do you use "rarity math"? (poll)

[cuddlewuffle]

(posting welcome!!)
hi

very sorry if this is in the wrong place
i was just wondering, how many people follow "rarity math" when making non-list trades?

ofc ik that rarity math doesn't work when trading lists/ex-lists etc., as the "understanding rarities" guide clarifies, but what about regular pets?

this is what i typically go by (minus the species thing, i don't pay as much attention to it) and i thought it was pretty common but i've been trading way more recently and i get a lot of trades that'd be considered unfair according to this guide- so maybe it's not as common as i thought? i thought it was just a new user thing but a lot of the ppl have been on the site longer than i have. what do you guys go by?

trading can be kind of frustrating nowadays, because people treat some pets from this year like they're worth a lot, when in reality they're technically worth the least of all the pets on the site :<

i feel like this rarity math makes sense, and it's helpful since i'm trying to collect all the pets and don't want to lose value when i try trading for what i don't have ^^; (didn't make it by the way, just see it floating around in some ppls trade rules, sorry!)

note: the table is kinda out of date, as u can see its missing 2020 onwards,, if anyone knows where the updated version is pls lmk

[Cygnetta]

I used it for a long time just because everyone else was. Now I find more and more people not using it. So I don't use it strictly either. I'm not sure this chart is really fair. Why is a pet from the year before TWICE a pet from the year after? Wouldn't it be worth one of the year after plus a couple of pets of the rarity below it? This would seem to be the common sense answer. Until rarity data is actually released though, we won't know how reasonable or unreasonable the chart is. Maybe the chart is right. I recently traded for a rare 1 year earlier just adding some uncommons to the later rare, so I know some people accept that.

[moose.]

not sure if you want posts to this, let me know (:
Just my two cents, as an older player:
the biggest issue with trading is inflation these days it seems. Example: c$. When I first started, no one was particularly interested in c$ for pets. I don't even think it was an option 10+ years ago. But, when it was, I definitely did not see lists and ex lists going for thousands! Another example would be this events' popsicle lion. I see auctions for it, and the highest bid is often times xx+ c$ or several rares.

I feel like a large majority of users at the moment mostly want to trade up, not down, so when they see a trade involving this chart that they're not familiar with, it may look unfair when it is actually pretty fair. I still use it when trying to get certain older pets, but it definitely isn't the norm anymore. I've still had a lot of success with the three month rule { 10' rare = 10' rare within three months of each other } which, I believe, is still heavily used among most users. This chart may just be outdated.

Perhaps another contributor would be the amount of overpay that is often done in trading. I halt hoards if they're current month with unknown rarity because there is a small expectation to overpay because a pet may turn out rare even if it's a monthly adoptable. Other users see this demand and overpay from other users, and it gets passed down again and again. If someone is trading 1 11' uncommon for 1 11' uncommon + some vc or maybe even + newer uncommon, surely 1 11' uncommon can't equal 2 12' commons?

[Neoncherry64]

I do not use rarity math for newer pets, as it does not make sense whatsoever in my mind. The CS population does not double every year, so a 2020 rare is not twice as rare as a 2021 rare. The only time I use this rule is for older pets, like 2 2010 = 1 2009. I honestly think pets of the same rarity within 3 years can probably be traded fairly but since CS is so obsessed with dates, I don’t see that catching on ever.

I’m sure most people would rather have a 2021 uncommon than a 2015 very common, but according to rarity math, the very common would be worth a lot more.

Another problem I have with rarity math is Very Rares. A 2012 VR is worth at LEAST 1 ‘09 rare in my mind, but rarity math says it’s only worth 1 2011 rare. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would make that trade!

The 2:1 rule also doesn’t make much sense to me. It works great with commons and below, but I have never traded with someone willing to give a rare for 2 uncommons. Like ever. Plus, we know for a FACT that (at least in the early days of the site) rarities were not distributed 2:1 whatsoever. (See nick’s chart!) The higher up you go, the more distance is in between each rarity.

[cuddlewuffle]

I used it for a long time just because everyone else was. Now I find more and more people not using it. So I don't use it strictly either. I'm not sure this chart is really fair. Why is a pet from the year before TWICE a pet from the year after? Wouldn't it be worth one of the year after plus a couple of pets of the rarity below it? This would seem to be the common sense answer. Until rarity data is actually released though, we won't know how reasonable or unreasonable the chart is. Maybe the chart is right. I recently traded for a rare 1 year earlier just adding some uncommons to the later rare, so I know some people accept that.

yeah, same. when i was new, i feel like everyone was using it & it made sense for the most part. i agree that a couple of pets of the rarity below any given pet being added on in order to trade for a pet from the year before makes more sense than the ratio rule, but maybe the ratio is just easier for people to follow? i kinda like the simplicity of the ratio rule just because it makes it easier to check if a bulk trade is fair ^^;

not sure if you want posts to this, let me know (:
Just my two cents, as an older player:
the biggest issue with trading is inflation these days it seems. Example: c$. When I first started, no one was particularly interested in c$ for pets. I don't even think it was an option 10+ years ago. But, when it was, I definitely did not see lists and ex lists going for thousands! Another example would be this events' popsicle lion. I see auctions for it, and the highest bid is often times xx+ c$ or several rares.

I feel like a large majority of users at the moment mostly want to trade up, not down, so when they see a trade involving this chart that they're not familiar with, it may look unfair when it is actually pretty fair. I still use it when trying to get certain older pets, but it definitely isn't the norm anymore. I've still had a lot of success with the three month rule { 10' rare = 10' rare within three months of each other } which, I believe, is still heavily used among most users. This chart may just be outdated.

Perhaps another contributor would be the amount of overpay that is often done in trading. I halt hoards if they're current month with unknown rarity because there is a small expectation to overpay because a pet may turn out rare even if it's a monthly adoptable. Other users see this demand and overpay from other users, and it gets passed down again and again. If someone is trading 1 11' uncommon for 1 11' uncommon + some vc or maybe even + newer uncommon, surely 1 11' uncommon can't equal 2 12' commons?

yes, posts are welcome! i definitely agree, i think people looking to trade up instead of down is probably one of the main reasons. i've also had success w/ the three month rule, and i'm glad that's stayed consistent lol

and yeah the overtrading is definitely a factor, but i'm not sure how much i want to treat it as valid,, since it's such a fleeting thing? or it seems that way, like a lot of the "it" pets of years past that just ended up uncommon aren't really overtraded for the way that they were when they were new (maybe i'm wrong)

whenever i see a brand new rare getting auctioned off, with ppl putting down list pets as what they want.. idk, it just reminds me of ppl reselling squishmallows online for hundreds of dollars haha

I do not use rarity math for newer pets, as it does not make sense whatsoever in my mind. The CS population does not double every year, so a 2020 rare is not twice as rare as a 2021 rare. The only time I use this rule is for older pets, like 2 2010 = 1 2009. I honestly think pets of the same rarity within 3 years can probably be traded fairly but since CS is so obsessed with dates, I don’t see that catching on ever.

I’m sure most people would rather have a 2021 uncommon than a 2015 very common, but according to rarity math, the very common would be worth a lot more.

Another problem I have with rarity math is Very Rares. A 2012 VR is worth at LEAST 1 ‘09 rare in my mind, but rarity math says it’s only worth 1 2011 rare. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would make that trade!

The 2:1 rule also doesn’t make much sense to me. It works great with commons and below, but I have never traded with someone willing to give a rare for 2 uncommons. Like ever. Plus, we know for a FACT that (at least in the early days of the site) rarities were not distributed 2:1 whatsoever. (See nick’s chart!) The higher up you go, the more distance is in between each rarity.

i agree the 2:1 doesn't work for uncommons to rares, the chart says 4:1 for them ^^;
i dont think the ratios are always .. ideal i guess? like the values are there if you need them, but ofc ur right, most people wouldn't really want to trade up to an old VC

i think it's more practical to use old VCs in place of a higher rarity, ex. using 2 2011 VCs to trade for 1 2011 common

[quackk]

rarity math looks good on paper, then you see what happens with rares....
oh and the dreaded date/year math,,

i only use rarity math for omgsc - uc
never for rares and up cos its super inconsistent..

and if youve seen,, the dreaded, date math google sheet... oh you will not be able to unsee it..
everything jus doesnt add up

in conclusion, rarity math is only feasible for OMGSC - UC pets, and year jumping is not feasible if jumping more than 1 year.

[partly cloudy]

I USED to use rarity math, but I'll be honest... I suck at math lol

admittedly, ill still use it for older pets when trading up or down. But now, I'll always try to offer within the 3 months rule (it makes the most sense to my non-math brain). I keep it as fair as possible by trying to keep them the same species, as most people on here (ex.) won't trade a dog for a rat; some might, but most won't.

Anyways, 3 month rule and species similarity are the way I go now. Math is confusing to me