[🐝] Guide to Trading Every Pet on CS --- **being updated**

[♥Princess of Lions♥]

Personally I find decimal math and fourths much easier than fractions and thirds so I voted option #2 :)

[conarcoin]

Hooray for a fresh new list! I am particularly very happy to see the tiers broadened to allow for more trades to be considered viable!

Also I agree with people above, if most of the 09 rares went up to VR, why not just use 09 VR as our measurement?

[Lanayru]

I've kind of skimmed through the past few long posts so sorry if there's some repeated points!!

I personally think it's time to change things up from the '09 rare measurements - idk if I like just generic "old rares" or "2011 rares" more but either way '09 was so long ago the measurement is a bit outdated. I also heavily agree with keeping the 1/.75/.5/.25 scale (just because it's very easy and logical, imo) but changing the measurements from ranges to exact values for simplicity's sake.

While I like what Metax suggested (1 non = 10 ma, 1 ma = 10 old/'09/'11/whatever measurement used rares) I do wonder how .75n and .25n would be handled. 7.5 ma, rounding up/down to 8 or 7, something else? Using sth like 12 instead of 10 would lead to nice even numbers (1n = 12ma, .75= 9, .5 = 6, .23 = 3) but I feel people would be pretty unhappy with a non settling to the upper end of the old value range permanently.

[Metax]

I've kind of skimmed through the past few long posts so sorry if there's some repeated points!!

I personally think it's time to change things up from the '09 rare measurements - idk if I like just generic "old rares" or "2011 rares" more but either way '09 was so long ago the measurement is a bit outdated. I also heavily agree with keeping the 1/.75/.5/.25 scale (just because it's very easy and logical, imo) but changing the measurements from ranges to exact values for simplicity's sake.

While I like what Metax suggested (1 non = 10 ma, 1 ma = 10 old/'09/'11/whatever measurement used rares) I do wonder how .75n and .25n would be handled. 7.5 ma, rounding up/down to 8 or 7, something else? Using sth like 12 instead of 10 would lead to nice even numbers (1n = 12ma, .75= 9, .5 = 6, .23 = 3) but I feel people would be pretty unhappy with a non settling to the upper end of the old value range permanently.

I think we could figure out a way around .25n and .75n. If we stick to 2010 rares, .25n would be 2ma + 5 2010 rares, or some such thing. n-n

[Horror]

Just responding to a couple things ^^ Since we kinda see what the majority is standing on right now, it's probably time to work on chart mockups soon. Compiling some of the previous posts, there's these things to keep in mind:

-whether to use simple numbers (ease of remembering) vs ranges (leniency)
-Non @ 10 MA, 12 MA, or a range of 10-12 MA
-Non @ 100 Old Rares, or a range of 80-100
-MA @ 10 Old rares, or a range of 8-10
-With how saturated VR is now, some sort of VR measurement along with rares. Posts suggest 40 or between 30-50VR for a non

------------------------------------------

Very much not in support of replacing "09 rares" with "Old Rares"
I would never swap an 09 rare 1:1 with an '11 rare. Maybe a '10 rare, but going from 09 to '11 is too much of a jump for me.

By doing this, you also create a huge discrepancy where people will want 09 rares for their lists when trading off of the list, but will only want to give '11 rares when trading onto the list because they're treated as relatively the same by value of how many of them make a non or advent, but not the same when trading between each other for people using the 1-year rule for rares+ as opposed to the three-year rule.

With this method, people can trade 09 very rares for 3+ '10 or '11 rares, and then try to find someone who will take '11 rares for their Advent pets, and trade up from there, basically making it really advantageous for people with stricter trading guidelines as long as they're willing to put the time in.

-snip for space-

EDIT
Rereading the poll, I see it says "2010-2011" rares, in which case it makes this a little bit more useable, because 09 rares are not a factor at all. I assume that if pets were valued in 2010 to 2011 rares, that 09 rares would be their own category and people wouldn't be valuing them at the same place as 2010 and 2011 rares, rather, 09 rares/vrs are worth a differing amount and not lumped in with being 2010 or 2011. If that's the case, I could offer my support for it.

Yep, I figured 09s might or might not be contenders here so I wanted to leave that part open to talk about
It'd basically be 2010 Rare = 2011 Rare (either one = 1 "Old Rare")
And if we don't include 09, we just leave them as the older/outlier year the way 08 used to be. An 09 can = 2 of the rares above/whatever amount works with the rarity math method people will choose. For anyone reading, also throwing it out there's only 18 pets total on the site that still qualify as "basic 09 rare" status, so if anyone adamantly only wants 09s, then especially as the last of them go vr in the future they'll find this increasingly difficult to get

Would it be possible to add a disagree option to the poll? Im not yet decided on the options and am kinda on board but still need a little more thinking

But I just think its really important that on a decision like this there is a space to disagree otherwise we are only getting data from those who agree, which may be misleading data. (I.e i dont like old system & dont agree with new proposed ideas)

The poll doesn't allow adding or removing options with resetting all votes (oops) but I changed the last one to "Unsure/I don't use MA Non systems/I just want to vote. This poll has no set end date and allows changing votes, so anyone that falls under "unsure" can use as much time as they need to reach a decision they're comfortable with ^^

-snip-
This sentiment makes me feel kind of 'mean', but I do think that in terms of trading worth/value, that the "ease of access" for getting higher-value pets should not be a huge consideration.

Oh yeah no, I definitely agree with the "ease of access for high value" not being the biggest consideration. Valuable things are valuable because they aren't that easy to get and aren't just handed to you
But, CS is a pet site and we all come here for fun. I do think it's important to find a middleground where valuable things still have their value but aren't impossible to get, and it should still be a goal to try to make trading less of a pain where we can

The last time we had a change to the way pets in inactive accounts were counted we saw massive changes but as it was only one change to the rarity system we were able to track it. This time with three changes at once I can’t see how we can really say that previous rarity changes are relevant to current rarity. -snip-

I honestly don’t think we’ll really be able to genuinely know more than the current rarity labels and demand until after the next Dec18 rereleases, where pets on the lower end of the rarities traditionally drop.

Considered this! Really waiting on the rereleases for what things drop and what stays. Major rarity changes in the future will probably still be relevant again, but that's a long ways away. I do think at some point we can further merge pets together but right now people may be jarred by just putting the entirety of the ER spectrum in a group and the entire VR spectrum in a group even if they're smaller now, as some were already trying to track what was VR before this update and what just turned even before I finished this thread. Anyone that considers an ER an ER and a VR a VR can still do so, and I'm trying to make the text really hammer in that there's not any big difference from one group to the next, just not calling them all identical for now
Right nows kind of a grace period ig? is mostly what I mean

Would also be good to rename "MA" since the last of them that didn't turn OMGSR are now just "Upper/High Extremely Rares" but I don't have any better name ideas; typing that out every time or UERs/HERs doesn't look appealing

Would it be possible to simply start calling them "advents" - since advents refer to a specific & defined section of the archive; those 2008 advent-release pets? I've thought for a while now that keeping the "mid" part of the name that refers back to the retired/defunct list will just create confusion over a system that is no longer in use.

of course, this does run into the issue that several from that litter became "OMGSR" with this update.

since we might be able to move to a system of having "old rares" as our base unit rather than a specific year's rares, and that "old rares" category is mostly in the "aughts" decade - could we similarly rename what we've previously thought of as "mid-advents" to something with "aughts" in the name? haha maybe it could be "AAs" like "aughts advents?" or if the "advent" name would be too confusing and we want to include more variety in that bracket, maybe we could go for something that includes general VR/ERs like "aughts VERs" - I'm aware this is getting more confusing and not less. but maybe someone will see this and pull something useful out of my ramblings.

I am with lil rascal, changing MAs to ER Advents (Extremely Rare) sounds good to me. If we are voting.

Keeping these in mind!

[Loelya]

after reading lil rascal's idea about ER advents I liked that idea too! I especially love the idea of that becoming abbreviated and maybe turning into "ERAs."

[Lacuna]

I was participating in discussion on another thread because it started with talking about lower value pets, and this one has always felt inaccessible to me for various reasons (I discussed in my post on the other thread: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4897984&start=220#p142989951 ) but I wanted to at least attempt to check this one out with the new discussion and I will say honestly I was immediately feeling further left out/behind by the latest posts. With less than 100 votes I don’t think that a majority can be called on anything and I hope that there is some way to have more voices involved, especially those that have been left behind but are people who own/could be trading a lot of these pets around if it wasn’t inaccessible. I voted the last option in the poll because I truly don’t understand what most of the others mean.

P.S. disclaimer I’m not posting as staff in any capacity

[Kazin]

Since the rarities are more precise now, should we not be doing away with the concept of advents being worth more (demand aside)? This goes off of my comment earlier that ERs should not be broken down further and made to be more complicated. Some advents have no demand at all yet are we really going to be asking more for those pets just because of the name? If they’re all VR or ER they should be valued the same within their respective rarities at this point. Saying on ER is worth 5-7 other ER based on a list that is no longer relevant seems ridiculous.

Edit: Another thing too, how do we know which pets are closer or further from being OMGSR? Considering that the threshold of what is considered an inactive account has been changed and that the rarity groups have become more refined, I would imagine most pets fluctuate within their rarities. It’s getting really ridiculous all the extra math that’s going into this, making it somehow more complicated when it should have been made simpler. I just am not understanding where the majority of the thought process is coming from and why it needs to be unnecessarily complicated

[♥Princess of Lions♥]

I think the reason we need a "rare's list" with a unique value system is because there is no other way to account for pets in situations of very low supply but very high demand. Those are the pets the list accommodates. If there was always enough of a pet for everyone to have one, then the list wouldn't need to exist. That's why lower rarity pets can easily trade for other pets of the same rarity. There are enough of them in existence that they aren't hard to find or obtain.

[sky,]

- sorry if some points are repeated! -


I read most of the comments on the last couple of pages and I just want to throw in my two cents about it. Even though I would like to make trading accessible to all users, I do agree that there has to be a balance. Gearing completely towards drastically lowering values would make users with high value pets upset and keeping it the way it is makes the newer users upset. This is a great time where we can work together to find a consensus and compromise. I love the analogy Pyromaniacal made:



I also don't agree with the idea that just because these pets used to be valued a certain way, that they should necessarily stay or increase that value - this is a casual pet trading game, not the stock market, and that presupposes a capability for infinite growth that is simply impossible. Perhaps someone traded for a pet based on the information and market forces of the time; that information and those market forces have since changed, and nobody should be guaranteed that they'll necessarily get a positive return on their investment, so to speak, especially with such a big shift in the trading landscape.



I agree with this statement in evaluation of the sheer mass of higher value pets now, there has to be a cap on value. Every OMGSR cannot be a non or it will eliminate the entire goal of the rarity change, which was to make trading more accessible. If we "up" the value of all the pets that rose in rarity, trading in general would be a nightmare on top of the already inflated values.

Here is an idea (this might burst some bubbles)

(these are just random pets I picked that have a generally non-negotiable value as of now)

1 + nons : Unrelease pets

1 non : Dogtag = nontag = Coontail = Noncoon

.75 non : Lower demanded Unrelease pets

.5 non : Balloon Dogs = Toxics = Sorbets

.25 non : Lower OMGSRs (previous advent list/September list)

MAs : Upper extremely rares

.5 MAs: Lower extremely rares

___________________________________________________

1 + nons : stacking as .25 non - 1 non does

1 non : 60-70 "old rares" /30-35 VRs / 12 - 14 MAs

.75 non : 45-55 "old rares" /22-27 VRs / 9 - 11 MAs

.5 non : 30-40 "old rares" / 15-20 VRs / 6 - 8 MAs

.25 non : 15-25 "old rares" / 7-12 VRs / 3 - 5 MAs

MAs : 3 - 5 "old rares"

.5 MAs: 2 -3 "old rares"

While the amount of MA's looks high, the cost of each MA could be lower, in theory. If that makes any sense. This is just a suggestion.

VRs and below could still follow the 2:1 rule c: