*DISCONTINUED* Rares List Guide (1 March 2019)

[Solloby]

Related to the current discussion, one thing I think the Rares List really fails at is valuing quantity. When it comes to the rares list, people value quantity a lot more than quality because with more list pets comes more flexibility to trade. This is why most people want to trade down and barely anyone wants to trade up. This suggests that the rares list is undervaluing lower list pets and overvaluing higher lists pets, aka the gaps are much too large.

Let's take a low demand OMGSR UR pet for example. We are saying they belong above a non in value because they are so rare. According to the gaps list though, a non is worth 3 sorbets, but would anyone actually pay 3 sorbet dogs plus an extra main list pet like a balloon dog, for a low demand OMGSR? I certainly wouldn't, but if I was the one offering the sorbets and balloon I bet my trade centre would be full within minutes.

[Thovatos]

Related to the current discussion, one thing I think the Rares List really fails at is valuing quantity. When it comes to the rares list, people value quantity a lot more than quality because with more list pets comes more flexibility to trade. This is why most people want to trade down and barely anyone wants to trade up. This suggests that the rares list is undervaluing lower list pets and overvaluing higher lists pets, aka the gaps are much too large.

Let's take a low demand OMGSR UR pet for example. We are saying they belong above a non in value because they are so rare. According to the gaps list though, a non is worth 3 sorbets, but would anyone actually pay 3 sorbet dogs plus an extra main list pet like a balloon dog, for a low demand OMGSR? I certainly wouldn't, but if I was the one offering the sorbets and balloon I bet my trade centre would be full within minutes.

While I agree quantity should be valued, I also still have to push away the last thought. While you are correct, I am uncomfortable adding too much demand to the list itself. Since it varies person to person, I feel like adding too much would only make things worse. I do agree in valuing something like quantity, but again, that's a demand based thing as well, considering everyone values quantity differently. How would we measure something that people value vastly different??

[nickjr]

My understanding is that the gaps were pretty well defined before we had a "gaps list" specifically spelled out. The exponential increase in pet value (thank you, that was the wording I was looking for when I wrote my original post) existed before gaps were clearly defined. Due to this, I think it would be best to have it stated clearly by the makers of the guide that the gaps are much smaller if the current list is removed, not just let people imagine that it is a free-for-all. This also ties into having fewer tiers overall.

Yeah, I think the gaps were common before the Gaps List; I really failed at typing my previous post lol I meant to say that the Gaps List made the already big gaps worse because the Gaps List kinda solidified the largeness of the gaps if that makes any sense

Related to the current discussion, one thing I think the Rares List really fails at is valuing quantity. When it comes to the rares list, people value quantity a lot more than quality because with more list pets comes more flexibility to trade. This is why most people want to trade down and barely anyone wants to trade up. This suggests that the rares list is undervaluing lower list pets and overvaluing higher lists pets, aka the gaps are much too large.

Let's take a low demand OMGSR UR pet for example. We are saying they belong above a non in value because they are so rare. According to the gaps list though, a non is worth 3 sorbets, but would anyone actually pay 3 sorbet dogs plus an extra main list pet like a balloon dog, for a low demand OMGSR? I certainly wouldn't, but if I was the one offering the sorbets and balloon I bet my trade centre would be full within minutes.

While I agree quantity should be valued, I also still have to push away the last thought. While you are correct, I am uncomfortable adding too much demand to the list itself. Since it varies person to person, I feel like adding too much would only make things worse. I do agree in valuing something like quantity, but again, that's a demand based thing as well, considering everyone values quantity differently. How would we measure something that people value vastly different??

I think that in this case, taking demand into more consideration means shrinking the gaps at the top of the list. By "adding" demand to quantity and "taking away" demand from a lack of quantity, we would be adding more demand to the pets that are more common and taking away demand from the pets that you're not likely to have a lot of

[Wrigleyc]

I personally think bigger tiers would be beneficial as well, especially where pets are quite close together in worth. It'll make it easier for people to climb the rares list because there'll be more pets to aim for, as opposed to having to search for someone with/willing to trade a small number of certain specific pets in order to avoid under/overpaying by the current gap list's strict outline. (For example, its easier to trade up a Tier 5 Advent + '09 Rares for a Tier 7 Advent because there are so many Tier 7s to aim for, if this makes sense?)
Of course i'm not saying any of the Main List tiers would ever get as big as the Advent List's T5 or T7, but allowing a few more close-in-rarity pets sit together regardless of 'clutter', as well as making the gaps more reasonable, I think would be helpful in making trading easier to get the hang of for newer players and more enjoyable/less stressful even for experienced List traders.

[Thovatos]

I think that in this case, taking demand into more consideration means shrinking the gaps at the top of the list. By "adding" demand to quantity and "taking away" demand from a lack of quantity, we would be adding more demand to the pets that are more common and taking away demand from the pets that you're not likely to have a lot of

No no, I agree with the idea that we should make the tiers bigger, and reducing the number of tiers! I just disagree with the idea that we should somehow make a value on "quantity" as per demand defined on the list.

[3000feet]

Ok guys so I had a thought that maybe this guy should be put on the same tier (advent list tier 1) as the Spiderwing B-wolf. This Pumpkin B-wolf is from the same year, same event, same litter, and is the same rarity (very rare) as the Spiderwing B-wolf so it just seems to make sense.

What do you all think??

Pumpkin Butterfly Wolf

My only question is did it change to VR the same time as the spider wing? If it did then I would agree but if not.... would you be able to find it’s rarity change proof?

That is a very good question and one I am not certain I know the answer to.

Does anyone else know if the Pumpkin B-Wolf changed VR at the same time as the Spiderwing B-wolf? Or does anyone know how I might be able to go about finding out?

[3000feet]

Rarity Changes Archive: VR & OMGsr



- Rare to Very Rare -
[...]
November 2011
Pumpkin Butterfly Wolf
Green-nosed Rainbow Spot
Candycane Tess Horse
Pink April Fools Cat
09 Valentine's White Heart Rat
Cream Gears Bunny
Pink Skull Bunny
Creamsicle Bunny
Spider Butterfly Wolf

So they did change at the same time then? In that case, it really does seem to me like the pumpkin b-wolf should be on the list too. Thank you for the help!! <3

[Mozzy.]

So they did change at the same time then? In that case, it really does seem to me like the pumpkin b-wolf should be on the list too. Thank you for the help!! <3 :D

All of the pets in the quote changed at the same time, yes.

[DaDwarf]

^the pupkin bw was overlooked, it should be added to the spiderwing tier.

I do think weve got bigger things to discuss right now then that butterfly wolf, but if nobody opposes i could go ahead and add it?


Could we run a poll and move all new omg so rares onto.. The gwj tier? (Either as a temp tier or not.) They all changed at the same time and while that does not tell us mcuh in terms of who sits higher, it might be best to not have em sit down at the bottom for too long.

I agree that the list has to look like
Omg
Flunctuating oms
New omgs
Vrs (leavin those like they are now)

I think its important to note that when we did an 08 count of the suns, the sunback and nonjewel were almost the same in numbers, the difference wasnt that large. The sunback was only put higher cause it was more in demand. Itd be cool to stack them together with all fluncuating omg so rares and move the newer one slightly below that.

Im all for removing the gaps list, i never wanted that list because from the start it was said it would tie down trading. And it has, and it does. But the gaps list was def something the community wanted.


So, course of action? It might be best to get to at least doing something with a poll, the longer we wait the longer it takes?

[Mozzy.]

I think it should be added to the same tier, no point in delaying the inevitable.

And I agree that a temporary measure needs to be taken to avoid scamming and confusion. We could add the new omgsr pets to the GWJ tier, drop any vr's above it and go from there to organizing it properly.

And 100% remove the Gaps List. It's an unnecessary headache.