Rares List Discussion *DISCONTINUED*

[12th]

I think the decision to discontinue the rares list may be exactly the catalyst we needed to introduce new methods of valuing pets into the trading community.
With official rarities updating and the list retiring, people are finally starting to re-think pet values, and that's the ideal circumstance to start talking about other outdated standards as well.

I completely agree, I voted to retire the list simply because I wanted to see change. Reading up upon the history of Chicken Smoothie and some of the pet values, I wonder how some of them weren't even placed on the list at all. When I was introduced to the list I was very confused about the layout and how things worked, overtime though I did get used to it but wouldn't have mind if it had went. Overall I felt that the list was biased in certain pet values or it never reflected a pet's actual worth. I often scratched my head in curiosity seeing how an old VR pet would be rarer than an OMGSR one. I found that oddly confusing but with the aid of the new update it really shows and makes trading a lot more easier for the player.

An example of this would be the Raven dog, an advent list pet supposedly. I've often observed auctions for the pet and see the bids in the OMGSR's/'Main lists', which heavily confused me given that it is an 'Advent list' pet. Shouldn't it be worth around an advent if it's placed in that section?

I guess the whole 'x year for your two recent x years' comes from the thinking that every year there would be more people joining, hence more pets being adopted, making the circulation of pets etc.

Trading is going to be hard for now, that's what happens when there's a sudden change but it'll all be worth it in the end. I just hope people are willing to adapt to such change rather than just end up quitting because their pets are deemed 'worthless' without the list now, which I've seen a lot.

[JK341]

An example of this would be the Raven dog, an advent list pet supposedly. I've often observed auctions for the pet and see the bids in the OMGSR's/'Main lists', which heavily confused me given that it is an 'Advent list' pet. Shouldn't it be worth around an advent if it's placed in that section?

I've also witnessed the same thing happening to the black advent as well. Which brings me back to my post earlier about some of those list pets demand being hyperinflated way beyond what i think is reasonable. Of course i also wrote some of that demand off as a good majority of the community being so into spoopy things, as far as the raven goes. c:

Or like the zebras for example, an OMGSR, but from what i hear, they went for WAY less than what one should have expected for an OMGSR.

One other random thing to add in here. I also think it might not have helped that the FTT before the huge update kind of set some of those in stone as well despite what the guide said. Instead of directing users to general values, a lot of it was "this pet for this pet".

[pink]

An example of this would be the Raven dog, an advent list pet supposedly. I've often observed auctions for the pet and see the bids in the OMGSR's/'Main lists', which heavily confused me given that it is an 'Advent list' pet. Shouldn't it be worth around an advent if it's placed in that section?

I've also witnessed the same thing happening to the black advent as well. Which brings me back to my post earlier about some of those list pets demand being hyperinflated way beyond what i think is reasonable. Of course i also wrote some of that demand off as a good majority of the community being so into spoopy things, as far as the raven goes. c:

Or like the zebras for example, an OMGSR, but from what i hear, they went for WAY less than what one should have expected for an OMGSR.

One other random thing to add in here. I also think it might not have helped that the FTT before the huge update kind of set some of those in stone as well despite what the guide said. Instead of directing users to general values, a lot of it was "this pet for this pet".

I agree, though it seems almost *all* storepets have an INSANE ""value"" aka demand, mainly talking about the older ones. The Cerberus goes for a ridiculous amount, red or orange, along with the eat me/drink me, the skelebun, the Raven dog, Patchwork, Marionette etc
They all go for a ridiculous amount due to demand, and some OMGSRs like the rats, zebras and fruits tend to have a bad demand when compared to *lower* advent lists/september lists just because of looks. I feel like due to this discontinuation of the rares list the demand for these pets will just go up because there is no STABLE trading system/value now because of the discontunation of the rares list. I feel like we need some sort of stable structured "guide" just to help people get the idea of what pets are worth so demand of pets will not drop to 0 and some go to 100, it's just not sensible to keep this site without a somewhat structured trading guide when so many people on this site play just to trade.

[Vlad Dracula III]

An example of this would be the Raven dog, an advent list pet supposedly. I've often observed auctions for the pet and see the bids in the OMGSR's/'Main lists', which heavily confused me given that it is an 'Advent list' pet. Shouldn't it be worth around an advent if it's placed in that section?

I've also witnessed the same thing happening to the black advent as well. Which brings me back to my post earlier about some of those list pets demand being hyperinflated way beyond what i think is reasonable. Of course i also wrote some of that demand off as a good majority of the community being so into spoopy things, as far as the raven goes. c:

Or like the zebras for example, an OMGSR, but from what i hear, they went for WAY less than what one should have expected for an OMGSR.

One other random thing to add in here. I also think it might not have helped that the FTT before the huge update kind of set some of those in stone as well despite what the guide said. Instead of directing users to general values, a lot of it was "this pet for this pet".

I agree, though it seems almost *all* storepets have an INSANE ""value"" aka demand, mainly talking about the older ones. The Cerberus goes for a ridiculous amount, red or orange, along with the eat me/drink me, the skelebun, the Raven dog, Patchwork, Marionette etc
They all go for a ridiculous amount due to demand, and some OMGSRs like the rats, zebras and fruits tend to have a bad demand when compared to *lower* advent lists/september lists just because of looks. I feel like due to this discontinuation of the rares list the demand for these pets will just go up because there is no STABLE trading system/value now because of the discontunation of the rares list. I feel like we need some sort of stable structured "guide" just to help people get the idea of what pets are worth so demand of pets will not drop to 0 and some go to 100, it's just not sensible to keep this site without a somewhat structured trading guide when so many people on this site play just to trade.

U would not believe what I had to pay to get most my older store pets yet surprisingly the red Cerberus I got for a fair trade

[Jeandark]

I'm sorry, I just have to ask. What is the UR tiger?

I didn't know the list was cancelled, but I think it's quite good and better for the trading. As it is now it's hard to trade, and I have a really hard time to know what to accept for my "list" pets. Also, isn't the list more or less depending on higher members on the site?

I think pets should be traded for rarity and age.

[Catsrock237]

I'm sorry, I just have to ask. What is the UR tiger?

I didn't know the list was cancelled, but I think it's quite good and better for the trading. As it is now it's hard to trade, and I have a really hard time to know what to accept for my "list" pets. Also, isn't the list more or less depending on higher members on the site?

I think pets should be traded for rarity and age.

This pet released in 2010* under the “special release” tag

[musicgurl333]

With official rarities updating and the list retiring, people are finally starting to re-think pet values, and that's the ideal circumstance to start talking about other outdated standards as well.

I really think it would solve a lot of issues if people became generally more flexible with age-based values.
The rarity math of "[year] rare = 2 [newer year] rares" causes this exponential mess where people have to fork over tons of new rares for a single old one, but if we even just widened the age range there it'd make that problem a lot less severe.
I think the new rarity update has adjusted rarities enough to make trades like "a 2010 rare for two 2013 rares" possible and okay to do. It may feel weird to think about because we're so used to something different, but... would a 2013 rare really be worth that much less? I don't really think we need to be that rigid about years any more that a rare from 2010 would end up costing double-digit rares from last year, and think what Zetirian brought up about "double the value at a x year gap" is way more reasonable than doubling the value for every.single.year.

Agreed. I'd like to see this standard updated as well. Same with "1 rare = 1 uncommon two years older." I see that a lot, but almost no one actually trades that way. Maybe if the uncommon had some special demand, but otherwise few people are willing to swap a rare for a single uncommon that's only two years older.

[nickjr]

Also a lot of valuations seem to be made in "09 rares". Um, most of those are VR now, as they should be.
What does 09 rare even mean anymore??
Are non-list pet valuations out of date also???
*EXISTENTIAL CRISIS*

-SCREAMS- I'VE BEEN WONDERING THE SAME THING FOR YEARS AND NO ONE GAVE ME A SATISFYING ANSWER WHEN I ASKED ON THE RARES LIST THREAD I AM SO GLAD I'M NOT ALONE

I really think it would solve a lot of issues if people became generally more flexible with age-based values.
The rarity math of "[year] rare = 2 [newer year] rares" causes this exponential mess where people have to fork over tons of new rares for a single old one, but if we even just widened the age range there it'd make that problem a lot less severe.
I think the new rarity update has adjusted rarities enough to make trades like "a 2010 rare for two 2013 rares" possible and okay to do. It may feel weird to think about because we're so used to something different, but... would a 2013 rare really be worth that much less? I don't really think we need to be that rigid about years any more that a rare from 2010 would end up costing double-digit rares from last year, and think what Zetirian brought up about "double the value at a x year gap" is way more reasonable than doubling the value for every.single.year.

Every time I see someone understand the exponents my heart sings

There is no purpose to this post I just felt the need to scream how vindicated I feel

I wonder if anyone's down for a linear kind of value growth

like +1 pet per year, not x2 pets per year

or I guess that's kinda extreme so maybe +1 pet per 2 years? idk

I'm just preparing for CS to survive 30 years don't mind me

[Solloby]

What can we do about this though? Aside from posting on the FTT every time someone says something of one rarity is worth something of a lesser rarity due to age. Maybe we need to retire FTT and create a new thread with the front page providing a basic description of rarity tags that explains you look at them first, THEN year of release, plus check for Dec 18/24 dates. Maybe a slight name change like "Is my Trade Fair?" To prompt people to read the new front page. Idk just a suggestion, I don't really know how to highlight to such a large community that hey, the rarity system changed, you need to change how you look at them now!

Edit: or even just posting a short PSA post on every FTT page for a bit highlighting the rarity system has changed and the old 09 rare thing is out of date. Would that be easier?

[nickjr]

I swear to god at some point last year the FTT was in fact renamed to the "Is My Trade Fair" thread or something

I even abbreviated it to IMFT but it didn't catch on