Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[himarry 124]

Personally I think the pets that are being named [banana, grapes, peas] are all worth their listed value. The main issue is people not wanting to trade for them because they know other people wont want them. If everyone just gets over their ick about it it can all really be resolved, however that'll never happen. And deleting nons isn't really an idea that will be accepted by many, everything can still be valued at x amount of ma's but.. you're just not going to change everyones mind about it

i agree with himarry, people take extremes from both sides of the spectrum and label it as the new value, and that happening for years has led to the current dilemma and only encourages taking all the value you can out of a pet purely because of bias rather than based on the actual assigned value of the pet.
people are within their rights to overpay but that can create the demand spiral, as Bluefly26799 stated above
the dragon cat pps is one of the pets i dislike the most on this site because it was 2-3 ma only a few years ago.. just to see people now value it at 1.5+ non. like if you overpay thats fine but are you telling me I have to give possibly multiple OMGSR pets for a very rare pet???
It's my exact issue with the raven as well, it's an extremely rare, and I personally don't like the idea of trading OMGSRs for it because my pets are fundamentally MORE valuable.
it's exactly why i traded mine away. its a nice pet with a nice design, but its just not logical for me to think that any omgsr is numerically fair for an extremely rare.

maybe its just the autism telling me things need to be 1:1/2:1 but idk. i still think a banana should be 10 ma and a nontag or whatever should also be 10 ma.
[I can't really argue on the BA part, because I don't value it at 1 non because of its rarity ToT]

Part of the problem with pets like the BA and RAVEN is the amount of them in hoards, the dragon cat pps is also just extremely cute. I've seen more BA's however then a few years ago and dragon cat pps is every were but the more people want something the more greedy people will be around said pet if hoarding didn't exist raven would probably be 0.5n just like the dragon cat pps would be roughly 1 ma or 2 ma but as someone who constantly makes hoards and disbands them I don't have a right to say hoarding bad

[sunka]

here is what i struggle with:

you are a new player that has a ur banana. you ask what its worth, you’re told its worth 1 non. you want a non swirl, you do some research, realize that your banana and the non swirl are both worth a non. you send some trades, all your trades get cancelled because demand says your banana isn’t worth the same as the non swirl even though they’re on the same tier.

if we utilize trading data alone and not personal opinion, as was done with the dogtag and the coontail, i don’t see why adjusting values lower to account for value and demand would be an issue. if anything, it would make the pets easier to trade off because they are at a reasonable value. if you need to add several ma’s to a banana in order to get a non swirl, or if you have to take a cut worth several ma’s to trade it down, why not just adjust its value lower to make it a tradeable pet? i guess to me, all i see is the economy is going backwards. expensive pets are getting less expensive because of lower value pets within the same tier, which started this whole thread because of the question of ma’s and nons and what the actual values are.

if anything, i would at the very least just want some consideration to the idea of adjusting values to make more sense and be more reasonable. not make expensive pets more expensive. but list the value of pets that are not trading for their worth a bit lower to make their value make sense. i understand demand will always be important and play a role. and that it’s not as simple as slapping a new label on and fixing things. but at some point something has to change or nothing will ever get better with the economy and i personally think the start is to reevaluate some pets and shift things around.

[Bluefly26799]

here is what i struggle with:

you are a new player that has a ur banana. you ask what its worth, you’re told its worth 1 non. you want a non swirl, you do some research, realize that your banana and the non swirl are both worth a non. you send some trades, all your trades get cancelled because demand says your banana isn’t worth the same as the non swirl even though they’re on the same tier.

I snipped this so it’s not such a big reply but honestly this is exactly what I’m talking about!


I’d not pitch making any pets more expensive but lowering the pets that are the bad demand pets for their tier to a value in which they easily trade for. This then makes these pets desirable again as people won’t be trying to squeeze every drop of value out of less informed players

I agree it’s definitely not as simple as slapping a new label on things, this is a really big conversation that needs to be had but it’s important to any future this game has in terms of trading. Whatever the outcome is the one thing most of us can agree on is rn it’s not working just something needs to be changed and personally I think making things as simple as possible and narrowing down value would help. The pets worth 1.5-2 non are a great example as the same player will view the same pet 2 different ways depending on if they’re trade for or away this pet just for their own profit

[Nahida]

Genuinely I think this discussion is getting out of hand -

each of you have a point but i agree w bluefly above on narrowing the value ranges.

[angst]

It seems like base values and demand values are being confused here. Just because two pets are in the same tier doesn't mean they are a direct 1:1 swap. While their base values might be the same, demand can significantly affect a pet's worth, making it more or less valuable. This is why the demand post on Horror’s list is important, along with the color coding that indicates whether a pet in a particular tier tends to trade higher or lower than its base value.

That brings up the question of how base values are determined. My understanding was that base values were based on how quickly a pet became very rare after its release (see example below), but I’m not sure if that’s still the case. You can track these changes in rarity here: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4904863

Aurora Storm also has a wonderful guide on rarities here: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4201164

Rarity change example:
In a litter of three pets, the first becomes very rare in January, the second in March, and the third in December. The first pet would have a slightly higher base value than the second, but because there’s nearly a year between the first and third pet's rarity changes, the first pet would be one tier above the third. However, imagine the third pet is an outcome with high demand. It might be worth more demand wise than the first pet, even though the base value is lower.

This represents my view on adjusting the MAs on the list very well, thank you. :'-)

Personally, I feel we should be focusing on

(1) CS. Just doesn't make sense. It really doesn't.

(2) Fixing the ".25non" piece. So weird.

And

(3) Having a better system - potentially with more color gradients, or changing the language from "this pet has high/low value but high/low demand for its value" to listing a rarity value and a demand value. Actually - wow I'm always mentioning this thread - I loved Princess of Lion's spreadsheet for the CS Popularity Poll. The poll was imperfect, obviously, but it gave multiple ways to sort the pets: You could sort by "popularity heavy" ranking or "rarity" ranking and it would change up the pets. Each pet had a balanced ranking as well between the two. This way there's more customization and people could see both their pets general demand and its rarity and make informed choices. I'm very pro that. The more information is presented neatly and cleanly, the better trading will be.

(I'll try to find the above and link it here).

EDIT: yes! I found it!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... p=drivesdk

This is the spreadsheet! This is a model I'd love for a future guide or trading system to follow. Beautiful!

This is the thread it's from: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4900422

There is a store pet version as well.

I'm sort of indifferent on whether we change the language of MA or nons or not or removing nons, as I only think that'll impact mental math lmao (counting in MAs is hard ;-;) but may add clarity for newer players... I'm mixed! Whatever the community decides on that one I would trust. And Bluefly's smart as heck and a great player so I'd love to see a proposal either way.

❤️ I've loved following this thread and appreciate all the passion for this game people bring here!

[lil rascal]

Ur peas is another pet considered low demand and it also can be traded down

-snip-

I’m still catching up on everything else but this caught my eye.

The UR Peas are an excellent example of how the “bad demand” rumour mill works to set prices. When they first came out they were well liked as they are cute (seriously two peas in a pod!). Then someone decided to put the “fruit/veggies have bad demand” label on them and the more it was repeated the further their claimed trade value dropped. The only reason the UR Peach escaped the same fate is that it was listed under butterfly wolves in the archives so BW collectors all wanted it to complete their collection (similarly to how the UR Lion and August PPS values are pushed higher by Lion collectors).

[himarry 124]

Ur peas is another pet considered low demand and it also can be traded down

-snip-

I’m still catching up on everything else but this caught my eye.

The UR Peas are an excellent example of how the “bad demand” rumour mill works to set prices. When they first came out they were well liked as they are cute (seriously two peas in a pod!). Then someone decided to put the “fruit/veggies have bad demand” label on them and the more it was repeated the further their claimed trade value dropped. The only reason the UR Peach escaped the same fate is that it was listed under butterfly wolves in the archives so BW collectors all wanted it to complete their collection (similarly to how the UR Lion and August PPS values are pushed higher by Lion collectors).

I personally think peas have good demand still as I never have issues trading them and they are super cute

[lil rascal]

I absolutely agree that the Peas are cute but if they hadn’t been slapped with the “fruit/veg has bad demand” label they would still be trading at their true value (rarity wise) with the UR Peach, s’more, pie etc instead of their demand value of a third of that.

Sunka spoke my heart, and I'm definitely on the same page with bluefly's on this point. To elaborate on this - an example would be the UR Flower Dragon which is currently a mess in value because active traders buy at 3.5 nons and will absolutely not sell it for anything under 4 nons (if not 4.5 nons!) This pet is currently the best - if not one of the best UR's to trade down to 40-45MAs

It cracks me up how ninjas are frowned upon, but this isn't. A value range, operate in conjunction to form a loophole in our trading system, allowing learned users to exploit less-informed players through these "fair trades". This is indifferent to a ninja trade, but camouflaged as clean and fair as a Doctor's robe Absolutely ridiculous.

While this can be frustrating the main problem in this situation isn’t the person asking what they want for a pet, it’s the lazy traders who pay the inflated 4 or 4.5 non price instead of saying “sorry I don’t value it above 3.5 Nons” and looking for people who also value it at that price.

People have a right to ask whatever they want for their pets. We can not change that. What we can control is whether we pay the inflated prices or not. If people stopped paying inflated prices those people trying to sell high would have the option to hold onto their pets in the hope of a lazy trader coming along or to drop the prices to sell faster. Once again this is not something we can control, all we can control is whether we choose to feed into the inflated prices or not. This is the real key to getting the economy back on track.

[Lex.]

Ur peas is another pet considered low demand and it also can be traded down

-snip-

I’m still catching up on everything else but this caught my eye.

The UR Peas are an excellent example of how the “bad demand” rumour mill works to set prices. When they first came out they were well liked as they are cute (seriously two peas in a pod!). Then someone decided to put the “fruit/veggies have bad demand” label on them and the more it was repeated the further their claimed trade value dropped. The only reason the UR Peach escaped the same fate is that it was listed under butterfly wolves in the archives so BW collectors all wanted it to complete their collection (similarly to how the UR Lion and August PPS values are pushed higher by Lion collectors).

I personally think peas have good demand still as I never have issues trading them and they are super cute

I can second this, I never had trouble with peas. It makes sense as to why it started with food pets. Some got moldy or bruised, and that isnt as cute as their growing counterparts. that argument can be made fair enough, and after reading a bit more, I think some adjustments can made to the current list standings/values. I'm just afraid that it will most likely get taken advantage of.
i like that UR foods now aren't spoling like the apple, grapes and bananas, but I really do love the old foods style and think they're cute pets. I admit when I did major list trading i wasn't fast to accept them, but I did involve one in a trade for my skelebun, including the peas
trades/viewtrade.php?id=106897949&userid=959439&signature=4QXBFMuJe0ae0AeTnmgJxQ
granted There are other nice list pets, but even then the ur aussie isn't the most popular, neither is the zebra, non balloon or purple toxic. nowadays I don't think many people would accept a trade involving those pets because they aren't quick to be traded off (and would want "better demand pets"), people don't have much patience to trade these pets off to people who are willing to trade fairly for them. i just personally think it's unfair to judge a pets value based on that, but I think with the opinion of the majority of the userbase that trades, a middle ground can be found.

ssince demand is subjective its not wrong by the sites standards to want an offer of 2 or more nons for a pps dragon cat. but that doesn't mean people will trade that value, but someone ELSE with a pps dragon cat will join that person and try to capitalize on that value, thus creating a space for people to either
1. stop trading their pet to hold onto its "increasing value"
or
2. also raise the value of their pet artificially
[because if someone is getting a certain amount for their pet, its not necessarily wrong to believe that you should be excluded]
which both would increase the ASKING value of a pet, not what it is actually worth. and that is the problem that too many pets are having today.

There are some pets that I genuinely just do not see around/didn't see often as an active trader, so I can understand their value increasing slightly over the years ive been here [granted im not sure if its because of hoarding or genuine scarcity], but others like the dragoncat pps have just skyrocketed so fast yet remained at a lesser rarity tag that it just never sat right with me.

agree with lil rascal above. the lack of patience means everyone is feeding the inflated values!!

[mercer]

I have no issue with MA and NON, what I have an issue with is this: the system at play is quite literally just like the metric system. For example:
Every 10 old rares make 1 MA
Every 10 MA make 1 NON

Just like there are 100 centimeters in a meter, there are 100 old rares in 1 NON.

So then, it stands to reason that 0.25 NON is 2.5 MA, and 0.25 MA is 2.5 old rares.

If someone says 0.25 NONs and means 3 MA, it's just bad math, and that is what I think should be addressed above all else.

I just want to repeat this because it was the last post on its page and I'm worried it got missed- and also because this conversation is so far away from where I think it needs to be?

I have nothing against discussing demand vs actual value, but the more this thread focuses on that topic, the more worried I get that we're reaching more into the realm of ideals than attainable goals.