New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[bubblegumjello]

i understand why people have a want and a need for a list but tbh, its really annoying and difficult to use. i would just like a 2009 rare=2009 rare, regardless of release (if its a jan 09 vs dec 09). they really should be the same.


i understand why people don’t want to welcome the new omgsrs with open arms and trade them 1:1 because their pet has been omgsr longer, but to be honest that should not matter. just bc one pet has been vr since 2011 does not mean it is less vr than a 2015 or 2016 vr. ESPECIALLY right now. i know i keep stressing this in my posts, but really the rarities are the most accurate right now. there is no “omgsr tier” because they all sit on the same level. i mean if you really want to argue it, i would say the “rarest” omgsrs would actually be the newest UR pets, since theres only like 20 (if that) in the game.

in reality these pets that went from vr to omgsr have been at the cusp of omgsr tier for a while, they finally just got their sparkly label, if that makes sense.

i know many people disagree with this stance but i really think this change is a nice fresh start and wiping down and clearing out old trading standards and expectations is probably for the better, even if it means some of our pets “lose” value

[Ebony Stardust]

Dropping in just to say I've always considers date and demand to be arbitrary values, never used them and never will. I will always trade based on rarity, where a pet of one rarity is equal to two of the rarity beneath it.
(see here)

[Coy0te]

how should we think about trading OMGSR pets now? Can they safely swap 1:1 within their rarity label? Is the new OMGSR label broad enough to consider creating guides solely around how valuable each OMGSR is compared to each other, and how it would be fair to trade them?

First of all, I want to say that I'm fairly new to trading (and I don't know how most omgsr are named). I mostly do monthly trades. Personally, I think release dates play a small role in trading omgsrs. It's demand that plays a big role here. I have some pets that are my dreamies. If someone offered one of my dreamies (even if it's a recent omgsr) for an older omgsr I most likely would accept the trade. If someone didn't offer a dreamie, but instead offered a high demand omgsr for my less demanded omgsr I would accept too because it would give me more trading possibilities.

To sum it up, I think demand makes some omgsrs rarer than other omgsrs. They shouldn't be traded like pets of other rarities. Value differences caused by demand should be compensated even with more omgsrs (for an example 2 omgsrs for one more demanded omgsr)

I have no clue what a non or MA is, it's too confusing for me, so the only way I can understand a pet's worth is by its release date, demand and trading history. I'd appreciate more guides made in a "beginner-friendly" language, filled with more pictures, trade histories, examples including newer rare pets etc.

[Ishnawababa]

Oh I'm nowhere near a professional, I just saw that C$ hadn't been talked about much yet and made my own chart to try and figure it out xD

So here are the two charts, one is the general C$ value for every year (Which is what you would use if doing the between years, 2017= 2016-2018), and a 3 year gap version with the years preset together

Interestingly this chart actually works almost seamlessly with the idea of Store pets being worth 5 rares of the same year too! ^^

Note: for the 3 year gap, there will always be 1 year extra, so I compiled 2020-2023 altogether since the most recent years have the lowest value changes anyways. Perhaps once 2024 rolls around it'll be put in a 2 year gap with 2023?

I feel like this chart isn't being talked about enough. I would love love love if a trading resource guide was made and this was plastered all over it. Trading c$ was always too big and scary for me because I wasn't sure what fair rates were. This marks it out.

Now is this something that we feel as if we could update yearly? Like, is the current year omgsc always worth .25 c$ or whatever we come to a consensus about? I want to know the formula you used between each rarity and year

I also feel like this could help settle what store pets are worth- if a 2023 r store pet can be purchased for 25 c$, then a 2023 store pet is worth a (find year and rarity that is approx 25 c$ in chart: 2018 er, 2016 vr, 2014 r, etc). Any slight differences in c$ worth can be bartered about between the traders (26 vs 25 c$, etc)
When store pets just covered two rarities for the most part, rare and very rare, I was told that people treat them as the same worth due to the fact that somewhere, someone paid real money for the c$ required to put the store pet in circulation. And while that feels nice, a 2023 rare store pet is just not the same as a 2023 extremely rare store pet- especially when it comes to the bonus store pet that sometimes exists that you only get when you purchase the whole set. I want to know what the current feelings are about this

In terms of trading resource guides- is there a resource somewhere that lists when each pet turned omgsr? I feel as if that could be a good starting board for trading. For example- pets that turned omgsr in 2010 are approx equal to each other. Pets that turned omgsr in this update are approx equal to each other. Things get hazy with 2008-9 pets and UR pets that are immediately omgsr, but maybe it would be a good resource for all the other omgsr pets

[Sashtato]

i understand why people have a want and a need for a list but tbh, its really annoying and difficult to use. i would just like a 2009 rare=2009 rare, regardless of release (if its a jan 09 vs dec 09). they really should be the same.


i understand why people don’t want to welcome the new omgsrs with open arms and trade them 1:1 because their pet has been omgsr longer, but to be honest that should not matter. just bc one pet has been vr since 2011 does not mean it is less vr than a 2015 or 2016 vr. ESPECIALLY right now. i know i keep stressing this in my posts, but really the rarities are the most accurate right now. there is no “omgsr tier” because they all sit on the same level. i mean if you really want to argue it, i would say the “rarest” omgsrs would actually be the newest UR pets, since theres only like 20 (if that) in the game.

in reality these pets that went from vr to omgsr have been at the cusp of omgsr tier for a while, they finally just got their sparkly label, if that makes sense.

i know many people disagree with this stance but i really think this change is a nice fresh start and wiping down and clearing out old trading standards and expectations is probably for the better, even if it means some of our pets “lose” value

I agree with everything you’ve said here 100%!!!
Especially when it comes to the ER debate. I can kind of understand what people are saying about the OMGSRs (I still agree with you though) but they idea the ERs need to be evaluated case by case is insanely ridiculous because you’re right, the rarities are at their most accurate, and the categories are so much smaller meaning that if it’s ER it’s MEANT to be extremely rare, because it’s between two other rarities and the number has to be so much smaller than it was before…. if that makes any sense lol. I can’t think of the proper words to articulate what exactly I mean 😅

[Sashtato]

Oh I'm nowhere near a professional, I just saw that C$ hadn't been talked about much yet and made my own chart to try and figure it out xD

So here are the two charts, one is the general C$ value for every year (Which is what you would use if doing the between years, 2017= 2016-2018), and a 3 year gap version with the years preset together

Interestingly this chart actually works almost seamlessly with the idea of Store pets being worth 5 rares of the same year too! ^^

Note: for the 3 year gap, there will always be 1 year extra, so I compiled 2020-2023 altogether since the most recent years have the lowest value changes anyways. Perhaps once 2024 rolls around it'll be put in a 2 year gap with 2023?

I really like the way you did the three year gap chart! Do you mind if I use this in my trade rules?

[musicgurl333]

[quote="ishnawababa”] I was told that people treat them as the same worth due to the fact that somewhere, someone paid real money for the c$ required to put the store pet in circulation. And while that feels nice, a 2023 rare store pet is just not the same as a 2023 extremely rare store pet- especially when it comes to the bonus store pet that sometimes exists that you only get when you purchase the whole set. I want to know what the current feelings are about this

[/quote]

The reason why rare/VR/ER store pets are worth the same comes down to demand. The fewer people who buy a store pet, the more rare it becomes. If not many people are buying it, it’s probably because it’s not a super popular design. Therefore, not as many people want to trade for it and lower demand means lower prices. Rare store pets are rare because they’re popular. So even though there’s more of them, there are also more people who want them. So the demand balances out the difference in rarities.

Hopefully that makes sense!

[LavenderRain]

I really like the way you did the three year gap chart! Do you mind if I use this in my trade rules?

Absolutely! They are totally free to use! ^^

[Solloby]

That C$ chart looks great on the surface, but I see a lot of fundamental issues with it. Is it possible to simplify it at all?

My concerns:

• CS has been around for over a decade now, I don't think we need a chart that goes by year.
• It's way too complex for the lower rarities. I would never pay anything more than 1C$ for something below UC, and have never had any issues with this (I have a collection of 500 festive CEGS [C but now UC] that I bought for 1C$ each, including after their rarity change).
• The chart doesn't work for low rarities in old years. Suggesting a 2009 OMGSC is worth the same as a 2023 Rare? Nobody would ever trade a Rare for an OMGSC surely?
• I don't agree with ERs and OMGSRs being given age-based values. Their rarity is less year-based than other pets, and most years don't have them outside of the URs anyway. I think they should be ranges instead without years attached.

What I would personally do for a C$ list:

OMGSC, EC, VC = 0.25-1 C$
C - UC = 1-3 C$
VU - EU = 3-5 C$

I don't think they need separating by year at all. The implication would just be, if it's older or higher demand, it's worth the higher end of the valuation.

Now Rares, VRs & Store Pets could have sliding values based on age.
Rares would be 5-20C$ maybe? With different value ranges over grouped years.
VRs would be 20-100C$ if we want to slot it between R and ER. The range could be more flexible if we want to do a little overlap here though.
ER would be what, 100 - 300C$? 100 - 500C$?
OMGSR would be a large range... 300-1000C$ according to the chart posted in the thread. I think it's ok to overlap ER range with this one.

Store pets would start at 20C$, they should definitely go up over the years, they work differently to non-store pets due to the lack of rerelease.

[musicgurl333]

That C$ chart looks great on the surface, but I see a lot of fundamental issues with it. Is it possible to simplify it at all?

My concerns:

• CS has been around for over a decade now, I don't think we need a chart that goes by year.
• It's way too complex for the lower rarities. I would never pay anything more than 1C$ for something below UC, and have never had any issues with this (I have a collection of 500 festive CEGS [C but now UC] that I bought for 1C$ each, including after their rarity change).
• The chart doesn't work for low rarities in old years. Suggesting a 2009 OMGSC is worth the same as a 2023 Rare? Nobody would ever trade a Rare for an OMGSC surely?
• I don't agree with ERs and OMGSRs being given age-based values. Their rarity is less year-based than other pets, and most years don't have them outside of the URs anyway. I think they should be ranges instead without years attached.

What I would personally do for a C$ list:

OMGSC, EC, VC = 0.25-1 C$
C - UC = 1-3 C$
VU - EU = 3-5 C$

I don't think they need separating by year at all. The implication would just be, if it's older or higher demand, it's worth the higher end of the valuation.

Now Rares, VRs & Store Pets could have sliding values based on age.
Rares would be 5-20C$ maybe? With different value ranges over grouped years.
VRs would be 20-100C$ if we want to slot it between R and ER. The range could be more flexible if we want to do a little overlap here though.
ER would be what, 100 - 300C$? 100 - 500C$?
OMGSR would be a large range... 300-1000C$ according to the chart posted in the thread. I think it's ok to overlap ER range with this one.

Store pets would start at 20C$, they should definitely go up over the years, they work differently to non-store pets due to the lack of rerelease.

I like this idea of not breaking down the lower rarities by years. Personally, this makes a lot more sense to me.