Conclusions/Notes
Questions 1 and 2: (The 2:1 rule with older pets)Comparing the first two questions, we can see that most CS users generally would rather have a 2009 rare than two 2010 rares. Despite this, more than half of responders would be readily willing to make the trade-down.
Questions 1 and 4: (The 2:1 rule with new vs. old pets)Both questions pertain to trading up two rares for one rare using the 2:1 rule. Comparing the two graphs, it seems users are more willing to trade up to older pets than trading up to newer pets. Still, more than half of users would readily accept a 2:1 trade up, regardless of year.
Question 3: (VR pets and the 2:1 rule)Using the 2:1 rule, VR pets have been valued at 2 rares from their release date for a long time. However, the majority of CS users would be unwilling or unsure about trading down a newer, non-2009 VR pet for the 2:1 rule. About a fourth of CS users would willingly take this trade.
Questions 4 and 5: (The 2:1 rule over multiple year gaps)Comparing these two questions, we can see that the larger the gap in years, the less likely people are going to pay more rares for a single rare. There is a considerably large gap between people would be willing to trade down their rares at a 2:1 rate than a 4:1 rate, both of which would be technically deemed fair by the 2:1 rule.
Questions 6 and 7: (The 2:1 rule for uncommons -> rares)We can conclude from these two questions that the vast majority of the CS population values a rare more than 2 uncommons, even though they are equal according to the 2:1 rule. Only around a fourth of users would be readily willing to trade their rares for two uncommons.
Question 8: (The 2:1 rule over multiple rarities)We can see clearly that the
vast majority of users would be unwilling to trade down their pets more than one rarity tier using the 2:1 rule. It would be interesting to see for a future survey how the data might change if the jump was from very common to uncommon versus common to rare.
Questions 9, 10, and 11: (How people value current-year store pets)Traditionally, a current year store pet has been valued at a late 2010 rare. However, a little less than half of users would willingly pay a 2010 rare for a current store pet. Additionally, more than half of users would be readily willing to trade their store pets currently in the store for a 2011 rare instead of a 2010 rare.
Questions 12 and 15: (Current store chart values) Despite the widely accepted chart for how store pet values translate into pets, more than half of users would not trade a VR 2019 store for a single 2010 rare, same as a VR 2016 store for a single ‘09 rare. Only 26-31% of users reported that they would let their stores go for that price.
Questions 13 and 14: (Trading with both date and rarity gaps)Using the 2:1 rule, a 2013 uncommon would be many times more valuable than a 2017 rare. Around a fourth of users reported they would be willing to make the rare to uncommon trade. However, the majority of users would value the 2017 rare higher, and would be more likely to trade up for the rare rather than down for the uncommon.
Question 16 and 5: (Trading up newer vs. older rares with the 4:1 ratio)
These two questions ask if the trader would be willing to give 4 rares for one rare that is two years older. The only difference is that one trade pertains to new rares, while one to old rares. Similarly to questions 1 and 4, we can see yet again that traders are more likely to trade up their multiple rares for one rare if they are getting a pet from the first few years of the site. Still, more than half of users would not be willing to trade four rares for one, even if they were receiving a 2009 rare.
Question 17: (Trading with vast year and rarity gaps)The majority of users would not be willing to trade a rare for a common, no matter how far apart the dates are. However, over one fourth of users reported that they would, in fact make this trade.
Question 18 and 19:(See above post for my comments on this question)
Question 20: (How users use the 2:1 rule)This question in particular was the most enlightening for me. Despite the 2:1 rule being known site-wide and given as advice on trading threads,
almost half of CS users reported that they do not use the 2:1 rule at all. In addition, most people who use the 2:1 rule only use it for 1-2 year rarity gaps only, not for larger year differences.
Final Thoughts:Looking at the charts, I was quite surprised how split many of the opinions are on trading. Very few questions had the vast majority pick one side, there was always a substantial amount of people disagreeing with the majority. This just confirms that trade opinions on CS are quite varied, what feels fair to one person may feel very unfair to another.
On another note, looking at this data, I feel it may be time for CS to revisit the 2:1 rule, especially when it comes to uncommons -> rares and using the 2:1 rule for dates and rarities in conjunction with each other. The store pet questions were also quite illuminating, since it seems like quite a few users deviate from the “standard chart” for values.
If you have any thoughts, disagreements, anything, please share your comments on the thread! I really hope this data will be able to be used and referenced in the future, and help traders develop what they feel is fair.
.jpg)
greetings! i'm noteworthy! 
