Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[Bluefly26799]

Hi!

So this is going to be the biggest hear me out pitch I've ever put forward on this site so any feedback/thoughts/concerns please let me know!

Disclaimer: This change would only impact ma+ value pets

There always seems to be a new thread for changing the trading system but what if the best idea is to just build on what we have already?

So our current values are

1 non = 10 ma
0.75 non = 7.5 ma
0.5 non = 5 ma
0.25 non = 3/4 ma

This means trades can be fair and unfair all at the same time! Its chaos and no wonder people have a hard time learning. 3x 0.25 non pets = 0.75 non however it can also = 12 ma ?

Trade example // Trade example2 These are both perfect examples of why our current system does not work! These trades are both fair and both not fair at the same time! The only difference you be calling the kitsunes 0.25 non or 4 ma


So heres my proposal

We only use ma as a unit of measure. Lets just use ma for values!

This would allow a much better sliding scale of value.

We all know pets have demand even within their value. A black advent and a UR banana are both worth 1 non but the majority of players would never make that swap. If we took away the non then that would allow for pets to settle there the demand is better suite, for example the BA might settle at 11 ma and the UR banana at 9 ma.

This would also make it a lot easier for players to learn values. Learning values is the easy part its learning demand thats tricky. I think If you gave someone 10 pets all worth 1 non and said pick the top value one most people currently would pick the same. We know demand. Now ask the same question to someone learning. If we gave each of those 10 pets a value instead for example 8-12 then you don't even have to learn you just remember.



Possible complication and why this actually benefits the C$ economy too!

THIS TO BE CLEAR IS JUST A THOUGHT LOL THE C$ ISSUE IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE CONVERSATION TO BE HAD AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ALTERED AS THE SAME TIME


So I hear your thoughts before you say them with this as I had the exact same ones! But hear me out!
We always have said C$ doesnt stack. But what if it did.


Currently 1 non is selling for 2000-2400C$
What is it just went up to 2500-3000? Thats not so bad right? And then it keeps things easy!

currently 1 ma = 10 old rares
1 old rare = approx 25-30C$

Proposed pricing structure
1 ma = 250-300 C$
10 ma = 2500-3000C$

This then opens the door for the ma value system to work as you can very easily work out the price of any ma pet you want! No more guesswork, no more demand being the reason for a trade not being fair.

I know for a lot of people this whole idea is irrelevant to your game play but i think this really could be a much smoother system that was more accessible and easier to learn which would help every part of this site.

Thank you for reading what I have to say! Happy holiday!

[Bluefly26799]

saving

[cafemochi]

hii! i havent been trading much in a long while since if i dont keep up with values i feel like i forget it and im a casual player, so im not always on the site. i feel like just reducing the trading values to just mas would help so much and would take a way a ton of the confusion. i really appreciate this and would be down to use it in future trading!!!

[sunka]

i’m definitely in support of making things easier, and i agree the current system is difficult to understand, but in order to get rid of confusion i truly think the sliding scale values need to be taken out and everything just needs to be what it is. demand has turned into greed, and greed is ruining this game. last week you could trade fairly for a raven for 6-7 nons (if you ask me, a 1 non difference is drastic and already makes it difficult to understand how to trade fairly), now because one person paid 10 nons, everyone else is expecting 10 nons. and because of that the value has practically doubled for absolutely no reason other than one person overpayed for a pet so now it’s expected everyone following that will overpay.

i think it would be easier instead of saying X value - X value, everything that’s ’more expensive’ is given a value and that is what it is. if it changes, the guides change with it, but having those sliding scales for what something is worth causes a lot of confusion because while something may be worth 1-1.5 non, you’re always going to have people demanding the top of the value. so if it’s worth 1-1.5 nons we should look at the trading data - if it has been trading closer to 1 non, make it 1 non. closer to 1.25, make it 1.25. closer to 1.5, make it 1.5. i personally think the bigger issue is the grey area between values, but if the start to making trading less frustrating is getting rid of nons, i am in support of it.

i do agree the current ma breakdown is a cluster of confusion and it’s hard to even advise on a trade being fair anymore because what is a fair and honest trade can be seen as unfair depending on who’s looking at it. i just think something needs to change.

[rats <3]

I am totally in favor of this idea. I think that it is SO much easier to understand, and because of that, one of the benefits would be that there would be less people getting scammed (whether intentionally or unintentionally lol) especially newer players. I also think that it takes away a lot of the vagueness of trades, the .25 non pets have given me trouble before for the reasons you stated and sometimes I feel like I don't know how to really value them, especially if they're just one part of a bigger trade. Using just MA's for values makes so much more sense to me

[Wookieinmashoo]

I understand what you are getting at, but when did 0.25 nons stop equaling 2.5 MAs?

[sunka]

I understand what you are getting at, but when did 0.25 nons stop equaling 2.5 MAs?

i thought .25 nons was also 2.5 ma’s and last week was told by a few people that i was giving bad trading advice because .25 nons is 4 ma’s. which to me, doesn’t make sense since it goes on a scale of 10, where 10 ma’s = 1 non, 5 ma’s = .5 non, 2.5 ma’s = .25 non and so forth.

it just wouldn’t make sense to me for 4 ma’s to = .25 nons but then 5 ma’s = .5 non

[Wookieinmashoo]

I understand what you are getting at, but when did 0.25 nons stop equaling 2.5 MAs?

i thought .25 nons was also 2.5 ma’s and last week was told by a few people that i was giving bad trading advice because .25 nons is 4 ma’s. which to me, doesn’t make sense since it goes on a scale of 10, where 10 ma’s = 1 non, 5 ma’s = .5 non, 2.5 ma’s = .25 non and so forth.

it just wouldn’t make sense to me for 4 ma’s to = .25 nons but then 5 ma’s = .5 non

If 0.25 non is 4 MAs, then it's actually 0.4 nons. That's where I'm getting confused, just like you. The decimals just move. This is something that makes sense and is easy to understand.

.25 non = 2.5 MA = 25 old rares.

[Daxx]

You reference the UR banana right - But you compare it to a BA - BA is an old list pet, but banana was one of the first actual "pets" to go OMGSR - which it the literal only reason it gets 1N, even then lately it's traded closer to .75N, or tends to only get 1N in other "bad" demand pets. Even if you say they're both worth 10MA each, this would do nothing to make them swap. Even if you add a 2MA difference, most players would still not accept a UR banana +2MA add for a BA, due to the demand difference between the 2.

Then - you said to raise a non to 3k, which I feel like is feeding into the c$ demand loop, which would only make the c$ influx demand much worse; But - you could wipe the existing scale. Drop 1MA to 300 solid, which would make sense to make 1N 3k, because then it scales exactly to 3000 for 10MA - which would actually fix one of the issues we currently have of c$ not scaling correctly through ma's.
The issue however, is that most people are trying to push 1MA to 400c$, especially for stores or good demand pets.

The main problem with demand being the scapegoat diving the metrics is that even if the system is changed to stop calling them nons - demand will always be a factor. People currently are calling 1 old rare .1MA - you can scale from that to any MA, by adding old rares. You can then scale it up to any "non". so like 25MA, instead of saying 2.5N. However, lets take UR Zonkey and Marionette. Both would be worth 25MA - but it would still be very hard to find someone willing to swap them, due to one being a storepet and significantly higher demand. Yes, still possible, but highly unlikely. The problem doesn't seem to be fixed by simply taking away the Non factor. Instead, people would just begin to say 10-15MA, 20-25MA, ect. like they currently do with 1-1.5N, 2-2.5N ect.

People will always try to pay the lowest price for a pet and get the highest from a pet, because sadly CS has become an economy simulator, and that's the only way to actually make a profit in the game. Unless you get random overpays or good luck on dec. 18th - the only way to gain value is by the fluctuating pricing on the pets you're talking about.

I would love to see these issues fixed, but we would need to find a way to fix the demand issues between pets, and the fluctuation of the pets that don't have a absolute set value.

[Bluefly26799]

I understand what you are getting at, but when did 0.25 nons stop equaling 2.5 MAs?

i thought .25 nons was also 2.5 ma’s and last week was told by a few people that i was giving bad trading advice because .25 nons is 4 ma’s. which to me, doesn’t make sense since it goes on a scale of 10, where 10 ma’s = 1 non, 5 ma’s = .5 non, 2.5 ma’s = .25 non and so forth.

it just wouldn’t make sense to me for 4 ma’s to = .25 nons but then 5 ma’s = .5 non

If 0.25 non is 4 MAs, then it's actually 0.4 nons. That's where I'm getting confused, just like you. The decimals just move. This is something that makes sense and is easy to understand.

.25 non = 2.5 MA = 25 old rares.

To a point yes exactly!

But then you would have to have 0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,1.1 ect non valued pets and so on which people havent done

So i do agree with you 4 ma would = 0.4 non but that's the current system and no one does. People just round up or down and push for max potential value