We've all heard it before:
One '09 rare is worth two '10 rares.
A '10 very rare is worth the same as an '09 rare.
A 2016 rare is worth less than an '09 rare.
This has been ingrained in me (and many other players) since the day I joined. But why do we value rares this way?
I know that this is how it's always been, but I'm asking sincerely: why? If two pets have the same rarity tag - regardless of year - should they not have roughly the same value (barring OMGSR / other high-value "list" pets)? Why is a pet with the "very rare" rarity tag deemed less than a pet with a "rare" tag, just because the very rare pet is more recent? By definition, a very rare is rarer than a rare. If it were less rare, it would not have a higher rarity tag.
So why do we value pets this way? I can think of two main reasons off the top of my head: People think that older pets are ultimately rarer, or that because they may have become rare earlier, they are more rare than newer rares. However, there is no evidence to either of these claims.
Let's break down this first claim: that older pets are rarer and thus worth more than newer pets. Again, there is not any solid evidence to this. Despite the fact that these pets were originally released several years prior, December 18th rereleases old pets to keep them in circulation, and older rares still have the same "rare" tag as newer rares. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a rare is worth more than another rare simply because it is older.
Now let's turn to the second claim. Some people may look at when a pet turned rare in determining its ultimate worth. Because of this, they may decide that pets from 2009 that became rare in, say, 2011, are rarer than pets that automatically went straight to rare upon their release in 2019. This is problematic because there is truly no way of really knowing which pet is rarer, especially without solid numbers.
On a similar note, many people adhere to the "three month" rule; that is, that one pet is worth the exact same as a pet of the same rarity if their original release dates are within three months of each other. However, this does not make sense if we say older rares are worth more purely because they went rarer sooner.
To help emphasize what I mean, let's look at a few pets and when they turned rare.
First, let's take a look at the Yellow Lights Dog from the 2009 Advent event.
This pet was originally released in December of 2009, but has only been rare since March of 2012.
Next, let's look at a pet from the same month (December 2009): the White Antique Dog.
This dog, despite being released the very same month as the Yellow Lights Dog, has been rare since February of 2015. If we were to go by the assumption that pets that turned rare earlier are worth more, the Yellow Lights Dog should not be a fair swap for the White Antique Dog. However, we use the three month rule to decide that these pets, despite the nearly three year gap in their rarity changes, are worth the same.
Why are these pets valued the same, yet pets that have been rare (or higher) since their release are worth less than these pets? The Green-Headed Cockatrice Chicken (image here) turned rare in December of 2014, yet this pet is worth significantly less than any '09 rare, let alone the White Antique Dog.
So it's obvious that it's not the fact that some older rares turned rare sooner than the new rares were released; if this were the case, the three month rule could not be accurate, since there are huge gaps in when pets turned rare, despite being released around a similar time.
Now, let's look at the 2016 Green Robot Rat from the 2016 Space Event.
This pet turned very rare from the moment it got its rarity tag. It is the only summer event pet to have turned very rare ever. It has never wavered from this rarity either. So why is it worth less in our current system than a 2009 rare? No, really: why is a very rare worth less than a rare? I cannot see how this makes any sort of logical sense.
Why do we trade this way? This system - specifically the "one '09 rare equals two '10 rares or one '10 very rare" system - is not simple or sustainable. I saw a player who posted a chart of how many rares one rare from any given year is worth, and a 2009 rare was said to be worth 4096 2021 rares. Now, the math and values were correct, based on our current system. As some players pointed out, however, no player would or could conceivably conduct a trade like this.
Another point I'd like to bring up here is demand. Some people may suggest that older pets are worth more because they have higher demand than newer pets. This may be the case with some older pets, but it certainly isn't the case with all of them. Obviously, some pets, such as the Shima Longtail, will be valued higher than their rarity tags because of their demand. I can understand this - a highly sought after pet that many people want to keep could lead to less of them in circulation - but this isn't the case with all of the pets. This is especially true because December 18th keeps older pets in circulation. If older pets have higher demand purely because they are older, then that is only because they were originally said to be worth more. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the older rares are more valuable, not because they are actually rarer, but because players are told that they are worth more and our trading system is molded around this idea. It is the players that give pets value; this is why some very rare pets are considered to be worth several OMGSR pets. It may not make sense on a logical level, but if everyone believes something is more valuable, it will be more valuable. So where am I going with this? Again, I'd like to reiterate that older rares are not worth more than newer rares purely because they are older. Even if demand and the trading system give older rares a higher value, they are not actually rarer than newer rares. Because of this, older rares should not be treated as if they are rarer, and thus worth more, than newer rares and very rares.
Some players may guess that newer rares are closer to uncommon and older rares are closer to very rare, but again, there is no way to tell. With the limited rarity tags and lack of concrete data, there is no way to ever truly know if one rare is rarer than another. This problem is further amplified by the fact that rarities are constantly fluctuating; players become inactive, December 18th releases more pets... there's not really a fool-proof way to know how one rare pet compares to another, so all we can really use are the rarity tags.
Therefore, it would be more logical, simple, and sustainable to go by the system that one rare is equal to any other rare, regardless of the release year. Furthermore, I believe that including more rarity tags (specifically ones between uncommon/rare, rare/very rare, and very rare/OMGSR) could help us better understand where exactly certain pets stand in terms of rarity. This could help eliminate major doubts that pets that are older are rarer just because they are older, but that's a discussion for another day.
TL;DR: older pets are not necessarily rarer than newer pets, so it doesn't make sense to value them as such. I believe that it would be more simple, logical, and sustainable to go by the system of "one rare = one rare" regardless of release year.
However, I would like to hear the rest of the CS community. What are your thoughts on our current system of trading? Does it make sense that older rares are worth more than newer rares? Why? I'd love to hear more about everyone's thoughts surrounding this topic
Edit: I've had some great input here, so I figured I'd put up a poll to get a better idea of what the CS community thinks about specific aspects of the rarity math / trading system. Here it is!
.jpg)
