Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[sky,]

so, commenting and reigning in the first post a little, I think that the real 'problem' lies in :

1 ) how we value .25 non pets

I think that most of you guys have said it, but I 100% agree that the value should be shifted to something that is more mathematically correct. If horrors list 'stacks' MAs in that manner, it should reflect it. Unfortunately, this will be tough because traders have been using this to build value in their pets since the new list came around. Trading down their 1 Non pets to then flip and make .5 + nons in profit just from that discrepancy. Having .25 Nons be 2-2.5MAs would completely solve this on the guide. Now, it will just be up to the community to follow that standard.. the only way stuff like that changes is if we value our own pets with that same concept.. (I am tired of seeing traders - specifically big list traders - valuing their pets at almost double the price they will 'give' when trading for the pet. I am not against hoarding, whatsoever. I used to be a list hoarder... but when people are hoarding with the goal to corner the market and price gauge the living heck out of pets, that is only going to hurt the economy. With that being said, I worry that if this change is actually made, there will be those that have a free for all to jack up values even more. Telling users that the value has changed and it is worth 2-2.5MA, but throwing them in their trade group at 4MA... (definitely not pointed at anyone specific. I have come across a lot of very honest traders.. most of them having commented on this thread. c: ) That being said, the real change starts with us.

2 ) C$

I am 100% against raising the C$ values on the guide. they have already almost doubled in the last couple of years... This actually ties into the whole .25non thing and down to as low as even .5MA. 1MA is listed at 300-350C$.. but if you look at most traders, they are trading their storepets/truedate MAs for 400-450C$ for 1 MA. For a new user, they see 350C$ costs 20 dollars. So one pet would be worth 20+ dollars to even get on the 'list' in a relatively significant way. That is just insane. You also see the monopoly on C$ pouring into users who trade down their Nons for 10MA. (I know this because I used to trade this way and i called it my 'hack' c: I just don't have the patience anymore) Flip 10MA at 300 a piece, you are profiting by 1kC$... sell for 400C$ and you're profiting by 2kC$... See what i'm saying? Pricing 1MA at 300C$ is not remotely mathematically correct. And I know there is a small space in the C$ post that says 'C$ doesn't stack like MAs do" well.. you, me, and everyone else does stack it that way. It goes to show in the 1200-1500C$ .5 nons and whatnot being listed now. For .5 MA, same thing. Listed at 150C$-200C$-250C$... 50C$ away from 1 MA?

Here me out. What if instead of jacking up 1 Non to 3kC$, we lower the MA price to 200C$ - 250C$. This way, you can actually accurately stack C$ up to 2kC$ or 2,500C$ on the high end. Yes, this would make people lose out on their previous profits for a little while, but it would get the economy back on track and make trading up more obtainable and less 'inflated' in regards to C$.

So it would look something like this : (just a thought.. not an actual proposal. I just wanted to get the ball rolling)

.5 MA - 100-150C$ ? (that one I am still trying to figure out because it still has the same issue... but it would derail all the other C$ values below it. idk.)
1 MA - 200-250
.25MA (2-2.5-3MA) - 400-600C$
.5MA (5MA) - 800-1200C$
.75MA (7MA) - 1400 - 1750C$
1 Non - 2000 - 2500C$

It wouldn't be that drastic of a change to the current economy, but it would just scale down the C$ inflation overall. c:


Another thing to note. I think the .5non and .25 non values are way too 'close' right now. If .25 non is currently valued at 3-4 MA, but .5 is 5MA... that is only one MA from being .5 non. You see this specifically with C$ values. A lot of 2MA-4MA pets are being valued at anywhere from 500C$ (which is a true .25non) - 800C$ or even 1kC$? It makes no sense.

I hope all of this made sense c: Let me know if it doesn't

[Bluefly26799]

so, commenting and reigning in the first post a little, I think that the real 'problem' lies in :

1 ) how we value .25 non pets

I think that most of you guys have said it, but I 100% agree that the value should be shifted to something that is more mathematically correct. If horrors list 'stacks' MAs in that manner, it should reflect it. Unfortunately, this will be tough because traders have been using this to build value in their pets since the new list came around. Trading down their 1 Non pets to then flip and make .5 + nons in profit just from that discrepancy. Having .25 Nons be 2-2.5MAs would completely solve this on the guide. Now, it will just be up to the community to follow that standard.. the only way stuff like that changes is if we value our own pets with that same concept.. (I am tired of seeing traders - specifically big list traders - valuing their pets at almost double the price they will 'give' when trading for the pet. I am not against hoarding, whatsoever. I used to be a list hoarder... but when people are hoarding with the goal to corner the market and price gauge the living heck out of pets, that is only going to hurt the economy. With that being said, I worry that if this change is actually made, there will be those that have a free for all to jack up values even more. Telling users that the value has changed and it is worth 2-2.5MA, but throwing them in their trade group at 4MA... (definitely not pointed at anyone specific. I have come across a lot of very honest traders.. most of them having commented on this thread. c: ) That being said, the real change starts with us.

I think just to clear up that confusion for you as I understand why if that’s a worry on your mind this idea doesn’t work. I’m not suggesting pets currently called 0.25 stay there. A majority of pets called 0.25 non actually trade for 3/4 ma anyways so that would be reflected it what they’re changed too. There’s very few pets that are actually 2.5 ma as we don’t really work that way. Heck even 0.75 non is usually 7 ma or 8 depending on the player it’s usually just due to demand you add that 0.5 ma in IMO

There wouldn’t be a free for all in the slightest, it’s not hard rn to gauge where values should be, we’re all doing already. Just unspoken and to people’s benefit to let them gain profit. I’m not suggesting at all we add any value to any pet, it really needs to me be more a reflection in shifting pets down. The reason we haven’t already is that while they’re below their current tier value they’re not low enough to move down to the next so they get stuck in this bad demand limbo


I’ve come across a lot of honest traders too, but I have came across just as many dishonest ones and I’ll be honest about that. This change would definitely make it harder to manipulate values to peoples gain



The C$ proposal was more of a side thought to the idea, it’s for sure not something I think is the end result point of being brought up lol. I don’t know what the right move with C$ is but by theory for putting it how I did is that then it allows for C$ to stack a little easier. I don’t think now it’s inflated we will be able to bring prices back down unless there was a major change and a lot of funds became unusable for example very expensive pets from the cs store. With the current amount if C$ available it just wouldn’t need to go back down. People are affording current prices and tbh easily which is why we’re seeing it inflate so much


C$ is just like a pet it has demand. Rn demand is low hence people overpay to get what they want, most ma pets which are TD are actually valued at 1.5-2 ma which will be why they’re getting sold for over an ma in C$. Same for store pets. The demand is to a point you would struggle to take that same C$ and buy the same pet back elsewhere. It’s got to be worth your while to sell things rn. Just as it would have to be worth your while to trade for low demand and that’s done by overpaying


To be clear though I’m super open to ideas on the C$ side of things, I just don’t think now unless there’s a drain on the C$ supply you’re going to be able to bring it down again as pets are still buying and selling for these prices

[sunka]

i would agree that raising c$ prices only makes more greed and value pushing. if we keep 1 non = 2000c$ and we utilize the same math we do for ma to non conversions, that means every ma would be equal to 200c$ (or something around there) which makes more sense than the current system where ma’s can go for 300-450+. i think the biggest issue is the push back, but if we put it into perspective here it makes sense. if we redefine the terms we use, reclassify pets that don’t trade for their value to something more appropriate and then redefine c$ terms, at least then there is a clear and concise guide to use which makes sense.

if we were to stick with this, trading would be at least more simple practically. 1 non = 10 ma = 100 old rares = 2000c$.
which would mean: .5 non = 5 ma = 50 old rares = 1000c$
which would then mean: .1 non = 1 ma = 10 old rares = 200c$
and moving up and down from there would be a lot more simple if everything made sense and flowed together. you could use whatever terms and form of measure you wanted, but it would all make sense and be easier to understand.

doesn’t mean it needs to be law, or the end all be all. a guide that can move, grow and change with the economy and demand is more beneficial than a guide that sits still and doesn’t change as it’s needed to. at the end of the day, i think it’s easy to say there are some major flaws with just about every aspect of high value trading right now. but i think these discussions are necessary in order to find a path forward and see what can be fixed and changed and what is okay to stay put for now.

[sky,]

-snip-

I think just to clear up that confusion for you as I understand why if that’s a worry on your mind this idea doesn’t work. I’m not suggesting pets currently called 0.25 stay there. A majority of pets called 0.25 non actually trade for 3/4 ma anyways so that would be reflected it what they’re changed too. There’s very few pets that are actually 2.5 ma as we don’t really work that way. Heck even 0.75 non is usually 7 ma or 8 depending on the player it’s usually just due to demand you add that 0.5 ma in IMO

There wouldn’t be a free for all in the slightest, it’s not hard rn to gauge where values should be, we’re all doing already. Just unspoken and to people’s benefit to let them gain profit. I’m not suggesting at all we add any value to any pet, it really needs to me be more a reflection in shifting pets down. The reason we haven’t already is that while they’re below their current tier value they’re not low enough to move down to the next so they get stuck in this bad demand limbo


I’ve come across a lot of honest traders too, but I have came across just as many dishonest ones and I’ll be honest about that. This change would definitely make it harder to manipulate values to peoples gain



The C$ proposal was more of a side thought to the idea, it’s for sure not something I think is the end result point of being brought up lol. I don’t know what the right move with C$ is but by theory for putting it how I did is that then it allows for C$ to stack a little easier. I don’t think now it’s inflated we will be able to bring prices back down unless there was a major change and a lot of funds became unusable for example very expensive pets from the cs store. With the current amount if C$ available it just wouldn’t need to go back down. People are affording current prices and tbh easily which is why we’re seeing it inflate so much


C$ is just like a pet it has demand. Rn demand is low hence people overpay to get what they want, most ma pets which are TD are actually valued at 1.5-2 ma which will be why they’re getting sold for over an ma in C$. Same for store pets. The demand is to a point you would struggle to take that same C$ and buy the same pet back elsewhere. It’s got to be worth your while to sell things rn. Just as it would have to be worth your while to trade for low demand and that’s done by overpaying


To be clear though I’m super open to ideas on the C$ side of things, I just don’t think now unless there’s a drain on the C$ supply you’re going to be able to bring it down again as pets are still buying and selling for these prices

I can see where you are coming from. However, formulating the guide itself around value pushing itself will just not be something I will agree with. (I was honestly just trying to build off of your original idea and point out that there are more flaws to the math than originally stated. In the guide, not your post. c: ) The way .25n stands (which is now slowly merging into .5non because the gap between .5 non and .25MA is so small), will eventually create another 'gap'. Which is what we all didn't like about the old list. People will be able to get MAs fine... but trading up to .25MA will become a lot harder because, even though the values on the demand guide obviously factor demand in, people will still stack another MA, or 2 MA, or 3.... There is no controlling that. But having that on the actual guide is not a good idea. I don't really care about the terminology of it all. Regardless, as it stands, you can still break down 'nons' into MAs. 3 nons = 30MA tradedown. I liked the 'pennies to a dollar' reference made in prior posts. I don't really think the term 'non' is anything more than a reference for 10MA at this point and I'm not really stuck on the terminology. So I neither agree nor disagree with getting rid of the 'non'. I don't think it would make much of a difference overall c:

I think you're misunderstanding when I say a free for all. I was talking about the idea to make .25 = 2-2.5 MA (that was not my original idea, it was just something I commented on from one of the other pages of this thread). The 'free for all' would be when people get those pets that are now '2-2.5 MA' and flip them for 3-4MA. That is a hypothetical, but putting that in there was more of an annoyance than anything. Not even that long ago, I had users trying to tell me that my pets were worth less than they were.. ("I only value this pet at 'x'") only to see the same pet in their trading groups for .5-1 non higher than what they said they value it at. I don't know if that makes sense? But it is kind of besides the point. That part was more of a rant than anything. c:

I agree with you on the fact that the 'bad demand' pets should be moved down. I think I said it in my other post, but that has my full support. The values proven by years of trade data should be written in stone rather than as just a subjective indicator of demand. It is proven and can be referenced.

I think we agree with the issues, but we just have different opinions on how to go about it. C$ construct has been a debated for a long time. At the very least, we can try fix the stacking issue. There is no reason, after a decade of trading lists (I had an old account in 2014-2016), there has been no change on how C$ is referenced. But there has been three different trading systems (I think). Despite whether I agree with moving the values up to 3kC$=1 non or not, factoring in how much C$ actually costs on the site should be considered. The cost of C$ does not reflect player demand, nor inflation. Right now, 2000 C$ (or 1 non) is over 50 dollars. Which is still high, in my opinion, but I digress. c: If we were to move it up to 3kC$, it would be over 80 dollars. People will price their pets at what they price them at, there is no control over that. But if we do that, like someone said, those who already price their nons at 3kC$, will only have more reasonable grounds to price them at 4kC$. I don't think this will solve anything but benefit players who have a monopoly on valuable pets for sale. I actually disagree that the demand is low for C$ right now. Most are looking for it right now, most are trying to obtain it.

The whole point of having a guide is to make trading more accessible to people trying to trade or learn about the trading system. Making stuff more expensive, essentially, doesn't solve the underlying problem.

i would agree that raising c$ prices only makes more greed and value pushing. if we keep 1 non = 2000c$ and we utilize the same math we do for ma to non conversions, that means every ma would be equal to 200c$ (or something around there) which makes more sense than the current system where ma’s can go for 300-450+. i think the biggest issue is the push back, but if we put it into perspective here it makes sense. if we redefine the terms we use, reclassify pets that don’t trade for their value to something more appropriate and then redefine c$ terms, at least then there is a clear and concise guide to use which makes sense.

if we were to stick with this, trading would be at least more simple practically. 1 non = 10 ma = 100 old rares = 2000c$.
which would mean: .5 non = 5 ma = 50 old rares = 1000c$
which would then mean: .1 non = 1 ma = 10 old rares = 200c$
and moving up and down from there would be a lot more simple if everything made sense and flowed together. you could use whatever terms and form of measure you wanted, but it would all make sense and be easier to understand.

doesn’t mean it needs to be law, or the end all be all. a guide that can move, grow and change with the economy and demand is more beneficial than a guide that sits still and doesn’t change as it’s needed to. at the end of the day, i think it’s easy to say there are some major flaws with just about every aspect of high value trading right now. but i think these discussions are necessary in order to find a path forward and see what can be fixed and changed and what is okay to stay put for now.

I completely agree! This is what these threads are for c: And having the C$ values stack that way would accurately reflect how MAs stack. Everything would be pretty and flush c:

I would love something that benefits everyone.

[Nahida]

Let's not go on a tangent here, we are dealing with two separate issues.

Firstly, value range bracket needs to be narrowed. (No worries - agreed.)

Secondly, from what sky and sunka said in the two posts above - you are proposing for a c$ system that stacks in nons and MAs. For me, this complain about the c$ system is showing a lack of consideration and depth.

I've collated a very concise list of money-making guide on CS through trading here.

I can see where the frustration is, being 1 nonjewel = 2,000c$ and 10MA being 3,000c$.

But come on! It's not at all easy to collect 2,000c$ for a non - let alone then trading it down to 10 MA (to generate 3,000c$). It takes HOURS if not DAYS or WEEKS to do this.

Have you thought about why do so many people prefer to sell directly for c$ than to trade down albeit copping a loss?

The answer is time. And time is money. They save time, but you - who have time - gets money from trading down.

If you're pushing to stack c$ so that 1 non is 3,000 c$ I'd say that's utterly worsening our situation. There IS a reason why a UR Pastel for 30 MA does not sell at 9,000c$. Once again - why would people give upfront c$ (that costs real money), and spend time on, something that is utterly not profitable?

People game for fun, eat to live. There is a purpose for everything - and our current system will only get worse in c$ stacking.

Thanks

[Veneti]

So I've randomly addressed several issues I've seen across this discussion from my own perspective.

0.25N to 3-4 is based on the older system the older players had in place where 1N = 10-12MA
Which in my opinion, since I wasn't there was for the demand. Both pets were categorized as 0.25N but demand and rarity either pushed the pet to 4MA or 3MA.

Taking NON out of the equation altogether would help newer players integrate into the current value system people are using now. It will also completely eliminate the issues with the 0.25N equals 3-4MA issue the older players have. Then the Kitsune or WWA which are both 0.25N would respectively be 3-4MA.
Which for the issue of 0.25N = 3-4MA
It should be stated that 0.25N = 2.5MA
And for those pets worth 3-4MA they are 0.3N and 0.4N

The proposed system will help newer players adjust to trading. When I try and explain 1N = 10MA = 100 old rares many newer players get lost so completely removing 1N we have 1MA = 10 old rares which I believe would drastically help the newer players understand the perceived values.

BUT I believe taking NON out for good might be disadvantageous due to the higher valued pets.
The pets that are higher than 1000MA are the skelebun and o. cerb (through trade data)
Which 10N just sounds so much better and it's easier on the eyes.

I agree that the UR banana and BA are great examples of the gap between demand and value. Personally I haven't ever traded UR banana for a BA or a nontag, but I have traded them for a Nick Unicorn and such, which all equal 1N. Which 1N back then would equal 10-12 MA So I assume Nick Unicorn and Banana are 10 MA while BA would be geared more towards 12 MA And in this new metric system that means. The BA is 1.2N which I can agree to. This keeps the Banana at 1N and Unicorn at 1N but raises the BA to 1.2N I believe the Noncoon and Nontag would sit around the 1.1N or 11MA. Just because a pet is sits on the same 'value' scope as the others doesn't mean it has demand to be traded for the other similar 'value' pets. If a pet cant 1:1 trade with another in that group they are not worth the same. Either by demand or rarity

Demand will always change for pets, whether we put a 'standard' value on them or not. The system for changing to direct more towards MA will help curb the jumps for more stabilized pets Example PPS UR Dragon was 2N then jumped to 2.5N that's a 5 MA jump. So perhaps if we change to the MA system the 20 MA UR would have gone up slowly 21 MA to 22 MA. Simplifying the terminology would also create a more stable basis for pets to gradually raise in value.

I will argue both sides here.

• I agree c$ needs to stack.
  1N = 10 MA and the c$ price should reflect that.
  
  
  There is NOT a shortage of c$
  Users are easily able to make massive amount of c$ with c$ shops
  Help reduce a capitalistic approach
  Reduce regret of users
  This is how it works with trading pets, so why would it be different with c$
  It would make off-site trading as not a means to extort value from other players
  
  Users will buy (High Value/List) pets at a scaled c$ price
  Example: Buying a (BEG) Black-Eyed Galaxy for 3000c$, which at c$ 2000c$ = 1N value is fair
  BUT if you trade down that to 15 MA and sell the MA for individualized prices 350-400c$ (Using these prices due to current c$ shops)
  It would equal to 3500c$ - 4000c$
  The person who originally sold the BEG at 3000c$ would NOT be able to buy the same worth in pets unless they buy another high list pet
  
  Whoever uses this, I don't see them ever selling List pets 0.5MA+.. why because it's not profitable
  Eventually no one will want to sell their higher List pets. Which in that case people will offer higher and high c$ amounts.
  
  How c$ is valued a big reason it's so easy to price gouge atm.
  Because 1N is 2000c$ but 10MA is 3500-4000c$ people are willing to pay usually up to 3000c$ for a 1N high demand pet. Which in that case makes people believe the 1N pet moved up to 1.5N.
  
  Using the stacked c$ structure both the 1.5N dog would equal the same as 15MA in c$
  
• I disagree c$ needs to stay the way it is
  1N = 10MA but the c$ cannot reflect that.
  
  
  It is harder to get massive amounts of c$ than is it to get smaller quantities.
  
  Example: if 1N is now 3000c$ the and 1 MA equal 300c$ there's no room for people to up their value. This will limit pets going back into the community.
  
  Example: The bulk traders make it allot easier for newer players to be able to get a 1MA pet. xVUC for a Warrior (where x equals amount of VUC). This makes them very appealing to both older and newer players. Older to get rid of all their VUC for a warrior and newer to be able to feasibly afford a warrior. Which is only available due to the c$ pricing as it is.
  
  If the c$ is stacked this will only make players price gouge more and inflate values to more extreme heights.
  All players want to get 'lists' and achieve their dreamie. If the 1N = 2000c$ is changed it's no longer an achievable dream through most means. So I can see more pets being sold for higher amounts to compensate.

But my overall opinion on that matter is that c$ should stack.

There is an issue with stores being steadily raised and people always have them at a higher c$ rate then the 60c$ 2 rares equals. Which means stores are NOT 2 rares in the communities eyes.
Example from Horror's thread

[ 2023 Store Pets ] === 1 Old Rare === 50-60C$
[ 2022 Store Pets ] === 1 Old Rare === 60-70C$
[ 2021 Store Pets ] === 2 Old Rares === 70-80C$
[ 2020 Store Pets ] === 2 Old Rares === 90-120C$

2023 Stores should be valued at 2 old rares
2022 Stores should be valued at 3 old rares
2021 Stores should be valued at 4 old rares
and 2020 Stores should be valued at 5 for the c$ to make more sense.

The store problem isn't necessarily that they are pushing 1 old rare to 70c$ or that 1MA is 400-450c$. The problem is that these values haven't been revamped in so long. Why are 2013 stores still 1MA if people are now valuing the stores at 450c$. Then they should be pushed up to 1.5MA which at 300c$ = 1MA equal 450c$

Stores are always going to go up and yes that means the raven valued at 7N currently might go for 10N as the community standard soon. There is a reason why these stores are not counted towards a complete collection.

[lil rascal]

I have no problem with discarding the term Non. Non and MA are leftover terms from the old Rares list that have lost their original meaning. I do have a problem with using the change in terminology to add or subtract from existing recognised values. That is something that should be decided by users as a whole, not slipped in under the guise of making trading easier to understand.

As far as C$ goes, as someone who has had an old rare C$ store for many many years I find the claim that C$ is easy to get very strange.

In my experience, unless you’re selling OMGSRs or extremely high demand pets, C$ has never been harder to trade for. I grew a big percentage of my CS wealth by buying low demand high lists back when people claimed no one wanted to sell lists for C$, trading them down to bulk ‘09 Rares back when very few would trade off list and selling those Rares for C$. It was easy to sell them as very few would take C$ for old Rares at the time. These days everyone is trying to sell everything for C$ and it’s finding someone willing to just do a pet trade that is hard! Rares and VRs no longer fly off the shelf and I can’t imagine anyone is making much C$ on pets lower than rare.

Yes there is plenty of C$ being thrown at high rarity or extremely high demand pets but not for most other pets.

[himarry 124]

I have no problem with discarding the term Non. Non and MA are leftover terms from the old Rares list that have lost their original meaning. I do have a problem with using the change in terminology to add or subtract from existing recognised values. That is something that should be decided by users as a whole, not slipped in under the guise of making trading easier to understand.

As far as C$ goes, as someone who has had an old rare C$ store for many many years I find the claim that C$ is easy to get very strange.

In my experience, unless you’re selling OMGSRs or extremely high demand pets, C$ has never been harder to trade for. I grew a big percentage of my CS wealth by buying low demand high lists back when people claimed no one wanted to sell lists for C$, trading them down to bulk ‘09 Rares back when very few would trade off list and selling those Rares for C$. It was easy to sell them as very few would take C$ for old Rares at the time. These days everyone is trying to sell everything for C$ and it’s finding someone willing to just do a pet trade that is hard! Rares and VRs no longer fly off the shelf and I can’t imagine anyone is making much C$ on pets lower than rare.

Yes there is plenty of C$ being thrown at high rarity or extremely high demand pets but not for most other pets.

I don't agree with the "we should raise the value of non in C$" part of the post I just am advocating that we stop revering to things as 0.25n (I am advocating we consider certain pets at a lower value but that's a whole different discussion.) on the topic of selling pets for C$ I sell commons at 1 C$ each all the time higher lists def make more C$ faster but its not difficult with under rare either.

[lil rascal]

^ That’s great that you find it rewarding to sell pets at 1C$ each but it supports what I was trying to say. If C$ was so easy to get and in such low demand as people say then nobody (or at least no established player) would bother putting in the time and effort to gain just 1C$ at a time. The fact that so many players prefer to take the time and effort to trade even their low rarity pets for C$ rather pets indicates C$ is in high demand, not low

[himarry 124]

^ That’s great that you find it rewarding to sell pets at 1C$ each but it supports what I was trying to say. If C$ was so easy to get and in such low demand as people say then nobody (or at least no established player) would bother putting in the time and effort to gain just 1C$ at a time. The fact that so many players prefer to take the time and effort to trade even their low rarity pets for C$ rather pets indicates C$ is in high demand, not low

C$ is really good to get random wl rares and stuff like that it's kinda difficult to get high lists for C$ apart from events my sisters use C$ for their collection. C$ is high demand due to store pets but low demand concerning lists above 2 ma