline for this, will not be used very strictly at all. That's one of the reasons I'm not particularly interested in what value people think an OMGSC goes for in C$, as I think practically speaking we will all be very flexible with our lower rarity pets. Realistically I don't think many people buy or sell OMGSCs much anyway? A lot of people give them away or do simple pet swaps with them.

I think one of the biggest problems with the previous trading guidelines is that people seemed to be doing some sort of 2:1 ratio for every year, or something crazy like that? People were saying older pets were worth bucketloads of newer pets of the same or even higher rarities, and I think that's wild. With these new rarity labels I think we can get rid of that to a large extent, because now a lot of the older pets are higher sub-rarities which recognises their value above the newer pets. Honestly I'm not sure what the C/UC/R trade differences were in the past, was it 3:1 for same date?

2:1 ratio would put 1 Rare at between 2, 4 or 8 uncommons depending on the level (EUC, VUC, UC respectively).
1.5 ratio would 1 Rare at 2 uncommons (1 EUC + 1 VUC), or 3 uncommons (2 VUC + 1 UC), or 4 uncommons (4 UC) I think? It's a little more complicated, but collapses the values a bit.

The proposal is to not put crazy multipliers on top of those ratios for age though, since the extra rarity levels takes care of that to an extent. Unless there's a really big age gap, the addition to make it fair would be a lower rarity pet like a Common for example.

I'm not sure if that makes you feel less frustrated or not. I'm sorry this is stressful for you :c

[TANKMEN]

i dont have a lot of complicated thoughts, but i really think 2:1 needs to be thrown out the window. if we used 2:1 before (and it was already a bit outrageous), and now we have 4 extra rarities, logically you cannot assume the jump between those rarities to still be 2:1. we now have 'inbetweens' and by making everything 2:1, youre effectively just doubling the worth of everything again, which isn't what these new rarities represent.

i never really liked 2:1 to begin with but i think it really makes even less sense now. if there has to be a ratio, it needs to be something like 1:1.5 or whatever works. i dont have better thoughts about this now, but i think any judgement on the OMGSC C$ ratio based on something thats no longer viable (2:1) is not going to get us anywhere.

[Solloby]

I never agreed with 2:1 before because I would never accept 2 uncommons for 1 rare. I think it's a lot more reasonable now than it was before the rarity update.

My issue with 1.5 is that I personally would never trade downwards with it. Unless my math is wrong, 1.5 works out as:
1 VR = 1.5 R = 2.25 EUC = 3.4 VUC = 5 UC = 7.6 C etc

I would never accept 7-8 Commons for a VR. There simply aren't enough VRs to go around for that to be the price of them, surely? I would be curious to know what the ratio of pets to rarity label is, but am fairly confident we will not be told.

I found an interesting post from 2009 with some outdated ratios, but they are completely unusable today. It does make me wonder if we need to consider the sliding scale option more though.
Forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=47055&p=1325298#p1325298

I'm not sure what a sliding scale might look like?
3:1 VR to R
2.5 R to EUC and EUC to VUC
2:1 VUC to UC and UC to C
1.5 C to VC and VC to EC and EC to OMGSC

I'm not sure I like that :c

I'm still thinking that 2:1 across all lower rarities is the approach I like most personally. But I'm keen to hear more from people who want other ratios.

[musicgurl333]

as for the various levels of uncommon, to me it seems perfectly logical that the common/uncommon/rare is at the same differences as before, the "change for value clarification" just added decimals to the whole numbers we used to have. I don't understand why people are happily insisting an uncommon to rare should now be what, 8:1? 16:1? do we really hate the trading economy that much? want to refuse anyone that's not an already incredibly wealthy user the ability to trade for rares?

i dont have a lot of complicated thoughts, but i really think 2:1 needs to be thrown out the window. if we used 2:1 before (and it was already a bit outrageous), and now we have 4 extra rarities, logically you cannot assume the jump between those rarities to still be 2:1. we now have 'inbetweens' and by making everything 2:1, youre effectively just doubling the worth of everything again, which isn't what these new rarities represent.

i never really liked 2:1 to begin with but i think it really makes even less sense now. if there has to be a ratio, it needs to be something like 1:1.5 or whatever works. i dont have better thoughts about this now, but i think any judgement on the OMGSC C$ ratio based on something thats no longer viable (2:1) is not going to get us anywhere.

Okay, so I never liked the 2:1 ratio before either. I completely agree with TANKMEN there. I think anyone who has ever seen any posts I've made on the FTT will know that. lol. When it comes to dates, it didn't make sense before and it makes less sense now. BUT for RARITIES, I actually like it a lot better. I NEVER thought a rare should be equal to 2 uncommons. I valued them at 3-5, depending on date and demand (again, something I've been saying on the FTT for ages). When I traded my rares for other people's uncommons, I pretty much always offered more, because 3-5 still didn't feel like quite enough. I also never would have traded down any of my rares for that amount. So NOW, with the addition of new rarities, the 2:1 rule feels more like how I've always traded anyway.

Although, I do want to say it again, I ONLY use it for dates and NOT rarities, because that's ridiculous. And like Solloby said, I think that taking some of the focus off of dates will even things out. Yes, rares will require more uncommons to trade for, but date gaps will require fewer add ons to close the gap between the older and newer pets.

[SolarSonnet]

Sorry for my jumping around in this post, I just have a lot of ideas that are various levels of related to previous posts so it all kind of applies.

Personally, it feels like the arguments against 2:1 in the new system are fear-driven.

Whatever an OMGSC-C pet is worth in C$, I don't think it should effect the rest of the chart

Even if we get to the point where an OMGSC is worth 0.5 C$, it shouldn't effect whatever Extremely Common, Very Common, and regular Commons are too much. Even if an OMGSC is 0.5, that doesn't mean Commons should be 4 C$ nor does it mean all Uncommons should be 8 C$. It's just valuing the most commons pets lowly so that there's no super complicated maths with them.

(OMGSC 0.5, EC 1, VC 2, C 4) I disagree with that heavily for all commons.

The only place I'd argue for commons to be more than 1 C$ is in like 2011-2012, and if we're using decimals, then probably up to like 2017/2018.

Do you know how few commons are left in 2011?
Have any of your actually gone through the Archive to see how many pets are left of each rarity?
Commons barely exist in 2011. You are very likely not going to run into a 2011 common. There are like 5 of them. I don't think it's a big deal if they cost 2 C$ instead of one. I'd even group them together with some later years.

So like 2011-2014 C = 2 C$
2015-2018 = 1.5 c$
2019+ = 1 C$

The highest UC on the chart I personally use is 5 C$ in 2011-2012.

I also think that if we did 3:1 between R and VR, that it could help the chart massively.

Oh boy, new chart time.

Some changes I'm making to this chart, you don't have to agree or use them but I am making them, just to see what it looks like:

• Adding multiple values to 0MGSC-C pets in groups of years, similarly to the 3-year rule that some people use.
• Using R:VR 1:3 Ratio
• Removing the 1:3 R:EUC Ratio from 2009-2010, because the R:VR ratio will do the same thing, just a rarity higher.
• 2011-2012 are grouped together, along with 2009-2010. My ideal guide is one that uses 2011-2012 pets as "Old Rares" to trade up to higher rarity pets, like how we used to value things in 09s, so this is reflected in my chart.

Note:
Decimals are used not to imply that they are super important to follow, but to allow people to decide if they personally want to round up/down. In a finalized version of whatever chart we use, I'd love to run a poll that decides if we should round up/down for certain values. I know the rule in maths itself is to round up above 0.5 and round down below it, but I'd still like to run a poll on if we should be rounding, if we should keep the decimals in to let people make that choice for themselves, or if we should be using a range (I.E. 10-11) for the same reason.

Believe me, I'd love to be rounding too (it'd make my math easier) but I think having decimals right now makes for the most clear representation of my math.



With some tweaking because I made the OMGSC-C thing before I made the rest of the chart.

The rounding method I used for going from UC -> C is that if the number was above x.5, I rounded up, if it was below I rounded down.

I made the decision to make Commons no less than 0.75 because even though it makes math a little harder, it also doesn't value them as too low. Also, the lowest uncommon value is 1.21, 0.75 x 2 = 1.5, and all of the other Uncommons in its age group are closer to 1.5 than to 1.



I'm not going to lie, I wouldn't mind doing an x-year grouping for pets that change less than 1 C$ between years and give it a range.
It would make the chart a necessity because the groups would be uneven, but it would make the "most" sense.

Ex:
Uncommon
2017-2023 = 1-2 C$
2015-2013 = 2-3 C$
2011-2012 = 3 C$

Very Uncommon:
2021-2024 = 2-3 C$
2017-2022 = 3-4 C$
2015-2016 = 4-5 C$
2013-2014 = 5-6 c$
2011-2012 = 6-7* C$
*Rounding up from 6.67

EUC:
2022-2023 = 5-6 C$
2020-2021 = 6-7 C$
2018-2019 = 7-8 C$
The rest have individual numbers, 2014-2015 could be 10-11 though.

Basically, I don't think the 3-year rule works for all groups because some pets have up to 6 years of gap where they can be swapped, some have 2 years of gap where they can be swapped. This puts that weird "Idk if I'd do a rare from 2023 for a rare from 2020, I might do like, an uncommon of those two years but not a rare!" feeling, into math and ranges.

[Solloby]

@musicgurl333 - I agree with everything in your post <3

Do you know how few commons are left in 2011?
Have any of your actually gone through the Archive to see how many pets are left of each rarity?
Commons barely exist in 2011. You are very likely not going to run into a 2011 common. There are like 5 of them. I don't think it's a big deal if they cost 2 C$ instead of one. I'd even group them together with some later years.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Commons
June 2011

August 2011

Medieval Faire 2011



Very Commons
June 2011


Extremely Common
Medieval Faire 2011


OMGSC
Medieval Faire 2011

[SolarSonnet]

@musicgurl333 - I agree with everything in your post <3

Do you know how few commons are left in 2011?
Have any of your actually gone through the Archive to see how many pets are left of each rarity?
Commons barely exist in 2011. You are very likely not going to run into a 2011 common. There are like 5 of them. I don't think it's a big deal if they cost 2 C$ instead of one. I'd even group them together with some later years.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Commons
June 2011

August 2011

Medieval Faire 2011



Very Commons
June 2011


Extremely Common
Medieval Faire 2011


OMGSC
Medieval Faire 2011

Yup! I was counting commons, though. I did happen to miss the spider when I counted, but I did notice the cats (And I know you designed those cats, too ^^ They're some of my favorite on the site.)

You can actually see where I did it earlier. I did happen to miss the spider and the VC dog from june when I looked, though!

Edit: My point in there being "like 5" of them kind of stands, though. (there are technically 7) And I almost doubt they'll be regular commons for long? All the other pets in that cat's litter are rare.

It makes me think that the most likely outcome of those pets being common is that there is a surviving hoard somewhere, and they are not for trade. That, or a hoard got disbanded. I can't figure out why for that specific cat or that specific spider, but I can tell why for the castle cats and the rats, they're on cool linearts. The dragon and unicorn rats are super cool.

Dragon Rat Hoards
And those are just the ones that people are posting on the hoarder's handbook, I do feel the need to mention:
We don't know what counts as an "inactive" account right now. The most inactive account of those 3 hoard posted 3 years ago, so those rats may not be calculated into the overall Dragon Rat count. The most active account of those 3 was online earlier today.

-

I also recently made a post on Horror's Guide here discussing the innate value/demand of pets with the "rare" rarity tag. If you'd like to check that one out. I think it's definitely important and makes me think we may also benefit from either 2.5:1 or 3:1 in EUC-> R as well as 3:1 in R->VR (Specifically because I think 09-10 VRs are closer to 120-150 C$, and rares are still closer to 40-50 C$)

3:1 for VR:R would also personally make me, personally, less iffy on 2009-2010 being the baseline for "list" trade-ups.

[Solloby]

Yeah I figured I'd look at all C and below. As much as I love cats (they are my favourite lineart on the site), I don't think they're overly popular, and I know the spiders and rats aren't, poor things. Honestly I can see people only charging/paying 1 C$ for these. But 2C$ isn't unreasonable, as I imagine they are harder to find nowadays. I think for edge cases like these pets, people can be flexible and just work it out amongst themselves surely.

I loved how those cats turned out, ty! I was so excited about the Medieval Faire <3

I am interested to know how you guys went with the pet calc testing tool. Did you put any trades into it that it gave you a result you disagreed with?