Is it time to redefine "non" and "sorb?"

[Loelya]

~ Please read the entirety of this first post before responding! I will do my best to be concise. ~

According to the old "rares list," which was retired in 2019 by popular vote,
these were the rough values of these pets:
1 Non = 1,488-2,016 '09 rares
1 Sorb = 500-670 '09 rares

The point I've seen made time and time again, is that one of the reasons the list was voted to be retired is that these values are outdated and unrealistic.

The problem is that whether or not the "list" has been retired, the pets that used to be on it are still seen by many as having an inherent value worth "more." So oftentimes, advice is given in a dual manner:
"if you still go by the 'old list,' this is what it's worth." but this value is outdated and unrealistic.
"if you don't use the 'list,' this other value is what it's worth." but it's very hard to find likeminded traders.

And currently, the terms "non" and "sorb" are used frequently when giving trading advice. The "worth" of pets are measured in fractions or increments of "non" and "sorb" values. This doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.

The original aim of this thread was to attempt to redefine the terms "non" and "sorb" in range values of '09 rares.
First poll: do we need to redefine what “non” and “sorb” mean? Majority was Yes.

some of the data the thread started to collect is here:
- - -
Suggested Potential Values?
- place "Non" value at 100-150 '09 rares?
- place "Sorb" value at 50-75 '09 rares?

Potential trade evidence:
Dec 2019 - non pup for 251 2009-2013 r/vrs + some assorted recent rares (need '09 quantity calculation)

Sept 2019 - Pink sorb (valued at one "non") for 335 2008-2011 r/vr quantity (need '09 quantity calculation)

The conversation is moving in a new direction!
(paraphrased and condensed, hope that's okay! please let me know if it's not)

I think that those terms (that are used like basic currency for list pets) have developed through the years and cannot be changed that quickly. It's as if you were introducing a new type of money (let's say debit cards), whilst most still prefer paying in cash.

[Do we really] need to know that "my 09 dog of march is worth exactly two of your early 10 dogs". I think that restricts everything alot and makes newer players very anxious to make a mistake and regret it in future. We can see it now - since the list is gone, inexperienced or seldom-list-trade players are very reluctant to let go off their pets, simply because they could get something better for it and the demand could rocket tomorrow.

I'll try to get back on track and offer you a new idea: What if we tried to focus on pets first, that we all roughly value equally?
Creating bulks or groups of pets like this could help [with organization] without having to introduce a proper value.

I agree. we need to focus on fixing the system and restructuring that as a whole rather than trying to redefine one or two things within that system and hope everything else falls into place.

[Ironic Equation]

Hi! I totally agree with you on this. After the list was retired I remember there being a discussion about this, and people threw around 100 '09 rares as potentially a viable amount to be worth a non. I just did a quantity trade today with about 100 '09 rares value for a non pup. If I were to pick I would suggest maybe 100-150 '09 rares worth for a non and 50-75 for a sorbet, as I feel those amounts are viable for players with a lot of rares, and are less utterly ridiculous. I doubt anyone has ever paid 1000 '09 rares worth for a non. Plus it makes more sense with the mid advents too. If a T7 advent tends to go for about 7-10 '09 rares depending on the people involved, that's 10-20 mid advents per non [and that quantity or even less can definitely get a non due to the demand of mid advents] and about 5-10 per sorbet [also seems quite reasonable]. This ties into the problem these days of trading pets that don't fit with 'sorb' or 'non' value e.g. the lower toxics, low advents, september lists. They're still going for some approximation of list value which means they are only traded for other lists about the same tier, or up or down based on the list, but the list is now gone.

[~Rare~]

Hi! I totally agree with you on this. After the list was retired I remember there being a discussion about this, and people threw around 100 '09 rares as potentially a viable amount to be worth a non. I just did a quantity trade today with about 100 '09 rares value for a non pup. If I were to pick I would suggest maybe 100-150 '09 rares worth for a non and 50-75 for a sorbet, as I feel those amounts are viable for players with a lot of rares, and are less utterly ridiculous. I doubt anyone has ever paid 1000 '09 rares worth for a non. Plus it makes more sense with the mid advents too. If a T7 advent tends to go for about 7-10 '09 rares depending on the people involved, that's 10-20 mid advents per non [and that quantity or even less can definitely get a non due to the demand of mid advents] and about 5-10 per sorbet [also seems quite reasonable]. This ties into the problem these days of trading pets that don't fit with 'sorb' or 'non' value e.g. the lower toxics, low advents, september lists. They're still going for some approximation of list value which means they are only traded for other lists about the same tier, or up or down based on the list, but the list is now gone.

i agree

[Loelya]

Hi! I totally agree with you on this. After the list was retired I remember there being a discussion about this, and people threw around 100 '09 rares as potentially a viable amount to be worth a non. I just did a quantity trade today with about 100 '09 rares value for a non pup. If I were to pick I would suggest maybe 100-150 '09 rares worth for a non and 50-75 for a sorbet, as I feel those amounts are viable for players with a lot of rares, and are less utterly ridiculous. I doubt anyone has ever paid 1000 '09 rares worth for a non. Plus it makes more sense with the mid advents too. If a T7 advent tends to go for about 7-10 '09 rares depending on the people involved, that's 10-20 mid advents per non [and that quantity or even less can definitely get a non due to the demand of mid advents] and about 5-10 per sorbet [also seems quite reasonable]. This ties into the problem these days of trading pets that don't fit with 'sorb' or 'non' value e.g. the lower toxics, low advents, september lists. They're still going for some approximation of list value which means they are only traded for other lists about the same tier, or up or down based on the list, but the list is now gone.

i agree

this is a great place to start! thank you so much for the input. I think if "100" is something that the majority of people could agree on as the number of 09 rares to place a non at, it's a great ballpark number since it's nice round number. and then if that were multiplied by however many times higher pets are purportedly going for demand-wise (like the skelebun allegedly at 10+ nons) -- that's still 1000 '09 rares right there.

[Loelya]

also @Ironic Equation - is there any way you'd maybe be willing to share the link to that quantity trade? ^^

[Ironic Equation]

also @Ironic Equation - is there any way you'd maybe be willing to share the link to that quantity trade? ^^

Oh yes, I can do that!
trades/viewtrade.php?id=85621889&userid=369442&signature=Z7Lu0ag4TUKm27ub0pDR2w
Honestly I wasn't doing anything with all those random rares and I wanted a cute non pup

[Loelya]

also @Ironic Equation - is there any way you'd maybe be willing to share the link to that quantity trade? ^^

Oh yes, I can do that!
trades/viewtrade.php?id=85621889&userid=369442&signature=Z7Lu0ag4TUKm27ub0pDR2w
Honestly I wasn't doing anything with all those random rares and I wanted a cute non pup

thank you so much! ^^ I'm going to add this link to the first post for reference. and if anyone reading this has similar trade data they'd like to post (or opposing trade data of course), please feel free to do so!

[Talvace]

I agree with this so much. The list was discontinued and nothing changed. People still expect those pets to fetch hundreds of 09 rares, it's outrageous. 100-150 rares seems so much more reasonable.

[ElementalInsanity]

With how the rarities were adjusted by Nick it really makes me wonder if that much bulk in itself is still too much. I myself wouldn’t want to pay an actual 100 bulk o9 rares for anything. People don’t realize just how much bulk that can actually be.
At the same time I have no clue how trading ‘off the list’ is for everyone now. I heavily base my decisions off of rarity and date of rarity changes, but I also don’t do a lot of trading anymore for a few reasons.

[Loelya]

Honestly I'm kind of relieved that folks aren't immediately aghast at the idea of even mentally reorienting that much. I'll add some notes to the first post! is there a lower number than 100 that anyone wants to volunteer as seeming a reasonable amount?