Why Dates Don't Work with pet Rarities (Cast Your Vote)

[Byuller]

THIS IS NOT A TRADING GUIDE!

Hello everyone!

I have been around CS for a few years now (don't mind my current account year, I've been here since like 2011) and I always tend to see the same question when it comes to trades or giving your Rare or Very Rare a value in other years such as:

-"How many newer rares is my 2010 Rare worth?"
-"Are my 10 2018 Rare pets worth this 2012 Very Rare Dog?"

and I have been asking a few people that I know of their opinion regarding on how many x years Rares/Very Rares are worth newer ones and they had kind of the same based opinions. However, over the course of the years, people seem to still be confused around this and trying to find some kind of guide or source from which to take a base from and there are currently none that I could find, or, they aren't very descriptive and only mildly touching the subject and leaving people confused and attempting to do math on their own.

There are many people working on making lists about High Demand Pets, UR's, Pets within the "Rares List's", etc, but there doesn't seem to be any guides focused towards regular trades. It seems that it is "so obvious" or "so simple" that it is not necessary, however, I don't think so. If you're a newbie, you have no idea as to what you're doing, and you don't know the rarity math, you don't know what is the 3-Month Rule and nobody seems to make a proper guide about it rather just leaving everyone to ask other people around. I don't think this is the right angle of approach of "Normal Pets". They're just as important as High Demand pets and they are traded far way more on a daily basis than the Special kind of pets.

So, I decided to take the time to research around, read the last like 2000 pages of the last 3 "How much is this Pet worth" and "Is this a fair trade?" topics together to seek questions and answers about similar questions mentioned previously and make a guide list.

Keep in mind, this is nothing official and it is kind of experimental so don't take it as solid ground for anything unless people find this fair to be used under their own decision and I could keep updating it to its needs.

Now, this chart is purely oriented to give an idea of Non-Listed Rares/Very Rares only which means it does not apply to pets with some kind of special value like List Pets, Special Releases or Store Pets, only Regular Monthly Release or Event Rares/Very Rares. This also skips special values like Malk or Tess pets having more demand and thusly perhaps having more value, I'm talking about regular Dogs, Rats, Horses, Cats, etc. If you give your Dog or a Malk pet more value yourself, that is fine and I'm perfectly ok with it but this list doesn't involve any Demand influence whatsoever, only Rarity and Year.

Without further ado, here is the math board of "Why X Year R/VR for Year YR/VR Trades Don't Work"

*Click to Zoom Image

The board consists of 2 sides. Green Top which is "How Many it is Worth" and Blue Left which is "My/Their Pet".

The math goes like this: 1 2008 Rare is worth 1 2008 Rare, 2 2009 Rares, 1 2009 Very Rare, 4 2010 Rares, and so forth.

Example: If you want to find out let's say how many 2016 Rares would your 2010 Very Rare be worth, you check the 2010 Very Rare column and search for 2016 Rares on top and find that it would be 128 2016 Rares.

I would greatly appreciate if you could submit your vote regarding your opinion of the accuracy of the math that me and my friends did about this, comparing this to what you have seen happen yourself and from help sources and topics and your own personal opinion about this smaller project.
Let's all make a comfortable experience for everyone involved to be used as this is clearly not working at all and we need to discuss as to what is correct here because it is not okay to keep spreading rumors and false values around as it gets transmitted as a disease.

Thank you all involved with this and enjoy!

[nickjr]

Unfortunately I don't have time to write out a full post

so let me just drop off my agonized screaming about how CS did NOT grow exponentially after 2010 or so (it grew roughly linearly) and that this "2 from this year = 1 from last year" business is therefore absolutely awful for 80% of CS years

(this isn't screaming at you specifically, but at the community)

if someone else could explain the terror of exponentials, that would be amazing

[Byuller]

Unfortunately I don't have time to write out a full post

so let me just drop off my agonized screaming about how CS did NOT grow exponentially after 2010 or so (it grew roughly linearly) and that this "2 from this year = 1 from last year" business is therefore absolutely awful for 80% of CS years

(this isn't screaming at you specifically, but at the community)

if someone else could explain the terror of exponentials, that would be amazing

I understand what you're saying and I acknowledge that it seemed odd to me too when I saw it, but, I made this list based on what most of the people value the pets at thinking that if there was no real set value by anyone, perhaps a list could be made based on the most commonly used values as a guideline due to popular use.

The system as of what it is commonly presented seems to always be based on 2 from this year is 1 from last year and so forth even tho it is not accurate because the system doesn't work based on "oh there is 1 VR pet in 200 People and there is 1 Rare in 100 People so it is double it must mean a VR has the value of 2 Rares." The actual % of a VR and the % of a Rare between all users are not on a ratio 1 to 2, but it is always suggested that way. The issue is that nobody is talking about it enough to actually make a ground on which to stand on and we end up guiding people inaccurately and this is -not- okay because it keeps spreading from one person to another and another and a false sense of accuracy is built up and nobody knows what is right anymore.

I wish to make some kind of consensus as to actually how many X Year Pet is valued on how many X Year Pets. I understand that it is quite difficult to do this but it is not impossible. There are set rarities and set years, therefore, there must be a way to accurately or at least to bring a close enough conclusion so people start to actually value pets on what it is worth because I have been told many times my X Year Rare is worth Y Year Pets but based on what exactly?

I thank you for your input and wish to work with the community to actually work something that can be used for everyone.

[Raire]

This rarity math works well when the difference between the adoption dates isn't too big - but it gets pretty ridiculous very soon, as you can see on this list.
I'd never trade like this, whether I'm the one with the older pet or trading FOR the older pet. ^^;

Even though the community as a whole favours rarity math, I bet nobody would trade 1000+ VR store pets (as those are the only 2019 VRs as of now) for a single 2008 rare... this just isn't what 2008 rares really go for.

[Solloby]

It's a great idea but the reason your data isn't working (as Raire says nobody would pay multiple VRs for a single rare) is your data source isn't accurate.

The problem with pet worth and FTT atm is everyone is just repeating a bunch of inaccurate, made up values. Those values may have worked better in the past, when she mattered more, but with the new rarity system we got in January, they are now obsolete. Older pets gained higher rarity tags while newer pets gained lower ones, which better represents their relative values to each other.

So instead of age and rarity mattering more or less equally, now rarity tag matters a lot more and age only really matters when their is a massive difference or you are working with pets that have the same rarity tag.

So I like your idea but your data is all wrong.
I am not really sure where you could get better data. Starting a discussion about it and trying new numbers perhaps? Getting a consensus on what different people find is fair might be a challenge though. Perhaps try to set ranges rather than strict values. Strict values was one of the problems that brought down the Rares List.

[obsceneSymphony]

People have been parroting the same imaginary exchange rate on the FTT for years. The only accurate source of what pets are worth is completed trades or asking people what trades they would accept.

Edit: we also have to acknowledge that trading isn’t really additive. Just because someone is willing to trade 2 pet A for pet B, 2 pet B for pet C, and 2 pet C for pet D doesn’t mean they’ll trade 8 pet A for pet D.

[Erwin Smith]

I like the idea, the idea to figure out what equals what now is a thing we as a community on a whole need to figure out.

I am guilty of throwing numbers around and I do that with a purpose. To try and make not only values more reasonable, but also acknowledge future proceedings to see if there is a way to get things a bit more rarity steady rather than date steady.

The research here highlights a problem. There is no way a rare from ‘19 not be worth 1 ‘08 rare unless it is with 2047 other pets. This was a problem I brought up with the rares list in ‘17 basically shouting that “you can’t tell me with a straight face that a OMGSR at the top of this list is worth 10000+ pets. That’s horse hockey.” It was ignored since the community did not really know this was a value and slash or were very quiet about it as it was a subject of “if it is so flawed and we use it, what will happen to everything else?”

I think if anything, this is good to highlight how wrong this method of trading is. I disagree with Solloby and Raire here, if anything this chart does an ironic turn. It helps how not to value pets.

It shows us how ridiculous values get if you go through with the “value doubles every year” quota. This is what happens. I think if anything if you present the data as a “why this method of trading doesn’t work and is unrealistic.” Similarly to how the rares list has shut up shop, then maybe this could be used as that way to help with some trading advice.

If you change the topic to something like “Why date doesn’t work with pet rarities” and illustrate your research from that point of view, I believe it will make an amazing pov for home trading has just been wrong for so long.

And honestly, now is a good time to do this. Especially considering the overhaul happening and all other changes to trading.

Related but not really, a terribly delayed edit.

General rule of thumb for pets:

I talked about maybe a 4 year gap in between years could result in going up a pet rarity value for values Rare all the way down to omgsc. This was seemingly received well and I actually used this idea back in ‘16 with little to no huff about it being wrong. It kind intimidated other users though, because I have the tendency to type a lot of knowledgeable crap to explain why. There is no wrong perse, but there is a “false” and I kind of stuck to this ideaology to see how it would go.

Storepets are always worth more than their rarity tag is. It took the skeleton bun 9 years to get to OMGSR status purely organically. With the rarity update, it is unknown now how long it will take for other storepets to follow suit and how long pets would have taken to move to OMGSR status.

Going off The skelebun being the only organic pet, it can be safe to say that depending on numbers brought and how a pet starts our rarity wise when it is in the store, it can take 9 years to get to a point of OMGSR.

It’s the only sort of way we can determine. Parts value. The gap between VR and OMGSR is the one to figure out from then. That’s the biggest challenge of this edit let’s part.

[Byuller]

This rarity math works well when the difference between the adoption dates isn't too big - but it gets pretty ridiculous very soon, as you can see on this list.

It may look like it worths just for a few years apart, maybe from a 08 to a 10 or 11 but that is just because the numbers are small, but it doesn't mean they're accurate or even close to accurate but this is how people have been pushing this idea for years and it needs to be fixed for a proper trading method to be balanced out.

It's a great idea but the reason your data isn't working (as Raire says nobody would pay multiple VRs for a single rare) is your data source isn't accurate.

The problem with pet worth and FTT atm is everyone is just repeating a bunch of inaccurate, made up values. Those values may have worked better in the past, when she mattered more, but with the new rarity system we got in January, they are now obsolete. Older pets gained higher rarity tags while newer pets gained lower ones, which better represents their relative values to each other.

Now, this is an interesting topic to touch, the new overhaul. It basically broke the Rares List and everyone is running around with arms in the air like headless chickens not knowing what to do when it comes to rares anymore. I have had a break from 2015 to 2018 and from what I have seen before and now things changed in an extreme drastic way. I used to be able to trade a Common for a Common normally. Nowadays, unless you overpay somehow 90% of trades get rejected. No jokes here. I get trades of people offering me a pet from my wishlist that is still Unsorted and they want to take 2 uncommons from me? What about those people auctioning things like the Chinese New Year 19' pet for literal rares like if it was some kind of VR outcome or a Store Pet. Even Store Pets nowadays don't go for more than like 2 Rares and that's it.

We're so lost as to what is right and what is wrong and just because people say: "My Very Common used to be Uncommon, I will still value it as such!" and this is breaking everything. People are getting used to "If I don't accept this underpay from their side, I will never get the pet I want" and end up doing insane overpays for something with literally no value whatsoever just because of made up demands or rarities of something that shouldn't be happening.

Unless the community itself just says "STOP" and decide to agree on something this will continue happening. It is part of the reasoning why I took a break because the system started to break back then and it more broken now. But I don't want this to keep happening because a Very Common is NOT worth an Uncommon just because it used to be so! People need to get used to the idea that the rarities changed and they now properly display what things should have been and are now.

I like the idea, the idea to figure out what equals what now is a thing we as a community on a whole need to figure out.

I am guilty of throwing numbers around and I do that with a purpose. To try and make not only values more reasonable, but also acknowledge future proceedings to see if there is a way to get things a bit more rarity steady rather than date steady.

The research here highlights a problem. There is no way a rare from ‘19 not be worth 1 ‘08 rare unless it is with 2047 other pets. This was a problem I brought up with the rares list in ‘17 basically shouting that “you can’t tell me with a straight face that a OMGSR at the top of this list is worth 10000+ pets. That’s horse hockey.” It was ignored since the community did not really know this was a value and slash or were very quiet about it as it was a subject of “if it is so flawed and we use it, what will happen to everything else?”

I think if anything, this is good to highlight how wrong this method of trading is. I disagree with Solloby and Raire here, if anything this chart does an ironic turn. It helps how not to value pets.

It shows us how ridiculous values get if you go through with the “value doubles every year” quota. This is what happens. I think if anything if you present the data as a “why this method of trading doesn’t work and is unrealistic.” Similarly to how the rares list has shut up shop, then maybe this could be used as that way to help with some trading advice.

If you change the topic to something like “Why date doesn’t work with pet rarities” and illustrate your research from that point of view, I believe it will make an amazing pov for home trading has just been wrong for so long.

And honestly, now is a good time to do this. Especially considering the overhaul happening and all other changes to trading.

Related but not really, a terribly delayed edit.

General rule of thumb for pets:

I talked about maybe a 4 year gap in between years could result in going up a pet rarity value for values Rare all the way down to omgsc. This was seemingly received well and I actually used this idea back in ‘16 with little to no huff about it being wrong. It kind intimidated other users though, because I have the tendency to type a lot of knowledgeable crap to explain why. There is no wrong perse, but there is a “false” and I kind of stuck to this ideaology to see how it would go.

I like your idea of a general 4-year gap between years could result in a boost of rarity values since I've seen a lot of trades of let's say 20 recent rares going for only 1 2011 or 2010 rare, from those 20 is a lot of 2017, 2016, 2018 Rares mixed and they all tend to be valued at almost the same rate for some reason but when it comes to trades or maybe a Rare of 2017 for a Rare of 2016 suddenly the gap is completely gone and the 2016 Rare weights a lot more which is ridiculous. The rarities should not be bunched into one to later be split apart in smaller transactions. Their value should always keep the same.

The biggest problem here is the "Demand". People tend to give value to a pet because of their looks which may make the pet more special to some because it is pretty and that was always a thing but recently people started to give "demand" to pets because of their accessibility even tho they're just normal Commons but they value them at a Rare or more, say like the Chinese New Year pet I mentioned earlier. They were auctioned for several rares and it ended up being a normal common just because it came out on a bit less of a quantity. People were willing to give rares for it even tho its rarity wasn't even set yet just to rush having it sooner than anyone for their collection. This is not alright at all because it majorly breaks the system for everyone else.

Back to the portion of Rare/Very Rare trades, I have talked yesterday with my friends that helped me build up the chart and they also acknowledge that it isn't working. What they suggested is a similar idea to what Zetirian and Sollobdy said of doing perspective math instead of set values as they are not working for more than 3-4 years apart because then it goes insane.

The pets with the most value given are from 2008 to 2010 seemingly and 2015-2018 Pets seem to have the same range of value as a bunch and it doesn't change much. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could give their input as I will create a Poll to see what your thoughts are on this last portion of the debate to find out where the gap starts and how big it actually it.

Let's work something out together.

[obsceneSymphony]

I don't quite understand what your new poll is asking. Just so you know, you'll need to create a new poll instead of just changing the title and options from the old one - otherwise votes carry over when people were voting on an entirely different question.

[Byuller]

I don't quite understand what your new poll is asking. Just so you know, you'll need to create a new poll instead of just changing the title and options from the old one - otherwise votes carry over when people were voting on an entirely different question.

I tried but I can't seem to figure out how to do so. And the question doesn't let me add too many characters on the title of the poll but it should be on whether you find the gap between 2008-2009 pets smaller than pets 2008-2010 or it is already to big between the 3 years. I am open for more poll question ideas from anyone.