Does anyone else feel like Demand is killing CS?

[Shian]

I don't get how a 2010 store pet is so much different than a 2013.

There is a simple and easy answer for that one. Before 2013, there was no way to trade for C$. You had to buy it yourself or find someone willing to buy it for you, buy the pet, then trade something for that pet. Which was kind of a hassle if someone wanted 20 items or a pet. Most players just didn't bother.
Meaning, largely, only adult players could get store pets and items. There were some young adults playing in 2008 but even then, they might not have had bank accounts or credit cards yet and it took a number of years for that to happen and C$ trading to become more widespread and easier to do.

[Birdy]

I don't get how a 2010 store pet is so much different than a 2013.

There is a simple and easy answer for that one. Before 2013, there was no way to trade for C$. You had to buy it yourself or find someone willing to buy it for you, buy the pet, then trade something for that pet. Which was kind of a hassle if someone wanted 20 items or a pet. Most players just didn't bother.
Meaning, largely, only adult players could get store pets and items. There were some young adults playing in 2008 but even then, they might not have had bank accounts or credit cards yet and it took a number of years for that to happen and C$ trading to become more widespread and easier to do.

To add on this, there's also the issue of population. It took a little while for CS to really catch on, and the amount of players who were registered in 2010 is very different from the amount of players who were registered in later years. This adds on to the difference in value because of how many people were actually registered to purchase store pets^^

[Kiinotasha]

I'm sorry but if my choice is between "a multi-thread research project for every pet" and "not trading" it's not trading every time. Like I said, we don't have to bring the list back, but I think that the market needs some kind of objective measuring stick to balance it out. You're vastly overestimating how many people are willing to talk it out. I know that I'm not always in the headspace to negotiate a trade.
Leaving everything up to subjective opinion is all fine and good but that creates an environment where the most popular designs are never attainable because the sky's the limit in how much they're valued.
If there's some kind of objective measuring involved then at least players have something to work toward and they know that they're moving upward. If it's all up to demand then you can quickly find yourself trading sideways or downwards and get confused when the value of both your pets and your goals change every week. It's not sustainable because the people involved will quickly burn out on trading and quit in frustration.

But it does have an objective measuring stick? That's what the rarities on pets are after all, they tell you how much that pet is worth in the general pool of all the others. Demand and everything else are personal values that are assigned to pets and should only loosely be taken into consideration as everyone sees each pet differently depending on how much they like it.

I will agree on the talking part, however, as someone that has tried to trade for pets fairly, very often trying to talk out my reasoning for the value, its often difficult or impossible to do. People don't want to part with pets for what would be a fair value, they want more for what they have, and often when others refuse to meet it they will just cancel out of a trade. I just recently got a trade that was giving a late '10 rare dog for three different pets, all '09 rare or higher, because they wanted far more for the pet than it was worth. And any reason you make with them fails when they say 'But that's not what I think'.

I get older pets should be slightly more than newer pets, but to me the list was always confusing and, frankly, unobtainable to get. No one wanted to trade off of it, or if they did they wanted a lot just to get something from the lowest level of it. Unless you had been around for awhile or spent days doing nothing but sending out as many trades as you could you were lucky to even get a response and not an outright cancellation. And trying to climb up it? Forget it. The only way to get anywhere on it was to be lucky enough to pull something good from the 18th release.

Demand should only have the smallest effect on pets, and not have become the 'do all say all' that it has honestly turned into on this site.

[Okapi-chan]

You can stop updating the list, but you can't wipe the memory of the list from everyone's minds. This was a point I and others tried to make before it was retired, (along with the fact that expecting people to research the value of every pet before trading was unfeasible) but for naught. Its why I have been stepping back from trading on cs.

[ariadne]

I'm sorry but if my choice is between "a multi-thread research project for every pet" and "not trading" it's not trading every time. Like I said, we don't have to bring the list back, but I think that the market needs some kind of objective measuring stick to balance it out. You're vastly overestimating how many people are willing to talk it out. I know that I'm not always in the headspace to negotiate a trade.
Leaving everything up to subjective opinion is all fine and good but that creates an environment where the most popular designs are never attainable because the sky's the limit in how much they're valued.
If there's some kind of objective measuring involved then at least players have something to work toward and they know that they're moving upward. If it's all up to demand then you can quickly find yourself trading sideways or downwards and get confused when the value of both your pets and your goals change every week. It's not sustainable because the people involved will quickly burn out on trading and quit in frustration.

But it does have an objective measuring stick? That's what the rarities on pets are after all, they tell you how much that pet is worth in the general pool of all the others. Demand and everything else are personal values that are assigned to pets and should only loosely be taken into consideration as everyone sees each pet differently depending on how much they like it.

I will agree on the talking part, however, as someone that has tried to trade for pets fairly, very often trying to talk out my reasoning for the value, its often difficult or impossible to do. People don't want to part with pets for what would be a fair value, they want more for what they have, and often when others refuse to meet it they will just cancel out of a trade. I just recently got a trade that was giving a late '10 rare dog for three different pets, all '09 rare or higher, because they wanted far more for the pet than it was worth. And any reason you make with them fails when they say 'But that's not what I think'.

I get older pets should be slightly more than newer pets, but to me the list was always confusing and, frankly, unobtainable to get. No one wanted to trade off of it, or if they did they wanted a lot just to get something from the lowest level of it. Unless you had been around for awhile or spent days doing nothing but sending out as many trades as you could you were lucky to even get a response and not an outright cancellation. And trying to climb up it? Forget it. The only way to get anywhere on it was to be lucky enough to pull something good from the 18th release.

Demand should only have the smallest effect on pets, and not have become the 'do all say all' that it has honestly turned into on this site.

Rarity should be an objective measuring stick but it's just not. Even after the rarity update, my OMGSR rat did not suddenly become as valuable as a July PPS.
A recent Very rare is not the same as an old one because the old one could go up soon and it doesn't make sense to say that a store pet that will never be released again is the same as any other very rare. The rarities are limited and not descriptive at all.

Removing the list does not make pets easier to get, those same pets are still unobtainable without the trade fodder for it. And like I said, if there's no accurate objective measure then of course it comes down to demand in the end.

You can stop updating the list, but you can't wipe the memory of the list from everyone's minds. This was a point I and others tried to make before it was retired, (along with the fact that expecting people to research the value of every pet before trading was unfeasible) but for naught. Its why I have been stepping back from trading on cs.

Exactly. For better or for worse the list is embedded in CS trading culture. Without it or something similar there's a void in the trading game.

[skyline]

You can stop updating the list, but you can't wipe the memory of the list from everyone's minds. This was a point I and others tried to make before it was retired, (along with the fact that expecting people to research the value of every pet before trading was unfeasible) but for naught. Its why I have been stepping back from trading on cs.

i'm really hesitant to continue posting here because i don't want to somehow spark, or be involved in an argument. but this is something i see struggle to be understood too often. you cannot just expect people to wipe it from their minds after it playing one of, if not the biggest part in trading for so many years. if you look now, most people still follow it, and or the values of most pets have become scattered since demand took over from there, it had to. there can only be rough, or possibly good estimates as to what a pet is truly worth.

trading isn't supposed to be super easy, and it isn't supposed to be strapped down by some type of law. where's the fun in that? i don't mean to get into the whole store discussion again, but some pets are as rare as they are for a reason. people are naturally taking advantage of gathering older store pets right now because they know they'll be almost impossible to get in the future. there will only ever be less of them. even excluding store pets, you can't just somehow rid of demand, if there's nothing more accurate, what to you expect the outcome to be? the list was the only obstacle before. excuse all of my lack of better wording here.

[Aurora Storm]

I'm sorry but if my choice is between "a multi-thread research project for every pet" and "not trading" it's not trading every time. Like I said, we don't have to bring the list back, but I think that the market needs some kind of objective measuring stick to balance it out. You're vastly overestimating how many people are willing to talk it out. I know that I'm not always in the headspace to negotiate a trade.
Leaving everything up to subjective opinion is all fine and good but that creates an environment where the most popular designs are never attainable because the sky's the limit in how much they're valued.
If there's some kind of objective measuring involved then at least players have something to work toward and they know that they're moving upward. If it's all up to demand then you can quickly find yourself trading sideways or downwards and get confused when the value of both your pets and your goals change every week. It's not sustainable because the people involved will quickly burn out on trading and quit in frustration.

But it does have an objective measuring stick? That's what the rarities on pets are after all, they tell you how much that pet is worth in the general pool of all the others. Demand and everything else are personal values that are assigned to pets and should only loosely be taken into consideration as everyone sees each pet differently depending on how much they like it.

I will agree on the talking part, however, as someone that has tried to trade for pets fairly, very often trying to talk out my reasoning for the value, its often difficult or impossible to do. People don't want to part with pets for what would be a fair value, they want more for what they have, and often when others refuse to meet it they will just cancel out of a trade. I just recently got a trade that was giving a late '10 rare dog for three different pets, all '09 rare or higher, because they wanted far more for the pet than it was worth. And any reason you make with them fails when they say 'But that's not what I think'.

I get older pets should be slightly more than newer pets, but to me the list was always confusing and, frankly, unobtainable to get. No one wanted to trade off of it, or if they did they wanted a lot just to get something from the lowest level of it. Unless you had been around for awhile or spent days doing nothing but sending out as many trades as you could you were lucky to even get a response and not an outright cancellation. And trying to climb up it? Forget it. The only way to get anywhere on it was to be lucky enough to pull something good from the 18th release.

Demand should only have the smallest effect on pets, and not have become the 'do all say all' that it has honestly turned into on this site.

Rarity should be an objective measuring stick but it's just not. Even after the rarity update, my OMGSR rat did not suddenly become as valuable as a July PPS.
A recent Very rare is not the same as an old one because the old one could go up soon and it doesn't make sense to say that a store pet that will never be released again is the same as any other very rare. The rarities are limited and not descriptive at all.

Removing the list does not make pets easier to get, those same pets are still unobtainable without the trade fodder for it. And like I said, if there's no accurate objective measure then of course it comes down to demand in the end.

You can stop updating the list, but you can't wipe the memory of the list from everyone's minds. This was a point I and others tried to make before it was retired, (along with the fact that expecting people to research the value of every pet before trading was unfeasible) but for naught. Its why I have been stepping back from trading on cs.

Exactly. For better or for worse the list is embedded in CS trading culture. Without it or something similar there's a void in the trading game.

An OMGSR rat is not going to suddenly be as valuable as a July PPS because it's not as rare, simple as that. The only rat worth more than a July PPS is the UR Rat, and it's not even that big of a gap. We're not saying OMGSR should equal OMGSR / VR=VR etc. because obviously that wouldn't work. But rarity is an objective measuring stick; you're not going to get an uncommon for an OMGSR rat are you? You'll get a VR at the very least if you're trading with someone who doesn't value rats that highly - or you'll get what it's worth from someone who does.
The rarities are only limited if you don't seek out any information behind them. Which is not at all hard to find, especially with the data being compiled lately. And if you're thinking to make a trade fair you have to check every single pet involved, then I think you're taking it a little too seriously. That's were I feel a big part of the problem comes from; people are too obsessed with getting the best deal they possibly can rather than just... wanting a pet? And trading for that pet?

And again, there are enough resources around the place to replace the list without having "a list". It's not coming back, the creator has requested it not come back, staff have said it's not coming back. If you absolutely need to follow a list, follow it. Or make your own with the plethora of rarity & demand information there is around the site.

[Seasonal]

It seems that this thread is becoming a debate about retiring the list rather than talking about the state of demand on CS. The list was retired by its original creators after the community voted on a poll, so there's no point in arguing over whether it should have happened or not. Please remember to stay on topic; this thread is to discuss the state of demand and how it is affecting the trading economy. It is not a thread to debate the retirement of the list. Similar threads have been locked in the past, and I've seen some great discussions on this thread so I would hate for it to come to that. :<

[ariadne]

The main reason demand has such an influence on our economy right now is because there is nothing there to safeguard pet values. Whether we like it or not, the list did that by providing an outside justification for why a pet should be worth a certain amount and not more. Fine, the list is not coming back, I accept that (although I don't for a second believe that the creators have retired it voluntarily) but the fact remains that we need to have some kind of way to validate the fairness of our trades if we don't want people to mass quit in frustration.

An OMGSR rat is not going to suddenly be as valuable as a July PPS because it's not as rare, simple as that. The only rat worth more than a July PPS is the UR Rat, and it's not even that big of a gap. We're not saying OMGSR should equal OMGSR / VR=VR etc. because obviously that wouldn't work. But rarity is an objective measuring stick; you're not going to get an uncommon for an OMGSR rat are you? You'll get a VR at the very least if you're trading with someone who doesn't value rats that highly - or you'll get what it's worth from someone who does.
The rarities are only limited if you don't seek out any information behind them. Which is not at all hard to find, especially with the data being compiled lately. And if you're thinking to make a trade fair you have to check every single pet involved, then I think you're taking it a little too seriously. That's were I feel a big part of the problem comes from; people are too obsessed with getting the best deal they possibly can rather than just... wanting a pet? And trading for that pet?

And again, there are enough resources around the place to replace the list without having "a list". It's not coming back, the creator has requested it not come back, staff have said it's not coming back. If you absolutely need to follow a list, follow it. Or make your own with the plethora of rarity & demand information there is around the site.

But that's what the person I was quoting said - "We already have an objective measuring stick, pet rarity" - if you follow those words to their logical conclusion that means that vr = vr and so on and so forth. And why is an OMGSR rat not as rare as the July PPS? They both have the same tag so "objectively" they should be traded the same. Doesn't work out that well does it now.

A rare retired store pet can be traded for very rares, a very rare can be worth an omgsr, a very rare store pet is not worth a very rare regular pet from the same year etc etc

A lot of people take trading seriously and even if you personally don't like to do that, that is the way they want to play this game. It's a fact that removing the rares list has made a sizeable amount of people unhappy and that these people want to find a way to fill that gap. Personally I refuse to use any of the "new lists" - I really, really don't care what the time something changed rarities says about it's value, that's irrelevant to the trading market 9/10. I don't care what the demand on something is today because it will be different again in a week.
Really all I can do is try to use the old list until it completely falls apart and then what? I'll probably quit, and that's another large collection of pets taken out of circulation. And that's just me, there's bound to be multiple older users that feel like that since the rares list was such a big part of trading properly for years.

The crux is that demand will continue to rule unchecked unless there's something to keep it reasonable the way the rares list did. People have previously suggested new rarities but I feel like that would clutter things up even more so really I'm stumped.

[Shinryu]

But the thing is,the list didn't keep demand in check. It really already didn't. All those "high demand" pets (even excluding the old store pets) already went for more (often far more) than their list position's worth. People already traded those pets for overpay when the list was there. The amount of times I've seen posts along the lines of "this pet is [position] on the list, but with demand it can go for [more]", followed by a significantly higher value, could probably buy me a house if I got a dollar for each.

I'm kinda surprised to see so many posts describing unchecked demand as something that only got bad after the list retired when it's been one of the biggest and most common complaints people had about the trading scene on CS for the past few years.