New vs old Rarity System

[HappyPineapple]

So, basically on the fair trade thread I've noticed a large discrepancy, if the rare's list is defunct, how come people keep referring to it? I saw someone today suggest that one VR pet was worth 1300 rares - Now, correct me if I'm wrong (I hope I am), but is this not why the rares list was nerfed in the first place? I also see constant references to advent lists and tiers. I know it's still relevant, but I don't think it should be the end say, considering we now have a new rarities system.
If not, isn't the new system broken anyway? Like I get there's differences in rarity due to demand etc on lots of the OMGSR pets, but most VR's should be similar, surely? Like if all outcomes of a 2009 litter have become VR, they should all be worth about the same? Or am I seriously missing something?
Also mods if this is the wrong forum please move this post <3

Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to add to this discussion :)

[skyline]

regardless of the list's retirement, people are still going to value former list pets highly due to their previous values. you can't really expect these things to change over night. keep in mind a lot of players put a lot of hard work into their vr former list pets, and some of them are much rarer than normal vrs even disregarding demand and such. all omgsrs are worth much more than simply 2 vrs no matter how things are valued. but i mean, nobody is going to trade a sorbet dog for 50-60 C$, or 2 random '08 rares just because an '08 vr is claimed to be worth that amount, because of it's previous role, and alleged value.

nobody is being forced to continue trading by that list i mean, that's why it was retired in the first place, but there are avid traders who still value things similarly as before because of how much they paid for them, and if that were to change, it would take quite some time, years even, for that to adjust itself to the site, because these values have been attached to said pets for so long, so nobody is quite used to this change yet.

[HappyPineapple]

regardless of the list's retirement, people are still going to value former list pets highly due to their previous values. you can't really expect these things to change over night. keep in mind a lot of players put a lot of hard work into their vr former list pets, and some of them are much rarer than normal vrs even disregarding demand and such. all omgsrs are worth much more than simply 2 vrs no matter how things are valued. but i mean, nobody is going to trade a sorbet dog for 50-60 C$, or 2 random '08 rares just because an '08 vr is claimed to be worth that amount, because of it's previous role, and alleged value.

nobody is being forced to continue trading by that list i mean, that's why it was retired in the first place, but there are avid traders who still value things similarly as before because of how much they paid for them, and if that were to change, it would take quite some time, years even, for that to adjust itself to the site, because these values have been attached to said pets for so long, so nobody is quite used to this change yet.

That is true, and I get that, but especially for new players on the FTT, I feel like we should at least be saying in our reply if we're still valuing the list 100%. I usually try and factor in half list rarity, half new rarity, when I advise if a trade is fair or not.

[Aaron✦]

If not, isn't the new system broken anyway? Like I get there's differences in rarity due to demand etc on lots of the OMGSR pets, but most VR's should be similar, surely? Like if all outcomes of a 2009 litter have become VR, they should all be worth about the same? Or am I seriously missing something?

Well, in essence... no. Let's take the New Year's dogs, since we can say with a relative degree of confidence that whenever a pair is released, the GUPPS is markedly rarer than the PPS. This is a trend that has existed since 2010 and is pretty much common knowledge. If we look at this year's pups, the PPS went Very Common, whereas the GUPPS went Uncommon.

However, and bearing that in mind, let's have a look at the 2016 dogs. Despite all the previous still being true, despite the GUPPS absolutely being rarer.... Both dogs are Uncommons. It's pretty easy to understand why. Even though one is rarer, they both fall into the bounds of Uncommon numbers. If you ask any trader if a New Year's GUPPS is a fair swap for the same year's New Year's PPS, they'll tell you "no", and yet the rarity tags alone suggest it would be a fair swap. This same thing goes for pets worth much more; even though the entire sundog litter are OMGSR, the Sunjewel is notably rarer than its littermates. In that vein the list wasn't simply fabricated, and a lot of information that it used still holds true, even if the list itself wasn't infallible. The Valentine's Malk PPS is still rarer than its littermate, and that still wouldn't be a fair swap even though the PPS was on the list. Iirc the cream 09 bunny went very rare before the lavender one, so that wouldn't be a fair swap, even though the lavender bunny was on the list and the cream one wasn't.

Obviously, just how much this realistically matters in a trade pretty much scales with how rare the pet is itself. I doubt a lot of traders would really care that much if their 2016 UC swap was actually more unfair than they'd known. Even though the list is defunct you'd be hard pressed to find anyone trading their Sunjewel for a Nonjewel, because the Sunjewel is just still rarer, regardless of what the list did or didn't say. Some traders will know which '09 littermates were rarer than others and think a swap is unfair. Some traders might see that they're both VRs from the same litter and swap because it's close enough.

[HappyPineapple]

If not, isn't the new system broken anyway? Like I get there's differences in rarity due to demand etc on lots of the OMGSR pets, but most VR's should be similar, surely? Like if all outcomes of a 2009 litter have become VR, they should all be worth about the same? Or am I seriously missing something?

Well, in essence... no. Let's take the New Year's dogs, since we can say with a relative degree of confidence that whenever a pair is released, the GUPPS is markedly rarer than the PPS. This is a trend that has existed since 2010 and is pretty much common knowledge. If we look at this year's pups, the PPS went Very Common, whereas the GUPPS went Uncommon.

However, and bearing that in mind, let's have a look at the 2016 dogs. Despite all the previous still being true, despite the GUPPS absolutely being rarer.... Both dogs are Uncommons. It's pretty easy to understand why. Even though one is rarer, they both fall into the bounds of Uncommon numbers. If you ask any trader if a New Year's GUPPS is a fair swap for the same year's New Year's PPS, they'll tell you "no", and yet the rarity tags alone suggest it would be a fair swap. This same thing goes for pets worth much more; even though the entire sundog litter are OMGSR, the Sunjewel is notably rarer than its littermates. In that vein the list wasn't simply fabricated, and a lot of information that it used still holds true, even if the list itself wasn't infallible. The Valentine's Malk PPS is still rarer than its littermate, and that still wouldn't be a fair swap even though the PPS was on the list. Iirc the cream 09 bunny went very rare before the lavender one, so that wouldn't be a fair swap, even though the lavender bunny was on the list and the cream one wasn't.

Obviously, just how much this realistically matters in a trade pretty much scales with how rare the pet is itself. I doubt a lot of traders would really care that much if their 2016 UC swap was actually more unfair than they'd known. Even though the list is defunct you'd be hard pressed to find anyone trading their Sunjewel for a Nonjewel, because the Sunjewel is just still rarer, regardless of what the list did or didn't say. Some traders will know which '09 littermates were rarer than others and think a swap is unfair. Some traders might see that they're both VRs from the same litter and swap because it's close enough.

Thanks for your reply, I enjoyed reading this and it cleared a lot up :)