Dates don't matter that much campaign!

[Bilaz]

Now this is a bit risky I know, and I'm not sure how popular this idea will be but I do think it's worth a try
Some discussion in this and this thread led me to make a post here but I believe the topic is better suited for it's own thread, to quote myself:

Also this is a random thought and I apologise if it's not as relevant to the topic as I think it is but...
I do feel that one of the reasons the site is feeling stale are the fact that new pets are so undervalued.
We get a *lot* of new content if you think about it, and it's all beautiful art, but it's all seen as 'monthlies' or worse: 'event rares' (I bet the very rare space event rat is way harder to find than a lot of 09 rares but it's newish and a rat so nobody cares).
This makes it feel like we're being tossed crumbs every month while actually they are very beautiful works of art, just as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. So people show up, adopt the new pets, know they aren't 'valuable' so either swap around until they've completed the collection or just wait until the new month and repeat.

Idk how we can drum up excitement for the new pets, because they truly are wonderful, and maybe this post doesn't make as much sense as I think it does but... People aren't really looking at their pets as pets anymore, it's new collections. I think adding some *really* rare new outcomes can help, like the August PPS and stuff did, idk?

that was more the work of the select few who controlled the rares list and pet worth threads, the idea that a 2010 uncommon = 2011 rare is nonsense, but it's been used for so long that it's just a commonly accepted scam. That's why newer pets are often disregarded so quickly, so I'm afraid that isn't something for the staff to fix but us.

people are always looking for the next big thing, the august PPS was catastrophic to the economy when it was released because of it's "demand" and caused a lot of tension and anger, I fear another like it won't be released to preserve any sense of peace.

Ah damn... I see it yes. Yeah I do agree that this is an issue for us as a community but I believe we can pitch in ourselves to help save the site too. I believe that aside from the lack of quality of life updates that we ourselves have made the trading game stale!
Also thank you for the information on the August PPS, I wasn't there at the time so I do understand why they didn't repeat that.
The rarity list is a good way to start, and perhaps if more and more people agree with me (fun fact I was defending the older years being worth more thing just a week or less ago! But after a few quantitive experiments it seemed not to make much of a difference at all)
Maybe this is getting off topic, but since the people here all care for the future of the site, perhaps we can't start a 'dates don't matter that much' campaign, I know I'm going to be adding it to my trade rules now

I think I'll make a seperate thread for this though

Maybe something could be done here? I already put a note in *my* trade rules, but it can only help if we decide to do this together
I'm interested in hearing your opinions

I'm not saying they should be equal but maybe less drastic? Maybe 4 recent rares for an old one? I don't know, this doubling every year makes even recent very rares almost worthless which will definitely make the site less interesting for new players as nothing they can adopt themselves will ever be seen as valuable

For the record this isn't me complaining about not having good pets, I know it can look that way considering I joined in 2016 but I just care about this site. I've already gotten everything I want so I'm really not doing this for me

Edit for clarity: I'm not saying dates don't matter, I'm saying dates don't matter that much
A lot of people double the amount of pets per year, and that means you'd have to pay 16 2020 uncommons to just get something from 2016. I don't believe this is fair, I believe you should be able to straight swap them. Yes, a 2011 uncommon is more likely to go rare, so giving like 4 2020 uncommons for one is fine imo, but the amount of quantity being asked for it a bit over the top

[Demonking Urizen]

I agree with this post so much.
Dates should matter but when trading actively you should also consider that quantity might have another weight.

Let's give an example.

A 2011 rare would be worth 18 (!) rares of the year 2020 if you use the 2:1 per year rule. And let's be honest here: who is willing to pay that much for another pet? This math was one of the reasons why the Rares List was so massively flawed. No one had 1.8k 2009 rares for a Non on hand.

In my eyes quantity should always have another weight that the pure rarity.

Let's keep it simple: a 2011 rare =/= 18 2020 rares.
I think most people would be okay if a 2011 = 6-7 2020 rares.

So we keep the math kinda in mind but also value the matter of quantity in a trade.

To bring another personal example:
I am actively trading down older rares (2010 / 2011) for recent hoard pets.
Considering the math a 2010 rare would be 80 (> eighty <) 2020 uncommons!
That is something nobody would do, honestly - I wouldn't either.

[Bilaz]

Thank you very much for the response!
Another interesting thing is that according to some small experiments in the CS rarity calculator thing: for free pets (not store pets), the availability seems more dependant on if they were mass hoarded (like, record list level hoarded) or not vs what date they are! This is excluding 2010 uncommons on the brink of turning rare

[Seasonal]

Personally, I don't think dates matter anymore.

I think this is a really common idea that we've all subscribed to, but if you actually think about it, dates only make sense within the same rarity label. A 2008 VR is probably worth more than a 2020 VR, but we have no way of knowing that. Dates were really important when a majority of pets were uncommon, but the rarity updates have balanced out the rarity labels more evenly across the board. We know that a rare pet is more valuable than an uncommon pet regardless of the year it was released. And I definitely followed that "old pets are automatically worth more" mindset for years, but it just doesn't make sense!

I love getting rares in the monthly outcomes because they shake everything up and add some harmless chaos. Getting the axolotl PPS in March was fun and it's something novel because it doesn't happen that often. I'll admit that I definitely de-value event rares in my head because they're "common rares" and I don't want to trade my "not common rares" for them.

[Wookieinmashoo]

I think most people would be okay if a 2011 = 6-7 2020 rares.

I wouldn't even do that. Dates only indicate two things:
1. Older pets are likely in a "forever home" so there will be less in circulation.
2. Older pets are more likely to be on the higher end of their rarity scale. But honestly we can't even see where they are on the scale so for all we know some older pets could just as likely be on the lower end.

Dates matter to only a small extent. I try to trade within a pet's (or item's) year and not deviate from that. Never should an older uncommon be worth a recent rare or some thing like that. That's so weird.

[Poultry Milkshake]

When you offer even 2 current rares for a 2011 uncommon, statistically even if the 2011 is a high uncommon and "turns rare" it is still technically worth less than the two rares. This is because the amount of active accounts with the said pet determines rarity, so it wouldn't make sense for an uncommon to be worth more if there's more in circulation (even if it is older). However, if we are trading a matching rarity like uncommons, something like 2-3 current uncommons would likely be fair for an old 2011 uncommon mathematically because the old uncommon is more likely to be a high uncommon. Let's keep this thread going!

[.lemon]

Dates matter to only a small extent. I try to trade within a pet's (or item's) year and not deviate from that. Never should an older uncommon be worth a recent rare or some thing like that. That's so weird.

Personally, I don't think dates matter anymore.

I think this is a really common idea that we've all subscribed to, but if you actually think about it, dates only make sense within the same rarity label. A 2008 VR is probably worth more than a 2020 VR, but we have no way of knowing that.

the availability seems more dependent on if they were mass hoarded (like, record list level hoarded) or not vs what date they are!

I completely agree With everything stated above.

As an example, I'll take a common rat from 2016. Honestly any type of pet. Say it is mass hoarded by someone to the level of thousands. I believe that it would make the rat automatically more "rare" than a common from an older date. Maybe "rare" Isn't the best term, but they definitely would be less available than pets of the same tag but possibly an older date.

Another thing, a 2:1 swap doesn't really make sense when you get down to it. If I have a 2009 rare, following the 2:1 swap guidelines, I should be able to get 1024 2020 rares that are most likely the same value!

While yes, I do understand that there are probably less 2009 rares in the circulation of trades, if they have the same rarity tag, they should be worth roughly the same?

[frye]

Ok I first saw this and was like, what kind of wack idea is this of course dates matter! But I think I've been converted.

My mindset was, "Well this 2010 uncommon was released so long ago that it must be rarer and more valuable than this 2020 uncommon." But no, both are uncommon so there is a similar amount of them in circulation! I am changed :0

In regards to the rares list I always thought the rarity/C$ math was strange. a mid advent considered to be worth 90C$ was said to be wayyyyyy more valuable than for example, 5 recent store pets, each worth 20C$. I think that's one of the reasons why it was impossible to restructure.

[Bilaz]

AAAAA thank you so much for all your opinions and support guys!!!
I think if we all do a little something and add this to our trading rules we could definitely make a difference! I agree about the little rare PPS horse, it is really fun to have a rare monthly and I think if we all value our newer pets more it can only be more beneficial to the economy and make this game more fun again!
The trading game has become stale for many and while I greatly appreciate Nick implementing our suggestions, one part of it is definitely up to us, the users

Maybe we could make like a button that links back to this thread or something? Would be easier than writing trade rules?

[still]

I completely support this. I can see how the 2:1 swap ratio for going back a year made sense when the site was a lot younger, and you didn’t have to trade back a bunch of years. But now that CS is over a decade old that rule is kinda getting absurd. I doubt very many people follow it now honestly.

I do think older pets are generally less available than more recent pets with the same rarity tag, so I personally wouldn’t just swap two pets with completely different dates. The 2:1 swap ratio just doesn't make sense though.

It’s the same problem with the c$ math and the list conversions; at a certain point, all of the rules just get ridiculous and contradictory. It makes it really hard to trade for pets I actually want, because it always feels like I have to overpay just to make sure I’m not inadvertently sending an unfair trade.