New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Loelya]

@Loelya - I’m on my phone so it’s hard to pull out just one quote, sorry. But I don’t feel the need to be credited in any way for the 5 year idea, others agreed with me on the thread so you can just say it was presented/discussed if you want.

got it! no problem, I made a quick edit to the first post. ^^

[Tailish]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to read all of the thread, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents once again about the 2:1 ratio. I'm still worried about just carrying on with this rule, because it's really hard to carry out now that the site is getting older. I've made a few graphs showing what the various 2:1 rules imply for trading.

All of these graphs show how many pets of equal rarity you need to trade for a pet a certain number of years "away". For example, a pet 1 year away would be trading 2022 pets for a 2021 pet. Trading for a pet 14 years away would be trading 2023 pets for a 2008 pet.

The colours show the different scenarios that are being discussed. Red is the standard 2:1 per year trading rule (pets double in value every year). Green is the 2:1 trading rule, but applied every 3 years (pets double in value every 3 years). Blue is the 2:1 trading rule, but applied every 5 years (pets double in value every 5 years). [1]

Here's the graph as my computer spit it out:



As you can see, the red bars are so overwhelming that we can't even properly see the green and blue bars. With the largest possible gap (14 years), you need ~16,000 pets to cross the gap. So that's 16,000 2023 rares to trade for one 2008 rare.

Here's the graph with the red bars removed, so we can see what the green (3 years) and blue (5 years) options actually look like:



As you can see, they increase much slower than the normal 2:1 rule. The 3-year option requires ~25 pets after 14 years, and the 5-year option requires ~7 pets after 14 years. I think even a gap of ~25 pets is quite a lot, but everyone has to make up their own minds on what they think is fair. Clearly, however, these numbers are more reasonable than the normal 2:1 rule.

Lastly: a projection into the future. Let's imagine CS runs for another 10 years, so that the max possible gap is 24 years. Here's what the graphs look like then:

With the red normal 2:1 rule:



And without the red normal 2:1 rule:



Notice that on that 3rd graph, the y-axis is measured in units 10^7. To cross a 24 year gap with the normal 2:1 rule, you need 16,777,216 pets. I feel quite strongly that this alone should disqualify the normal 2:1 rule from existence.

For the green 3-year rule, crossing a 24 year gap requires a neat 256 pets. For the blue 5-year rule, crossing a 24 year gap requires ~28 pets. That last one sounds better to me, but your mileage may vary.

To conclude: I'm still very strongly in favour of getting rid of 2:1. It just doesn't work. For better or worse, we currently seem to have a kind of "rarity math". I don't do enough trading to have a strong opinion on that concept as a whole; I just know I don't like this rarity math. I do really like the idea introduced by Heda Vampiric of having an additive rule, though!

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

This would make the increases spiral out of control much less. I'm not sure whether +1 or +2 is the way to go, but I think either of those would work out a lot better than the exponential increase we deal with now.

[1] Ok, so all of this is not quite correct, because the doubling should be calculated over intervals of years. Obviously pet values can't realistically be non-integer (unless we get real fancy with rarity math, I guess?). These graphs treat the years as more or less continuous for the purpose of visualization, because I'm too lazy to work out how python handles modulo arithmetic right now. Apologies! I may work this out in the future if I have time.

also apologies for poor axes formatting on graphs, all i can say is oop

[Loelya]

Tailish these graphs are amazing (despite being continuous they are great for visualization) thank you so much for the effort you put into them! I completely agree with you on this reasoning behind why it would be better for long-term site health for us to move away from the 2:1 date rule if we can.

[Another World]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to read all of the thread, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents once again about the 2:1 ratio. I'm still worried about just carrying on with this rule, because it's really hard to carry out now that the site is getting older. I've made a few graphs showing what the various 2:1 rules imply for trading.

All of these graphs show how many pets of equal rarity you need to trade for a pet a certain number of years "away". For example, a pet 1 year away would be trading 2022 pets for a 2021 pet. Trading for a pet 14 years away would be trading 2023 pets for a 2008 pet.

The colours show the different scenarios that are being discussed. Red is the standard 2:1 per year trading rule (pets double in value every year). Green is the 2:1 trading rule, but applied every 3 years (pets double in value every 3 years). Blue is the 2:1 trading rule, but applied every 5 years (pets double in value every 5 years). [1]

Here's the graph as my computer spit it out:



As you can see, the red bars are so overwhelming that we can't even properly see the green and blue bars. With the largest possible gap (14 years), you need ~16,000 pets to cross the gap. So that's 16,000 2023 rares to trade for one 2008 rare.

Here's the graph with the red bars removed, so we can see what the green (3 years) and blue (5 years) options actually look like:



As you can see, they increase much slower than the normal 2:1 rule. The 3-year option requires ~25 pets after 14 years, and the 5-year option requires ~7 pets after 14 years. I think even a gap of ~25 pets is quite a lot, but everyone has to make up their own minds on what they think is fair. Clearly, however, these numbers are more reasonable than the normal 2:1 rule.

Lastly: a projection into the future. Let's imagine CS runs for another 10 years, so that the max possible gap is 24 years. Here's what the graphs look like then:

With the red normal 2:1 rule:



And without the red normal 2:1 rule:



Notice that on that 3rd graph, the y-axis is measured in units 10^7. To cross a 24 year gap with the normal 2:1 rule, you need 16,777,216 pets. I feel quite strongly that this alone should disqualify the normal 2:1 rule from existence.

For the green 3-year rule, crossing a 24 year gap requires a neat 256 pets. For the blue 5-year rule, crossing a 24 year gap requires ~28 pets. That last one sounds better to me, but your mileage may vary.

To conclude: I'm still very strongly in favour of getting rid of 2:1. It just doesn't work. For better or worse, we currently seem to have a kind of "rarity math". I don't do enough trading to have a strong opinion on that concept as a whole; I just know I don't like this rarity math. I do really like the idea introduced by Heda Vampiric of having an additive rule, though!

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

This would make the increases spiral out of control much less. I'm not sure whether +1 or +2 is the way to go, but I think either of those would work out a lot better than the exponential increase we deal with now.

[1] Ok, so all of this is not quite correct, because the doubling should be calculated over intervals of years. Obviously pet values can't realistically be non-integer (unless we get real fancy with rarity math, I guess?). These graphs treat the years as more or less continuous for the purpose of visualization, because I'm too lazy to work out how python handles modulo arithmetic right now. Apologies! I may work this out in the future if I have time.

also apologies for poor axes formatting on graphs, all i can say is oop

These graphs show exactly why I'd want the 5 year option - it still feels achievable for new users but still a challenge!

[Lacuna]

That’s exactly what I was thinking; I appreciate you taking the time to actually make the graphs. Especially with rerelease existing (meaning the older pets will come back into circulation) 5 year windows is what makes sense to me for regular release pets.

[Loelya]

the poll I set will be finishing in about half an hour, and I'd like to set a new one to see some more responses on other topics, but I also wanna be clear I'm not putting these up as like hard and fast "this is the way it is now" for any of these discussion points, I just wanna give people a chance to put in their 2 cents even if they don't want to post directly to the thread. I'll plan to summarize both the results of each poll, as well as any in-depth discussion that happened as a result of the poll in as concise a manner as possible each time it changes.

I was thinking I might set the next poll up around rarity math, and see what people are feeling on that, but I'm currently trying to think through what poll options would make the most sense to have.
maybe something like..?

"How do you think you will approach trading across rarities now? (excluding very high-demand pets)"

- I plan to use the 2:1 rarity rule when moving from a lower rarity to the next highest one (ex: 2 common pets for 1 uncommon pet
- I plan to use an "additive rule" when trading between rarities (ex: 1 common pet and 1 very common pet added together for 1 uncommon pet)
- I feel strongly about using a different metric, and will probably use my preferred metric in my personal trades.

but I'm unsure if there should be more options or if perhaps this is the type of thing that wouldn't fit well into a poll at all. does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

I also don't want anyone to feel like you have to 'move on' to the new poll topic if you'd still like to discuss date rule trading further! please feel free to talk about anything you feel is relevant to the overall trading standards topic at any given time, regardless of what's running in the poll section.

[Solloby]

When people were talking about a "3 year rule", to me that meant if a pet was within 3 years it was swappable, and if outside that gap then something needed to be added. I didn't think it meant the value needed to *double*. Why can't pets of lower rarity values be added as gap fillers, why is another pet of the same rarity required?

[lil rascal]

I am honestly still confused about the reasoning behind a 3 or 5 year 2:1 rule. Am I correct in thinking that means that as soon as you pass that date the trade would not be considered fair without adding another pet of the same rarity, even though under that date nothing extra would be expected? I get wanting a little extra for older pets but I feel it should be incremental, not a doubling every 3-5 years.

I personally don’t think that any pet of normal/no demand should be considered worth 3-4+ pets of the same rarity purely due to age. If it’s a high demand pet in its rarity than sure but not a normal pet.

With this in mind I have personally removed mention of dates in my trade rules as the reality is I have been trading according to Rarity and pet looks (my personal preference) for years.

As far as trading between rarities, I posted this on another thread and am going to post it here too.
I have seen many people say that they will still require at least 2 of the rarity below to move up a rarity. This means that for someone to move from an uncommon to a rare now they will need to trade 8 uncommons to get 4 very uncommons which they can then trade for 2 extremely uncommons which they can then trade for a rare.
So by this logic
1 Rare = 2 Extremely Uncommons = 4 Very Uncommons = 8 Uncommons.
Therefore instead of the old system of a Rare = 2-4 Uncommons, this new system people are planning to use will mean people will be paying at least 8 Uncommons per rare. This is not talking a high demand rare, this is just the suggestion for a standard rare.
With these new rarities making the gap between rarities so much smaller I personally don’t see how this is logical and pity those starting out trading if this becomes the new accepted norm.

I personally think rather than a doubling or 2:1 system we should aim for a far more incremental approach. For example to move between rarities add a rarity below + one from 2 or 3 tiers below. So to move from Common to Uncommon add a Common + an Extremely Common or Very Common.

CS users have the chance here to make trading more lenient and enjoyable, I would hate for it to go down the milk it for everything we can path again.

[auroraphoenix]

I am honestly still confused about the reasoning behind a 3 or 5 year 2:1 rule. Am I correct in thinking that means that as soon as you pass that date the trade would not be considered fair without adding another pet of the same rarity, even though under that date nothing extra would be expected? I get wanting a little extra for older pets but I feel it should be incremental, not a doubling every 3-5 years.

I didn't interpret the 3 or 5 year rule as being exponential actually - or anything even remotely involving a 2:1 rule. To me, it gets rid of [at least part of] the date factor to make things a bit more lenient. So, for example, a 2013 uncommon is the same as a 2016 uncommon.

[Heda Vampiric]

(Snip)

you need ~16,000 pets to cross the gap. So that's 16,000 2023 rares to trade for one 2008 rare.

(Snip)

I do really like the idea introduced by Heda Vampiric of having an additive rule, though!

*+2 rule is when instead of 2:1 you just add 2 pets for each year different. Turns a trade into
1 2009 = 8 2013
Instead of
1 2009 = 16 2013

This would make the increases spiral out of control much less. I'm not sure whether +1 or +2 is the way to go, but I think either of those would work out a lot better than the exponential increase we deal with now.

(Snip)

Im glad people seem to be open to at least the idea. I don’t remember where it came from. I swear I got it from a community guide? Surely I didn’t just. Make this up and go with it for years… I don’t know!

I was at work and busy the first time I provided numbers, and while I’m at work again I am not busy and can give a proper number for comparison. Above, it’s shown it would take 16k 2023 pets to get a 2008, and… an ungodly number for a 2033 pet…

+2 strictly would be
1 2008 = 30 2023
+2 before 2020, but +1 after 2020 would be
1 2008 = 27 2023 (I believe?)

Add 10 years to that,
+2
1 2008 = 50 2033

Ofc we would have a lot more years by the so it might be +3 for before 2020 by that point, +2 before 2030, and +1 after 2030. Who knoooows.
Just for funsies by 2033, with the +3, +2, +1
1 2008 = 59 2033
Which is still waaaaaay less than the graphs show us for 2:1 but imo is still better than 1:1 (it’s fine if I die alone on this hill).

Also I know 2008-2020 is a weird arbitrary gap I just really feel like stuff feels weird 2020+ which is why I chose to cut it there instead of say, 2018, but it WOULD make more sense to do that instead so it’s going in direct 10 year intervals (2008-2017 +2, 2018-2027 +1)(2008-2017 +3, 2018-2027 +2, 2028-2037 +1 — and then when we hit 3038 all previous numbers go up 1).

Just kinda. Musing at this point I think lol.



Edit: I can’t contribute much to the rarity conversation bc I HATE complex rarity math so for now I am simply still using 2:1