CS 2022 Trading Survey (Results Posted, Come Discuss!)

[Minimanta]

I don't go by the 2:1 rule. It almost never feels fair to me.
And I especially don't go by that rule if I'm trading down (which I never really do anyway), I do not like to trade down at all. I will never accept just two uncommons for my one rare. And I don't care how old those uncommons are, they're still just uncommons. Age doesn't make them more rare, in pure rarity, than even the most worthless of rares.

[Neoncherry64]

I don't go by the 2:1 rule. It almost never feels fair to me.
And I especially don't go by that rule if I'm trading down (which I never really do anyway), I do not like to trade down at all. I will never accept just two uncommons for my one rare. And I don't care how old those uncommons are, they're still just uncommons. Age doesn't make them more rare, in pure rarity, than even the most worthless of rares.

Thanks for your input! I don’t want to spoil the results early since they’re still developing and changing rapidly, but I will say that you are definitely not alone in your thinking.

The 2:1 rule is so ingrained in chicken smoothie trading history since the very beginning, but it seems more like a “2:1 suggestion” nowadays. I personally see many fewer people using the 2:1 rule for rarities than the 2:1 rule for dates for sure. The results have certainly been enlightening to me so far, and surprising at times too! I look forward to sharing them with you all.

[huskyhiccups]

posting to see results. Very interested 👀

[Wookieinmashoo]

I don't go by the 2:1 rule. It almost never feels fair to me.
And I especially don't go by that rule if I'm trading down (which I never really do anyway), I do not like to trade down at all. I will never accept just two uncommons for my one rare. And I don't care how old those uncommons are, they're still just uncommons. Age doesn't make them more rare, in pure rarity, than even the most worthless of rares.

I am also of this mind. I will never see one uncommon = one rare no matter the date. Dates, as I am finding out, do not play a significant factor at all. It originally was supposed to reflect how the older pets were likely in a "permanent home" but that is such a strange statement as I have seen people tear apart collections and trade pets they've had for a long time. This is especially true with newer pets for me. There hasn't been much of a change in the amount of players gained versus lost in the last six years.

I feel the in "permanent homes" statement could have a applied to the first few years of CS, but it does not work anymore. I have been generally trading a ration of 5:1 for uncommon:rare for items for a while now and have gotten very little disagreement with that from people. For items 2011 and older I treat them differently with a smaller ratio.

[Leopardy]

Oooof, that 2:1 Rule Thing xD
So, I do use it for OMG So Commons, Very Commons and Commons within the same year. I also sometimes use it for Uncommons that do not have that high of a demand (example for Rats, Horses, Ponies). I do not use it for Uncommons with better demand, Rares and up. I also rarely trade down Uncommons, let alone Rares and up. Yes I might be a bit stingy, but I feel better trading Uncommon for Uncommon or Rares for Rares. Allthough there is wiggle room for Very Rares and up. I might trade a Very Rare down if I get a really really good offer. Otherwise, chances are low that I will be trading down.

Though, I have to add that I think an recent Store Pet seems good for a 2010 Rare.

[Neoncherry64]

Bump!

We are very close to 100 responses, and more are coming in every day! Thank you all!

[Arcanine Luver]

this survey was really interesting to take! definitely made me think about the way i handle trading

[Ironic Equation]

Taken! I thought the survey was really good, and I'm interested to see the results (:

[Pandora!]

Completed! This survey was an awesome idea, I'm really excited to see what the results are especially because in recent months it seems like many "list" & high demand pets are continuing to be pushed up in value without much trade data to support that they're actually worth that much. There seems to be a growing demand for "overpay" on any list or high demand pet for no particular reason.

[noteworthy]

friendly bump :)