New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Loelya]

Update! Check out the top of page 20 for a rough summary and poll results! this summary aims to cover discussion around the 2:1 date rule and proposed changes to it.

Update! Check out the top of page 25 for another rough summary and poll results! this summary aims to cover discussion around the 2:1 rarity rule and proposed alternative trading methods.

By request, here is a link to a thread for discussing "OMGSRs" and potential trading standards for them and other high-rarity, high-demand pets.

hello CS users! I'm very excited about this new update - but if you're not, please feel free to jump in and discuss anyways! It's understandable to be confused or frustrated and if you honestly feel upset by this change and didn't want it in the first place, you are absolutely welcome to air out those frustrations here. no one should feel excluded from discussions around this topic!

anyways I wanted to create a thread so there can be some player discussion around some new trading standards we might like to pick up. there's a few of these that have been around for years that haven't changed much over time! things like the "2:1 rule," or "3 month rule," or the "09 rare/MA/non" system. I'd love to see what any new opinions might be for how you think you will trade now with the new update in place. and maybe if we start discussing it here on the forums, we can get a better grasp on how the community might see things as a whole.

Topics Currently Up for Discussion
(please feel free to contribute more discussion suggestions!)

"2:1 date rule" - could it become "5 year rule?"
is "3 year rule" more realistic and accessible than a "5 year rule?"
could we do away with dates entirely and trade 1:1 swaps within rarity tags?
FIRST POLL - will run sept 15 - sept 18

"2:1 rarity rule" - how would you say you consider each rarity to stack up to the next?
something like this? or something else?
-
2 omg so commons = 1 extremely common
2 extremely commons = 1 very common
2 very commons = 1 common
2 commons = 1 uncommon
ETC
SECOND POLL - will run sept 19th - sept 22nd

"old pets valued by x '09 rares" - do you have ideas for how you might go about valuing your pets?

should we switch out what's previously been considered the "default" 2009 rare for a more stable "2010 rare" or "2011 rare?"

should we try to move away from a single base-unit-of-value entirely?
THIRD POLL - will run sept 23rd - sept 26th

[See_Air_Ruhh_]

I feel like it should be mostly rarity based. I've never understood holding an 09R higher than a 2015R ect.

I like the idea of a 2:1 or 3:1 rule based on rarity/species alone. I.e. 2Rs=1VR ; 2VRs=1ER ; 2ERs = 1OMGSR ect ect. I feel like this may make more sense with EU and below, so maybe a 3:1 ratio for rare+? Idk 😂

[Loelya]

I feel like it should be mostly rarity based. I've never understood holding an 09R higher than a 2015R ect.

I like the idea of a 2:1 or 3:1 rule based on rarity/species alone. I.e. 2Rs=1VR ; 2VRs=1ER ; 2ERs = 1OMGSR ect ect. I feel like this may make more sense with EU and below, so maybe a 3:1 ratio for rare+? Idk 😂

ooh yes a good idea to discuss 2:1 based on rarity as well! I'll update the first post

[keayi]

I feel like it should be mostly rarity based. I've never understood holding an 09R higher than a 2015R ect.

Lacuna, mention a possible new system in valuing things with a much bigger gap now as still being "fair," such as being willing to trade things like rares/very rares/extremely rares within 5 year gaps as equals.

As an avid hater of the 2:1 ratio I would love to see it tossed out the window and forgotten!! (For date discrepancies, I expect it shall still be the general rule for trading up and down in rarity)

[Loelya]

As an avid hater of the 2:1 ratio I would love to see it tossed out the window and forgotten!! (For date discrepancies, I expect it shall still be the general rule for trading up and down in rarity)

I agree with you! I think this would be the most ideal outcome. I do worry that it might not be the most realistic outcome. xD but we can always hope, right?

[musicgurl333]

2:1 rule: Although I HATED this “rule” for big year gaps, and I didn’t love it when trading rares for uncommons (I’ve personally always valued rares as 3-5 uncommons), I actually DO like it for trading between the NEW rarities. Not sure about OMGSRs, though.

“5 year rule”: I like this. Older pets tend to be more likely to go up in rarity than newer pets…one look at my trade groups post update shows that pretty clearly. BUT when they do go up, it will be a smaller, because the new rarities are a bit more granular now. Considering that, BIG ages gaps will still make a difference to me, but a couple of years, especially for kore recent pets, is basically nothing. I think 5 years seems like a good marker.

[Aaron✦]

2:1 rule: Although I HATED this “rule” for big year gaps, and I didn’t love it when trading rares for uncommons (I’ve personally always valued rares as 3-5 uncommons), I actually DO like it for trading between the NEW rarities. Not sure about OMGSRs, though.

“5 year rule”: I like this. Older pets tend to be more likely to go up in rarity than newer pets…one look at my trade groups post update shows that pretty clearly. BUT when they do go up, it will be a smaller, because the new rarities are a bit more granular now. Considering that, BIG ages gaps will still make a difference to me, but a couple of years, especially for kore recent pets, is basically nothing. I think 5 years seems like a good marker.

these seem like really good thoughts/musings to me, thanks so much for jumping in! I also like the idea of anything below omgsr trading for 2 of the lower rarity. I guess its possible with omgsr trading we might end up depending more on demand values vs rarity values anyways~ :0c

for anyone interested in giving a reply, how would you feel about creating a new base system for values something like this?

if there is an OMGSR special release within a given year, what if we valued that based on rares from the same year? instead of trying to define everything based on one type of rare from one year (like everything always being valued by '09 rares?.)

for example, what if we said that an OMGSR from 2009 was worth something like 100 rares from 2009? and a 2010 OMGSR was worth 100 rares from 2010?

if we applied this as a standard, like, 100 rares is equal in value to a pet you have a chance of pulling in that year's dec 18th boxes, then we could tweak it up or down for pets that are either event or month releases that ended up with that label, or for store pets that are known to have higher demand and rarity over time.

[conarcoin]

I generally just eyeball trades and if they look fair I accept, so no real strict standards from me, though I tend to follow:

- I don't do 2:1 for dates. I may overpay if a pet is like 5 years older than mine but other than that equal rarity = equal worth unless there's special value.
- All species are the same in my eyes. Except spiders because I don't like them LOL.
- I don't mind doing 2:1 between rarities - i.e. 2 uncommons = euc, 2 very commons = common, etc.

[Loelya]

noted! I think I'll start running some polls to collect more responses~ ^u^

[Horror]

If we can I think we should take this chance to update the valuing everything in 09 rares system too ^^ I swear I feel like thats been the method since like 2010 lol. We only have 16 2009 rares (+ 6 extended releases and 2 from 08, for a total of 24 pets) when there used to be hundreds; almost everything from 2009 is at least VR now, plus they're just super old

If we do go the counting things as 1 standard year route again, we should move to 2010 or 2011. We have around 433 2011 rares or 348 2010 rares now and those would be more accessible as the default than 09s at this point

I also do like the 5 year rule. I've been going by a vague personal 3-4 year-ish rule myself with rare pet swaps before, and I think 5 works now with how many new rarities we have and 15+ years worth of pets