(Announcement Pg 76) Demand Data Cloud

[opalineteardrops]

i just want to jump in - the rares list was originally made to be a guide but was taken as the be all and end all. i have concerns about this doing the same, but i love the idea that the list isnt really a list but a "these pets go above their listed value, click here to see recent trades" (link to the VR/OMGSR successful trade thread) - i think nailing down their 'demand value' could see people beginning to take it as fact, when demand fluctuates a lot.

i like this as it gives an indication of pets that werent prior in the list and notes there is special demand there now.

but i am concerned about the low demand pets being added, as i fear it could result in a grinner situation, where "it's got low demand" is echoed over and over, even though the pet still trades fairly (cucumber, apple, rats all come to mind immediately). as a note, i've already had people quote this list as a reason why they should not play fair when it comes to both the apple and cucumber (not in a 'this has bad demand, im sorry, do you have anything else?' way but a much more abrasive way? i dont know how to explain it and i could use a bit of help here).

i find this ironic as those two are also the pets i have had the most trades for, by far.

[angst]

I'm just throwing out ideas for drastic changes at this point, so feel free to call me out of being too unrealistic.

What if this demand information was communicated in less of a "list" form (which I know you aren't trying to do at all Loelya, but like others have said it's a bit hard to stop people interpreting it that way), and more of a guide as to which pets are trading for their actual "worth" rarity-wise and which pets are trading for more or less due to demand - and provide trade evidence to show those values, like you have been doing. You could also then list store pets separately and only show their current trade value in comparison to general releases. That way it can't be taken as a "list" at face-value, but it still provides the same information. Does that make sense?

I actually like the idea of separating former list pets and store pets.

Like, as it's been said, if the new poll(s) tell us anything about store pets -- it's that the CS community is divided over how to treat them. The seal store pets are no exception. Some people don't count the pets as needed to complete a collection and others do. Some people will always hold the original rares list in their minds as being more important than recent rarity updates/overhauls. Some people just don't care to know store pets "true" worth/value as it may be impossible, and that's okay too.

I don't think it's a bad idea to create a different hierarchy for store pets. I think it'd be a more accurate description of how the CS community is feeling; which is, if I am interpreting this thread correctly, what this post is supposed to do.

[kee;]

I'm just throwing out ideas for drastic changes at this point, so feel free to call me out of being too unrealistic.

What if this demand information was communicated in less of a "list" form (which I know you aren't trying to do at all Loelya, but like others have said it's a bit hard to stop people interpreting it that way), and more of a guide as to which pets are trading for their actual "worth" rarity-wise and which pets are trading for more or less due to demand - and provide trade evidence to show those values, like you have been doing. You could also then list store pets separately and only show their current trade value in comparison to general releases. That way it can't be taken as a "list" at face-value, but it still provides the same information. Does that make sense?

I definitely think that something like this could be a good idea. I don’t think anyone thinks you’re trying to create a new list, but, as others have said, it simply looks like one how it’s currently listed. As others have expressed, I also worry how this could influence values, especially considering its based off of demand and what different pets are seen to be trading for at any given time. Anything that looks like a list could solidify those values, which can be even more problematic since this values aren’t based on the rarity of the pets.
I still think the information here is useful, but I think a reformatting, and something like Aurora has suggested, 100% seems like a good starting point at least to me.

-kee

[FOUND VERDICT]

this "list" was never created to reflect the pets actual worth though, simply what people trade/offer for certain high demand pets. so this list changes according to the current market. i don't think it influences people too much.

it's not meant as an substitute for the rareslist nor is it intended to be used like that.

i think this quote from the front page explains it pretty well

These are popularity values, not real values!

if people want to trade by actual rarity there's the guide to cs rarities too.

[ElementalInsanity]

this "list" was never created to reflect the pets actual worth though, simply what people trade/offer for certain high demand pets. so this list changes according to the current market. i don't think it influences people too much.

it's not meant as an substitute for the rareslist nor is it intended to be used like that.

i think this quote from the front page explains it pretty well

These are popularity values, not real values!

if people want to trade by actual rarity there's the guide to cs rarities too.

That’s what the rares list was originally too. To give a quick glance guide for people to understand what the rarest pets were going for. Mix of rarity, availability, and demand.

I know this guide isn’t meant to replace the list and that Loelya wants to completely get away from being a list but what people are bringing up are very very valid concerns.

Anything in list form like this based on demand can and will have an effect on the market. I’ve found from my own perspective that the rarity lists just don’t have that same effect.
People come to this thread, see something trades for two nons and then want three nons. Etc.
Then people can see ‘trades for two nons even if it’s not worth that’ as the minimum and set in stone.

There were warnings all over the rares list that it was a guide too. It happened with the rares list and so when people are concerned about that it’s understandable.

[kee;]

I agree with what Elemental is saying.
There are disclaimers only this thread as there were on the rares list but, unfortunately, they don’t have the intended effect for everyone who comes across the thread, if everyone were to read them anyways.
That being said, I don’t think the thread should be deleted or the information removed because it can be very useful. However, I think it could be even better if it were structured to look less like a list so that users who take more of a quick glance at it don’t get the wrong idea. That’s where the misconstrued ideas about the intentions of this guide would come.

-kee

[FOUND VERDICT]

i get the concern, but i just don't think you can really compare this "list" to the old rareslist.
it's a lot more flexible, no fix tiers and backed up by the successful trades thread.
we would have to remove that thread then too, as anyone can easily look up trades there. anyone can post, even if their trades don't reflect the actual worth of the pets and rather demand values.

i'm not sure how we could structure this to look less like a list?

[amarok.]

i get the concern, but i just don't think you can really compare this "list" to the old rareslist.
it's a lot more flexible, no fix tiers and backed up by the successful trades thread.
we would have to remove that thread then too, as anyone can easily look up trades there. anyone can post, even if their trades don't reflect the actual worth of the pets and rather demand values.

i'm not sure how we could structure this to look less like a list?

a lot of the old rares list was eventually placed purely on what pets were trading for and as time went on it changed more and more to reflect the trades being made/"demand". that's precisely why it eventually collapsed. i personally think this is comparable in some ways, to be honest (doesn't take rarity into account, constructed to show a lot of info produced by generalised misinformation from the community and the way it ranks pets basically based on people's opinions for better or for worse) but i agree that there's no way to make this look less like a "list" as such. it's an important resource to have and i don't really see the point in taking it down, though i think some of the pets could be placed more accurately. people will largely take this to be a be all and end all anyway, i think, since a lot of people are already calling it that. as long as it's managed responsibly and possibly tweaked to play down extreme/ridiuclous demand outliers i think it could be beneficial. it'd be even better if we can move the cs trading system away from *the ex list based one altogether, as i outlined in a post above somewhere that i'm too tired to find and quote, and then duplicated this to also show the new system as it grows, but even if we can get anywhere with that it's a while down the road.

[FOUND VERDICT]

since someone brought up the idea already, i think it'd help to maybe seperate storepets and others on the front page as a start. maybe including the worth based on the rarity guide for the non stores too, so people can see the actual difference between actual worth and demand

[Aurora Storm]

i get the concern, but i just don't think you can really compare this "list" to the old rareslist.
it's a lot more flexible, no fix tiers and backed up by the successful trades thread.
we would have to remove that thread then too, as anyone can easily look up trades there. anyone can post, even if their trades don't reflect the actual worth of the pets and rather demand values.

i'm not sure how we could structure this to look less like a list?

Well the idea that I had would be to display pets that are trading for their rarity on top of the thread, then pets trading above their worth due to demand, pets trading below their worth, and then notable store pet's current comparable values. It's the same information already shown, just reshuffled so it's not in any kind of list form.

One issue I see us running into is where some pets are worth a "Non", but other pets actually worth the same as Non-dogs aren't in the "Non" category. For example; the Joker Bunny trades for a Non, and it's actually worth that rarity-wise as well, but other pets in that area trade for different values. Here's the section of the OMGSR list with all the Non-dogs:


Nontag = Light Speckled Rat = Medium Speckled Rat = Heavy Speckled Rat = Dark Heart Rat = UR Butterbun
Nonswirl
Sunback = Nonjewel = Joker Bunny = Rainbow Mane
GWJ = Noncoon = Toxic Rat = Lime Ice Rat = Light Pawprint Rat = Dark Pawprint Rat = Light Heart Rat = Blue PPS Dragon = UR Ice Cat

So in there you've got the Sunback which trades for 4 "Nons", Blue PPS Dragon which goes for 1-2, and a bunch of rats which don't reach that value at all unless swapping for other rats. So it could be difficult to explain the difference between "Non" value, and this group of pets surrounding Nons. But I do feel like something written out to clearly show how much demand affects the overall worth of a pet could be beneficial to the community and perhaps help level things out a bit.