Would anyone be interested in a CS Rarity "calculator"?

[musicgurl333]

This was brought to my attention and I'm interested. I do believe dates do matter, but not nearly as much as people think it usually does.

I have a serious issue with dates and how people perceive them. I asked my wife so many questions about dates and why they matter, did a lot of reading, and now that I know more it makes even less sense of why people value it so much. It's one thing to have a personal preference for older pets, but many people seem to objectively believe that older pets are automatically "better" when it's not (to my understanding
Compare that to a pet in 2020 that is already a rare, it can only go up in rarity, has the potential to go back down to a normal rare, but never lower than that (minus rereleases). So statistically, that 2020 rare pet should be considered "more valuable" than the 2012 pet, but most people don't think that way. I could be wrong so anyone feel free to correct me, but to my understanding this is how CS determines rarity

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that dates are over emphasized. This “doubling every year” thing is honestly absurd and makes no sense. It results in some ridiculous trade advice.

But I do think dates matter somewhat. Older pets are seems to be less in circulation and are often harder to find. Think of it this way...when there’s an event, anyone currently active and with some free time has a chance to get the rare pets. Often people get extras specifically for trading. So those recent pets are widely available and pretty easy to find, even after the even ends. But for older pets, some of those have found their way into collections where they’re not for trade, and some users who got them when they were new are no longer active. That takes a lot of those older pets out of circulation. Meanwhile, new users keep joining and looking for those older pets, so there’s more competition for the ones that are available. All of those factors drive up the value for those pets.

Ideally, WHEN pets turned rare should factor into their value. An ‘11 pet that just went rare is less rare than a ‘19 rare that’s been that way since its release. The problem with that, is that it makes trading a lot more complicated, because you have to go in and check when rarities changed for every pet, every time. So collectively, users seem to have decided that older pets are worth more. It simplifies things a bit, and if the majority follow that, then it works.

So yes, I think the date thing is waaaaaaay overblown (1 ‘15 uncommon should NOT equal 32 ‘20 uncommons...that’s completely insane), but I do think it matters to an extent, even if only because the community has decided that it does.

As far as the rarity calculator, I would be interested. I’m not entirely sure how useful I think it is for trading, but I’m curious to at least see it and check it out.

[aluminumPP]

^It’s not just about the pets on active accounts, what you’re saying is correct when it’s about *rarity*
Another thing that factors into the value is *availability*
You’ll notice if you hoard any common pet that the older it is the harder it is to find, yet if you’re looking for any recent event rare they’re in everyone’s trade groups. This is because as the pets are traded around and more time passes, more and more get put in locked groups, either collection or hoard groups.
Even though they’re locked, they’re still on active accounts, so they do factor into rarity, but because older pets are harder to find they’re worth more. Does that make sense?

I however don’t agree that it factors as much as a lot of people think it does, I think double-ing it per year is a bit much, especially if they also value rarity jumps as 2 for 1.
I’d rather value a VR as 4 rares and make less of a drastic year jump, I value 2020 - 2018, 2015 - 2017, etc. around the same tbh

That's a good point. If someone owned every single OMG so common of a certain pet, the rarity wouldn't change yet that would mean that the pet is no longer in circulation.

A solution that I can think off the top of my head would be to implement something that can track the average time spent in a persons account or group for a particular pet.

Otherwise, giving certain pets more "value" because "it's not very often traded" is he said she said, without ever actually knowing if that's true or not. If that's not a possibility, then we should simply go based off of rarity for simplicity sake for both new and veteran users

[Bilaz]

Otherwise, giving certain pets more "value" because "it's not very often traded" is he said she said, without ever actually knowing if that's true or not. If that's not a possibility, then we should simply go based off of rarity for simplicity sake for both new and veteran users

Well I agree with most of your post except this little bit, I think we *can* go off on date for the availability, because it is a simple fact that recent monthlies are in everyone's double groups. And I believe a valid extrapolation is: the longer since their release the more have found their forever home. Just... Not as strongly as we do now, maybe something like:
8 'recent rares' (2020 - 2018) = 2 'recent very rares' = 4 'mid rares' (2016-2014) = 2 'old rares' (2013-2011) = 1 'very old rare' (2010-2009)

That's how I'd value them anyway, I'm not going to ask for crazy quantity just because I have a rare 2009 horse -shrug-
I think anyone could grab 8 token rares from the upcoming summer event and offer that for my 09 horse, that seems reasonable

[aluminumPP]

This was brought to my attention and I'm interested. I do believe dates do matter, but not nearly as much as people think it usually does.

I have a serious issue with dates and how people perceive them. I asked my wife so many questions about dates and why they matter, did a lot of reading, and now that I know more it makes even less sense of why people value it so much. It's one thing to have a personal preference for older pets, but many people seem to objectively believe that older pets are automatically "better" when it's not (to my understanding
Compare that to a pet in 2020 that is already a rare, it can only go up in rarity, has the potential to go back down to a normal rare, but never lower than that (minus rereleases). So statistically, that 2020 rare pet should be considered "more valuable" than the 2012 pet, but most people don't think that way. I could be wrong so anyone feel free to correct me, but to my understanding this is how CS determines rarity

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that dates are over emphasized. This “doubling every year” thing is honestly absurd and makes no sense. It results in some ridiculous trade advice.

But I do think dates matter somewhat. Older pets are seems to be less in circulation and are often harder to find. Think of it this way...when there’s an event, anyone currently active and with some free time has a chance to get the rare pets. Often people get extras specifically for trading. So those recent pets are widely available and pretty easy to find, even after the even ends. But for older pets, some of those have found their way into collections where they’re not for trade, and some users who got them when they were new are no longer active. That takes a lot of those older pets out of circulation. Meanwhile, new users keep joining and looking for those older pets, so there’s more competition for the ones that are available. All of those factors drive up the value for those pets.

Older pets may seem like they are being traded less, and that's most likely the case, but we can't ever truly know. Is an older pet really in low circulation because they are in people's NFT groups or is it because everyone says that they're out of circulation? This is completely anecdotal, but I've been gifted a few 2012 rare dogs as a welcoming gift which I very much appreciate.

Now addressing your point on pets being taken out of circulation, that would be reflected on the rarity displayed below the pet, since rarity is based off the pet per user ratio. This is a good example of value assigned by collective opinion rather than actual value (not trying to be offensive). If a pet was really going out of circulation, then the rarity displayed would simply change. There's no real guess work to be done here other than how often it was being traded

[aluminumPP]

Otherwise, giving certain pets more "value" because "it's not very often traded" is he said she said, without ever actually knowing if that's true or not. If that's not a possibility, then we should simply go based off of rarity for simplicity sake for both new and veteran users

Well I agree with most of your post except this little bit, I think we *can* go off on date for the availability, because it is a simple fact that recent monthlies are in everyone's double groups and the longer since their release the more have found their forever home. Just... Not as strongly as we do now, maybe something like 4 'recent rares'(2020 - 2018) = 1 'recent very rare' = 2 'mid rares' (2014-2016) = 1 'old rare' (2011-2013)

and then double again for 'very old rare' (2009-2010)
That's how I'd value them anyway, I'm not going to ask for crazy quantity just because I have a rare 2009 horse -shrug-
I think anyone could grab 8 token rares from the upcoming summer event and offer that for my 09 horse, that seems reasonable

This is my issue here. It's okay to assume that older pets are less likely to be traded, probably. The issue is everyone follows different guides and assigns different values to these dates. They have no foundation or basis to reference how these values are created

For example, how did you come up with 4 'recent rares' equaling 1 'recent very rare' ? We know that a very rare is less than 1 pet/80 users. A regular rare is less than 1/25 users. For simplicities sake, lets just say the rarity statistics are 1/81 and 1/26

That would make a 'very rare' worth about 3.11 'regular rares' as opposed to 4. This is my main point. Rather than everyone having their own guidelines that don't seem to line up with each other, we should just go off the rarity that is already listed for every pet

[superior alex]

That'll be helpful!

[Bilaz]

This is my issue here. It's okay to assume that older pets are less likely to be traded, probably. The issue is everyone follows different guides and assigns different values to these dates. They have no foundation or basis to reference how these values are created

For example, how did you come up with 4 'recent rares' equaling 1 'recent very rare' ? We know that a very rare is less than 1 pet/80 users. A regular rare is less than 1/25 users. For simplicities sake, lets just say the rarity statistics are 1/81 and 1/26

That would make a 'very rare' worth about 3.11 'regular rares' as opposed to 4. This is my main point. Rather than everyone having their own guidelines that don't seem to line up with each other, we should just go off the rarity that is already listed for every pet

Fair fair! I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think everyone following their own values is what CS was meant to be! It is why Nick and Tess have not released rarity data as it would make trading too rigid. If you think I'm asking too many rares for my very rare, then find someone who's values you agree more with to trade with! Or offer 3 rares and maybe if I like them more than my very rare I'll accept! As for those numbers you quoted, I believe the only data ever given from Nick dates back to about 2009, and there have been several *major* rarity updates since, so we really don't know what rare or very rare mean! It's up to what the users find values they find fair.

[musicgurl333]

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that dates are over emphasized. This “doubling every year” thing is honestly absurd and makes no sense. It results in some ridiculous trade advice.

But I do think dates matter somewhat. Older pets are seems to be less in circulation and are often harder to find. Think of it this way...when there’s an event, anyone currently active and with some free time has a chance to get the rare pets. Often people get extras specifically for trading. So those recent pets are widely available and pretty easy to find, even after the even ends. But for older pets, some of those have found their way into collections where they’re not for trade, and some users who got them when they were new are no longer active. That takes a lot of those older pets out of circulation. Meanwhile, new users keep joining and looking for those older pets, so there’s more competition for the ones that are available. All of those factors drive up the value for those pets.

Older pets may seem like they are being traded less, and that's most likely the case, but we can't ever truly know. Is an older pet really in low circulation because they are in people's NFT groups or is it because everyone says that they're out of circulation? This is completely anecdotal, but I've been gifted a few 2012 rare dogs as a welcoming gift which I very much appreciate.

Now addressing your point on pets being taken out of circulation, that would be reflected on the rarity displayed below the pet, since rarity is based off the pet per user ratio. This is a good example of value assigned by collective opinion rather than actual value (not trying to be offensive). If a pet was really going out of circulation, then the rarity displayed would simply change. There's no real guess work to be done here other than how often it was being traded

I do agree that part of it is just collective opinion, which I mentioned in my post. But by “out of circulation” I’m not referring to only those pets on inactive accounts. I’m talking about pets in locked groups and pets on accounts that aren’t very active, but technically aren’t counted at being inactive. For example, I have a raven dog in my locked groups. I’m never going to trade it, so it’s out of circulation. However, it’s still on an active account so the rarity isn’t affected.

For another example, there was quite a while when I was on a semi-hiatus. I adopted monthly pets, but that was it. I wasn’t trading or posting or anything else. So all of the pets on my account were temporarily out of circulation. Since my account is still active the rarity wasn’t affected, but there were fewer of those pets available to trade.

Unfortunately you’re correct...there’s no way to measure this or accurately gauge it. That makes things difficult. And maybe it’s wrong. Maybe the circulation thing has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it seems like a reasonable guess.

You could try to test it though (And by “you” I don’t mean you specifically, I mean anyone who is interested). Pick 2 pets...a recent pet and an older pet of the same rarity (I’d suggest either common or uncommon just to make it easier). Then, look through people’s open groups (it’s important to only look at open groups, since locked groups are rarely for trade, making the pets there effectively “out of circulation”) and see how difficult it is to find the recent pet vs the older pet.

If anyone does test this, I’d actually be really interested to hear the results!

[musicgurl333]

Okay, so after I suggested it, I couldn't resist testing the experiment I mentioned. The three pets I chose and the numbers of them that I found are below. The rules I made for myself when choosing the pets were:

1. All pets must be the same species.
2. Basic line art only
3. No event pets (though you could do a different version with only event pets).
4. All pets must the same rarity.

Originally I wanted them all to be exactly 5 years apart, but I it took me a little while to find a common '10 cat, and then I didn't really want to go and change my other picks.


To do the experiment, I picked 20 people at random and looked at their open groups to see how many of each pet I could find. (The pets were all added to my WL for easier searching.)

I was actually really surprised by the results. I thought there would be a bigger difference in how many '20 and '15 pets I found, and I was expecting to find at least a couple more pets from '10.

Jan 2020- 23 found

Jan. 2015- 15 found

August 2010- 1 found

I realize this is only one test, but I feel like it supports the hypothesis that years matter...but not nearly as much as people seem to think (with the possible exception of very old pets, where date seems to matter more).

If someone else wants to try this with different pets, rarities, etc. I would be really interested to see if how it turns out. Looking back, I feel like it might be more accurate to try this with uncommons. Most '10 pets are uncommon and up, so the common cat I chose is probably on the less common end of the "common" scale.

[Bilaz]

Okay, so after I suggested it, I couldn't resist testing the experiment I mentioned. The three pets I chose and the numbers of them that I found are below. The rules I made for myself when choosing the pets were:

1. All pets must be the same species.
2. Basic line art only
3. No event pets (though you could do a different version with only event pets).
4. All pets must the same rarity.

Originally I wanted them all to be exactly 5 years apart, but I it took me a little while to find a common '10 cat, and then I didn't really want to go and change my other picks.


To do the experiment, I picked 20 people at random and looked at their open groups to see how many of each pet I could find. (The pets were all added to my WL for easier searching.)

I was actually really surprised by the results. I thought there would be a bigger difference in how many '20 and '15 pets I found, and I was expecting to find at least a couple more pets from '10.

Jan 2020- 23 found

Jan. 2015- 15 found

August 2010- 1 found

I realize this is only one test, but I feel like it supports the hypothesis that years matter...but not nearly as much as people seem to think (with the possible exception of very old pets, where date seems to matter more).

If someone else wants to try this with different pets, rarities, etc. I would be really interested to see if how it turns out. Looking back, I feel like it might be more accurate to try this with uncommons. Most '10 pets are uncommon and up, so the common cat I chose is probably on the less common end of the "common" scale.

This is so cool!!!
Out of curiosity I repeated your experiment with two pets I knew were mass hoarded:

This one from 2012, who someone hoarded a whole litter of which reached the like 10000s, it's only a recent common, it was VC last year?
I found 5 of them
And this one:

From 2016, which is still VC and which *I* mass hoarded (I have 2000 of them)
And I found 4 of them

Hmmm
Maybe hoarding has way more of an effect than dates.