New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Loelya]

So theoretically, 2:1 trading with the 7 rarities meant 1 omgsr was worth 64 omgsc. Now would anyone actually take that trade? I wouldn't, I don't want 64 different omgsc. But that's what the math says. With the additional rarities, that makes 1 omgsr worth 1024 omgsc because we've got more tiers, more doubling action. Who in their right mind would add 1000+ omgsc to a trade? I wouldn't, that would take far too long and I don't have that many omgsc. So I guess I'm saying I'm not totally sold on the 2:1 rarity math.

I think a lot of players here are saying that 2:1 rarity math would make sense for trading between those rarities that are right next to each other? I agree it doesn't totally make sense when stretching it out that far. xD and I think most players were also saying that the 2:1 wouldn't work for omgsr specifically. but these are really worthwhile things to pull apart here, I'd be interested in further discussion on it.

In my mind, 1 vr = 1 r + 1 eu. (The goal tier = goal tier minus 1 + goal tier minus 2). That way the distance from omgsr and omgsc doesn't become so hyper inflated. But maybe that doesn't matter anyways because realistically that won't happen. But I feel like our system should be based on more solid math, you know?

now this is definitely an interesting approach! I feel like it could take work to get something like this to catch on, but maybe it'd be worth the effort if this seems like a workable system to enough players.

And another question- what on earth are store pets now valued as?

I think this one is gonna be really tough xD

[Trphlthdl]

In my mind, 1 vr = 1 r + 1 eu. (The goal tier = goal tier minus 1 + goal tier minus 2). That way the distance from omgsr and omgsc doesn't become so hyper inflated. But maybe that doesn't matter anyways because realistically that won't happen. But I feel like our system should be based on more solid math, you know?

now this is definitely an interesting approach! I feel like it could take work to get something like this to catch on, but maybe it'd be worth the effort if this seems like a workable system to enough players.

I think this one is gonna be really tough xD[/quote]
I'm wondering if this doesn't equal out to my "Do we have a general consensus on 2:1 vs 3:1? maybe 2:1 for rarities that are next to each other, and 3:1 for ones that just barely aren't?" but I do not currently have the mental juice to figure out this logic puzzle.

[Loelya]

I'm wondering if this doesn't equal out to my "Do we have a general consensus on 2:1 vs 3:1? maybe 2:1 for rarities that are next to each other, and 3:1 for ones that just barely aren't?" but I do not currently have the mental juice to figure out this logic puzzle.

hmmm okay this might be a longshot, but what about something like, anything within the "common" labels are 2:1, anything within the "uncommon" labels are 2:1, and anything within the "rare" labels are 2:1?

but then if you're trading "up" or "down" into the next section, you'd go 3:1? (but still excluding omgsr as a special category.)

so like,
2 omgsc = 1 extremely common
2 extremely commons = 1 very common
2 very commons = 1 common

3 commons = 1 uncommon
2 uncommons = very uncommon
2 very uncommons = 1 extremely uncommon

3 extremely uncommons = 1 rare
2 rares = 1 very rare
2 very rares = 1 extremely rare

[Ishnawababa]

In my mind, 1 vr = 1 r + 1 eu. (The goal tier = goal tier minus 1 + goal tier minus 2). That way the distance from omgsr and omgsc doesn't become so hyper inflated. But maybe that doesn't matter anyways because realistically that won't happen. But I feel like our system should be based on more solid math, you know?

now this is definitely an interesting approach! I feel like it could take work to get something like this to catch on, but maybe it'd be worth the effort if this seems like a workable system to enough players.

I'm wondering if this doesn't equal out to my "Do we have a general consensus on 2:1 vs 3:1? maybe 2:1 for rarities that are next to each other, and 3:1 for ones that just barely aren't?" but I do not currently have the mental juice to figure out this logic puzzle.

I'm actually going the opposite direction- instead of 2:1 or 3:1, my suggested goal rarity = goal rarity minus 1 + goal rarity minus 2 is more like a 1.5:1
Getting the general cs population to understand that would be a mountain I'm not sure any of us can climb though lol. And speaking of getting the general cs population to understand, while I voted for a 5 year rule, I think going from 3 month to 3 year rule will be MUCH easier to catch on.

[Loelya]

And speaking of getting the general cs population to understand, while I voted for a 5 year rule, I think going from 3 month to 3 year rule will be MUCH easier to catch on.

I do think this is an extremely good point, hadn't considered this at all before making the thread. I also voted for the 5 year rule but tbh if the rule becomes "3 year" instead because it's easier for people to understand, then I'm all for that.

[SolarSonnet]

I don't trade much anymore, but I did use the 2:1 method for trading years and rarities.

I'll likely be trying more 1:1 within ~3 years, I think 5 years is too much. 2015 pets, imo, are not worth the same as 2020 pets, but 2020 and 2023 pets are on a similar playing ground for me. I'd say the same about 2015 and 2018 pets. I might trade a "regular" 2015 rare for a 2020 rare from one of the events, stuff like that, but that's a discrepancy of demand.

I don't think I'd ever trade a 2009 rare for a 2014 Rare, but I might trade it for a 2012 Rare, depending on the pets. (I'd also probably trade an 09 rare or two for certain slumber party pets, but that's demand and etc., talking baseline like a 2009 Dog for a 2012 Dog)

3 years is my personal cutoff point.

I really like the post for 2:1/3:1. It makes sense that people wouldn't want to trade between rarities, so 3:1 works for commons into uncommons, as well as uncommons into rares, but 2:1 makes sense trading between each other. (Outside of OMGSRs, probably?)

It's a lot of 3's. 3 month rule to the 3 year rule. 3:1 when trading up rarities. Makes it easy to remember.

Despite all of this, it feels like it's going to take a while to catch on. I still feel reluctant to let go of an older pet for a newer pet with the same rarity tag. Especially since I know I'm the type of person that I'm talking about, lol. (Still on the idea that sorbs are worth 0.25-0.33n and not 0.5n, but that's not this conversation and I know I'm wrong, just stubborn.)

That being said, give it a few months, or a year, it'll all smooth out and we'll figure out something as a community. Can't wait to see the new list with all of the new rarity information.

[Loelya]

I don't trade much anymore, but I did use the 2:1 method for trading years and rarities.

I'll likely be trying more 1:1 within ~3 years, I think 5 years is too much. 2015 pets, imo, are not worth the same as 2020 pets, but 2020 and 2023 pets are on a similar playing ground for me. I'd say the same about 2015 and 2018 pets. I might trade a "regular" 2015 rare for a 2020 rare from one of the events, stuff like that, but that's a discrepancy of demand.

I don't think I'd ever trade a 2009 rare for a 2014 Rare, but I might trade it for a 2012 Rare, depending on the pets. (I'd also probably trade an 09 rare or two for certain slumber party pets, but that's demand and etc., talking baseline like a 2009 Dog for a 2012 Dog)

3 years is my personal cutoff point.

I really like the post for 2:1/3:1. It makes sense that people wouldn't want to trade between rarities, so 3:1 works for commons into uncommons, as well as uncommons into rares, but 2:1 makes sense trading between each other. (Outside of OMGSRs, probably?)

It's a lot of 3's. 3 month rule to the 3 year rule. 3:1 when trading up rarities. Makes it easy to remember.

Despite all of this, it feels like it's going to take a while to catch on. I still feel reluctant to let go of an older pet for a newer pet with the same rarity tag. Especially since I know I'm the type of person that I'm talking about, lol. (Still on the idea that sorbs are worth 0.25-0.33n and not 0.5n, but that's not this conversation and I know I'm wrong, just stubborn.)

That being said, give it a few months, or a year, it'll all smooth out and we'll figure out something as a community. Can't wait to see the new list with all of the new rarity information.

I like the way you’ve laid your thoughts out! this sort of thing is so helpful, because I think it encourages & makes room for more people to sort through their thoughts too. I’m also def looking forward to how things shake out eventually

[auroraphoenix]

Not really adding anything new to the conversation, just popping in to add my two cents c:

As an older player, I think something to think about is just how much we want the community to have to adjust to a new rarity system. A LOT of people struggled with the older one (using Horror's List, the old exlist before Horror's, what exactly "demand" is, etc) so while I definitely support a potential overhaul -- or at least a new way of thinking -- it'll definitely take time. And a LOT of readjustment time, which I know I'm personally nervous about simply because of how much will be in flux. iE: Should I still refer to Horror's List? The Fair Trade Thread? Etc. Who knows - maybe this will help people stray from the "List" in general.

I think I'd probably support something closer to a 3 year rule rather than a 5 year (especially when thinking about the 3 month rule); in my head, a 2009 rare is not the same as a 2015. But that also could be me being overly rooted in old ways LOL!

Either way, I'm really looking forward to how trading pans out. Really hoping it makes trading easier - especially for newer players or those who struggled with trading to begin with as climbing upwards in terms of rarity was almost impossible.

[musicgurl333]

In terms of 1:1 vs 2:1 when trading up and down in rarity, here's something to munch on. In this scenario, I'm trading in terms of 2:1 all of the same year. So I trade for 1 omgsr with 2 vr, I trade for the 2 vrs with 4 r, etc. Here it is with the old system with 7 rarities:

start: omgsr 1
vr 2
r 4
uc 8
c 16
vc 32
omgsc 64

the new system with the added rarities:

start: omgsr 1
er 2
vr 4
r 8
eu 16
vuc 32
uc 64
c 128
vc 256
ec 512
omgsc 1024

So theoretically, 2:1 trading with the 7 rarities meant 1 omgsr was worth 64 omgsc. Now would anyone actually take that trade? I wouldn't, I don't want 64 different omgsc. But that's what the math says. With the additional rarities, that makes 1 omgsr worth 1024 omgsc because we've got more tiers, more doubling action. Who in their right mind would add 1000+ omgsc to a trade? I wouldn't, that would take far too long and I don't have that many omgsc. So I guess I'm saying I'm not totally sold on the 2:1 rarity math. In my mind, 1 vr = 1 r + 1 eu. (The goal tier = goal tier minus 1 + goal tier minus 2). That way the distance from omgsr and omgsc doesn't become so hyper inflated. But maybe that doesn't matter anyways because realistically that won't happen. But I feel like our system should be based on more solid math, you know?

And another question- what on earth are store pets now valued as?

See, to me this actually feels closer to how people would actually trade. NO ONE is trading 64 omgsc for an omgsr. But people would be MORE LIKELY to consider trading an omgsr for 1024 omgsc. Now, realistically, no one is doing that trade. It would take forever to add than many pets, and I doubt many people are trading down their rarest pets for the least valuable. But between 64 and 1024, the latter seems MORE reasonable to me.

Personally, I expect that most OMGSR pets will still along some kind of list, rather than valuing them all equally. There’s zero chance that people with top tier list pets ate going to suddenly start trading them for a handful of rares.

But in general, I think the 2:1 rule between rarities seems reasonable. It’s also closer to how I’ve always traded. I’ve NEVER been one to trade a rare for 2 uncommons. It was always 3-5 depending on demand of all pets involved. Now, going by the 2:1 rule, rares will be worth 6 uncommons…just above where I’d valued them all along.

I think I'd probably support something closer to a 3 year rule rather than a 5 year (especially when thinking about the 3 month rule); in my head, a 2009 rare is not the same as a 2015. But that also could be me being overly rooted in old ways LOL!

An ‘09 rare would be equal to a ‘14 rare, but I get your point! Okay, you’ve convinced me. I’m on team “3 year rule” now. Lol. Plus, like others have mentioned, I think it will be a bit easier for people to adjust to because it will change from 3 months to 3 years.

I want to add, I think people might not be considering how crazy 3:1 would get when moving between rarities. Let’s look at rares to uncommons using 3:1.

Rare: 1
Euc: 3
Vuc: 9
Uc: 27

I feel like that starts to be a bit much. How many people are going to trade 27 uncommons for a rare? I know I definitely wouldn’t.

[Loelya]

I want to add, I think people might not be considering how crazy 3:1 would get when moving between rarities. Let’s look at rares to uncommons using 3:1.

Rare: 1
Euc: 3
Vuc: 9
Uc: 27

I feel like that starts to be a bit much. How many people are going to trade 27 uncommons for a rare? I know I definitely wouldn’t.

hmmm good point! it’s hard to think about these things when we’re looking at all these different new rarities. But I think it would probably go a little bit more like this?

1 rare = 3 EUC
1 EUC = 2 VUC
1 rare = 6 VUC (3 times 2)

or to go further
1 VUC = 2 UC
1 rare = 12 UC (3 times 2 = 6, 6 times 2 = 12)

but I’d also still understand why it might not be feasible or fair to try to claim that 12 uncommons now equals a rare just because there’s more categories in between