Rarity Value Discussion: Why Our Current System is Flawed

[Bilaz]

Glad you like it
Yeah I feel if pets from 2009 have really gotten so scarce by that point they'd move to very rare,
but they don't, because we have rereleases, so I think it'll always work?

[Wookieinmashoo]

I'll ditto what Shian said about pet availability. Also many people don't care about the differences between one rare and another other than year of release. Most people do care about very rares and their each individual rarity change is well documented.
Actually I just looked and it looks like even the rares are being logged now. Which is fantastic because previously I was just going by the same year of release for rares.

Bottom line though, if you don't like how people generally trade, then don't fall into line. Come up with your own and stick to it. I have gotten a lot of trades with multiple rares on my side and one on theirs with them stating it's fair. I just cancel it and let them know I don't do rarity math that way.

[September Rain]

I'll ditto what Shian said about pet availability. Also many people don't care about the differences between one rare and another other than year of release. Most people do care about very rares and their each individual rarity change is well documented.
Actually I just looked and it looks like even the rares are being logged now. Which is fantastic because previously I was just going by the same year of release for rares.

Bottom line though, if you don't like how people generally trade, then don't fall into line. Come up with your own and stick to it. I have gotten a lot of trades with multiple rares on my side and one on theirs with them stating it's fair. I just cancel it and let them know I don't do rarity math that way.

Thank you for your input, I appreciate it!

However, I feel like it would be very difficult to not fall into line in terms of rarity math. For example, most people will happily accept overpay, but if you sent them a trade offering a 2011 rare for their 2010 one, they'd most likely cancel and could think you were purposely being unfair. Of course, everyone is free to use their own rarity math system, but having a different rarity math system than the majority of players would make it difficult to trade effectively.

[rileypillow]

In this very simplified example, if you have 10 of the pets from 2009 and 10 of the pets from 2019, there's a good chance that 9 out of the 10 pets from 2009 are in someone's collection and not for trade. Whereas you'd have 5 out of 10 of the 2019 for trade because it's recent and everyone has multiples of them.

Agree with this!
I think that newer rares should be seen as worth more than they currently are, but I don’t agree with all rares being the same as there are huge differences, some being close to uncommon and others almost very rare.
Also, some older rares are more common and newer rares are less common, so maybe a very rough count of what’s for trade? Dec 18th also gives an idea as to what’s rarer, as they’re released more.

[September Rain]

In this very simplified example, if you have 10 of the pets from 2009 and 10 of the pets from 2019, there's a good chance that 9 out of the 10 pets from 2009 are in someone's collection and not for trade. Whereas you'd have 5 out of 10 of the 2019 for trade because it's recent and everyone has multiples of them.

Agree with this!
I think that newer rares should be seen as worth more than they currently are, but I don’t agree with all rares being the same as there are huge differences, some being close to uncommon and others almost very rare.
Also, some older rares are more common and newer rares are less common, so maybe a very rough count of what’s for trade? Dec 18th also gives an idea as to what’s rarer, as they’re released more.

Thank you for your input as well! The issue with getting a count of what pets are in open trade groups (and thus usually for trade) is that some people do trade pets from locked groups, or refuse to trade pets from open groups. For example, some people have a "showcase" group that is unlocked, but they never actually intend to trade these pets. On the other hand, some people might trade pets from their locked groups in certain circumstances (such as offering a pet they feel they can spare to buff up their auction bid). Maybe this isn't enough to affect the rough count, but I'm just unsure how this rough count could be done in a reasonable manner. It does sound like a really interesting idea though!

I also noticed that you mentioned the disparity between rares (with some being closer to uncommon and others closer to very rare). This, I feel, is a widespread problem with the higher rarities (i.e. rare, very rare, OMGSR). Do you think adding more rarity tags could help? Or would this problem (and the issue of supply) still persist so much that it would be useless to do so?

[Wookieinmashoo]

For example, most people will happily accept overpay, but if you sent them a trade offering a 2011 rare for their 2010 one, they'd most likely cancel and could think you were purposely being unfair.

I trade within the same year for the most part. Though if you can't do that you can take advantage of the 3 month rule by trading 3 months into the previous year. I really have no experience trading up since I've gotten most my pets without trading, so this suggestion may not work out. The rarity math such as 25 recent rares worth 1 2009 rare or whatever though, is ridiculous and I don't do it.

[Taf900]

Yeah I definitley understand your frustrations and you make very great points. I joined in 2012 and I honestly don't remember but I don't think we did the 2:1 rule back then. I think the other part of it is so many people have joined in like the last five years so they all had to individually trade for any pet they own before 2015 or so where they have just as equal chance at getting these pets for free or little work after they've joined. Like you could get dozens of rares in a year never trading if you were active for events and whatnot. But you would only get three from years before you joined (December 18). So in addition to more being locked up in people's collections, it also takes a lot more work to get get them, especially depending on your age.

And yes of course if we collectively decided they were worth the same, it would be easier to get them, but then they would get locked up in collections even more. So maybe the 2:1 is a little far fetched and unfair but I think it is actually quite a bit harder to find older pets even with the same or lesser rarities.

I rejoined after a three year break around mid 2020 and I have since built back up a complete collection for those years (accept store pets and special releases) and I found all of those pets within a couple months even though they were up to three years old or so. However, I am pretty sure there are many 2008-2010 pets that I need that I haven't seen anyone have up for trade at all or only a handful. Availability is just a lot lower because people care more for their older pet collections because they had to work harder to get them

[September Rain]

Yeah I definitley understand your frustrations and you make very great points. I joined in 2012 and I honestly don't remember but I don't think we did the 2:1 rule back then. I think the other part of it is so many people have joined in like the last five years so they all had to individually trade for any pet they own before 2015 or so where they have just as equal chance at getting these pets for free or little work after they've joined. Like you could get dozens of rares in a year never trading if you were active for events and whatnot. But you would only get three from years before you joined (December 18). So in addition to more being locked up in people's collections, it also takes a lot more work to get get them, especially depending on your age.

And yes of course if we collectively decided they were worth the same, it would be easier to get them, but then they would get locked up in collections even more. So maybe the 2:1 is a little far fetched and unfair but I think it is actually quite a bit harder to find older pets even with the same or lesser rarities.

I rejoined after a three year break around mid 2020 and I have since built back up a complete collection for those years (accept store pets and special releases) and I found all of those pets within a couple months even though they were up to three years old or so. However, I am pretty sure there are many 2008-2010 pets that I need that I haven't seen anyone have up for trade at all or only a handful. Availability is just a lot lower because people care more for their older pet collections because they had to work harder to get them

Yeah, I never really factored in availability before, but this thread has opened my eyes to that issue. How do you personally value older or otherwise harder to find rares?

[Riley ♥]

I see the 2:1 rule everywhere, and this is something that I follow when pets are close in year. Some people may be more sticklers about the rule, but honestly, it feels redundant. I can't think of anyone who would want to trade their '09 rare for any amount of '20 rares. And even then, everyone has their own ideas of what pets are worth and try to make those own personal feelings "official". That's why it's impossible to trade horses, rats, and ponies. Those are pretty much the only VR trade fodder I have left because everyone has been convinced that they're worthless.

I think that the main reason that older rares are worth more than newer rares is because people argue that there were fewer people on the site back then. However, I believe that CS had its peak around 2012-2015, so wouldn't that mean that there were more rares obtained during that time? Additionally, there are only a few rarity tags that couldn't possibly represent being slightly more rare than another. People say that 1 VR is worth 2 Rs of the same year, but people hardly ever trade like that, so there must be a much larger gap between the rarities. There is just no rarity tag to fill in these gaps.

I agree, the entire system is flawed. It is clear from the rarity tag's conception that it wasn't made with longevity in mind. I believe that rarity only became a thing once the Card dogs were released, up until that point people could adopt as many pets as they wanted.

Why actual rarity ratios will never be released is absolutely beyond me. All of these issues could be resolved simply by revealing the numbers behind the rarity.

[September Rain]

I think that the main reason that older rares are worth more than newer rares is because people argue that there were fewer people on the site back then. However, I believe that CS had its peak around 2012-2015, so wouldn't that mean that there were more rares obtained during that time? Additionally, there are only a few rarity tags that couldn't possibly represent being slightly more rare than another. People say that 1 VR is worth 2 Rs of the same year, but people hardly ever trade like that, so there must be a much larger gap between the rarities. There is just no rarity tag to fill in these gaps.

I agree, the entire system is flawed. It is clear from the rarity tag's conception that it wasn't made with longevity in mind. I believe that rarity only became a thing once the Card dogs were released, up until that point people could adopt as many pets as they wanted.

Why actual rarity ratios will never be released is absolutely beyond me. All of these issues could be resolved simply by revealing the numbers behind the rarity.

All of the points you brought up are great! The points about rarity tags stuck out to me the most, particularly your point that rarity tags don't express the disparity between pets, whether it be pets within the same rarity tag or the actual difference in rarity between pets with different rarity tags. This is a huge issue that has led to people inserting their own theories as to how much the pets are worth in comparison to each other, which has molded our entire trading system. Without actual numbers, all we know is that OMGSC < VC < C < UC < R < VR < OMGSR. We don't actually know whether a very rare is twice as rare as a rare, which causes a lot of issues.

Did the staff ever make an official statement as to why the rarity ratios won't be released? It seems odd not to release them, but maybe I'm overlooking something.