[🐝] Guide to Trading Every Pet on CS --- **being updated**

[Loelya]

Would also be good to rename "MA" since the last of them that didn't turn OMGSR are now just "Upper/High Extremely Rares" but I don't have any better name ideas; typing that out every time or UERs/HERs doesn't look appealing

Would it be possible to simply start calling them "advents" - since advents refer to a specific & defined section of the archive; those 2008 advent-release pets? I've thought for a while now that keeping the "mid" part of the name that refers back to the retired/defunct list will just create confusion over a system that is no longer in use.

of course, this does run into the issue that several from that litter became "OMGSR" with this update.

since we might be able to move to a system of having "old rares" as our base unit rather than a specific year's rares, and that "old rares" category is mostly in the "aughts" decade - could we similarly rename what we've previously thought of as "mid-advents" to something with "aughts" in the name? haha maybe it could be "AAs" like "aughts advents?" or if the "advent" name would be too confusing and we want to include more variety in that bracket, maybe we could go for something that includes general VR/ERs like "aughts VERs" - I'm aware this is getting more confusing and not less. but maybe someone will see this and pull something useful out of my ramblings.

[lil rascal]

Poll part 2:
A proposed slight change to Nons, or keep things the same

Still keeping their value similar to before, but gets rid of the “0.25/0.5/0.75/1" which may look extremely confusing to players trying to get into trading, and replaces it with Nons in thirds again



"NONS" - The way we measure the most expensive pets on the site
Mostly used for OMGSR pets, but other expensive pets, like super high demand, may also be priced this way

Numbers don't have to be exact, and trades that only off by a few rares worth can still be called fair

Anything lower than a "Non" value is just measured in "MA"

High Value Pet System:
1 NON = 9 MA = 90 Old Rares
2/3 Non = 6 MA = 60 Old Rares
1/3 Non = 3 MA = 30 Old Rares

2.5 MA = 15-25 Old Rares
2 MA = 12-20 Old Rares
1.5 MA = 9-12 Old Rares
1 MA = 6-9 Old Rares
.75 of an MA = 4-5 Old Rares
.5 or Half an MA = 3-4 Old Rares



"Nons" could be changed to have ranges as well, just using 30/60/90 right now because it's the easiest to remember

Just going to mention that I don’t trade up as I prefer bulk so this doesn’t directly affect me but I think either having a range for the “Nons” or having a set amount for the advents would make more sense. As otherwise it doesn’t make sense that 1 MA is listed as being worth 6-9 old rares but 1 “Non” is worth 9 MA or 90 old rares rather than the 54-81 old rares 9 MA worth 6-9 old rares each would come to. If anything the non amount should be less to account for the value of bulk, not more.

I like the idea of changing ‘09 Rares system to ‘10 and ‘11 rares. It keeps it in line with the suggested updated C$ values I’ve seen too.

Since the advents are now a mix of extremely rare and OMGSR why not just change the name mid advents to Extremely Rare (ER) advents?

Also, not sure if this would be a popular idea but rather than dividing up the value of a “Non” maybe it would be worth changing the standard trading marker from “Non” to low OMGSR. That way instead of jumping from working in values of MAs to working in fractions we could have Pet Y is worth X amount of Low OMGSR tier?

[Lufi]

Thank you so much for this Horror!

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

Would it be possible to add a disagree option to the poll? Im not yet decided on the options and am kinda on board but still need a little more thinking

But I just think its really important that on a decision like this there is a space to disagree otherwise we are only getting data from those who agree, which may be misleading data. (I.e i dont like old system & dont agree with new proposed ideas)

[BlueEyedKite]

I am with lil rascal, changing MAs to ER Advents (Extremely Rare) sounds good to me. If we are voting.

[answrs]

friendly reminder for people that the bookmark feature exists, we don't need 75% of each page to be "marking!" posts instead of discussion on the lists themselves.

anyways, thank you for your hard work horror! interesting to see how the new expected values will work out these coming months!

wait there is a bookmark feature?

yes? there's an entire tab for it right at the top of the page (near the logout button)
you bookmark by clicking the "bookmark topic" at the bottom of any page of a topic.

[SolarSonnet]

Very much not in support of replacing "09 rares" with "Old Rares"
I would never swap an 09 rare 1:1 with an '11 rare. Maybe a '10 rare, but going from 09 to '11 is too much of a jump for me.

By doing this, you also create a huge discrepancy where people will want 09 rares for their lists when trading off of the list, but will only want to give '11 rares when trading onto the list because they're treated as relatively the same by value of how many of them make a non or advent, but not the same when trading between each other for people using the 1-year rule for rares+ as opposed to the three-year rule.

With this method, people can trade 09 very rares for 3+ '10 or '11 rares, and then try to find someone who will take '11 rares for their Advent pets, and trade up from there, basically making it really advantageous for people with stricter trading guidelines as long as they're willing to put the time in.

With this kind of system, you'll also end up with saying that pets are worth "x amount" of "Old Rares", and when a bunch of people try to trade "x amount" of '11 rares for it, they run into a group of people who will only trade their list pets off-list for 09 rares, and not for '11 rares.

It'd be the same system, but now you're just lying about what pets are valued at, because I'd imagine very few people are actually going to take 7-9 '11 Rares for an Advent, (If you would, hit me up, I'll be trading with you shortly.) When before, they could get 28-36 '11 Rares for their Advent with the old 2:1 rule.

With the rarity math I do, 09 VRs are worth 3 '10 rares, which is already messing it up if all pets 09 to '11 are lumped into 'Old Rares'

(These are the guides I use).






EDIT
Rereading the poll, I see it says "2010-2011" rares, in which case it makes this a little bit more useable, because 09 rares are not a factor at all. I assume that if pets were valued in 2010 to 2011 rares, that 09 rares would be their own category and people wouldn't be valuing them at the same place as 2010 and 2011 rares, rather, 09 rares/vrs are worth a differing amount and not lumped in with being 2010 or 2011. If that's the case, I could offer my support for it.

[draculauraaa]

Why are things being made so complicated with the upper and lower ER and VRs?? I get it with OMGSR but the other groups are so much more refined now. There really doesn't seem to be a need for it and it just feels like it's going to keep the trading community more complicated than it needs to be

I SO agree with this, the update was to make rarities more defined and I really don't like how people are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

[Tupfensplitter]

Why are things being made so complicated with the upper and lower ER and VRs?? I get it with OMGSR but the other groups are so much more refined now. There really doesn't seem to be a need for it and it just feels like it's going to keep the trading community more complicated than it needs to be

I agree. I'm very disappointed about these upper, lower categories and the ma/nons system. I don't understand this whole ma/non stuff at all. I have avoided trading for high value pets because of these strict methods. Can't we just have easier systems of trading mainly based on rarity without these overcomplicated stuff? I don't mind making 1:1 swaps for OMGSRs/ER/VR/R (for me every OMGSR/ER/VR/R has the exact same value) and ignoring dates at all or which pet is "nearer" to another rarity category and getting rid of these ma/non system. That's just overcomplicating things and pushes people away.

[Guest]

-snip-

I agree. I'm very disappointed about these upper, lower categories and the ma/nons system. I don't understand this whole ma/non stuff at all. I have avoided trading for high value pets because of these strict methods. Can't we just have easier systems of trading mainly based on rarity without these overcomplicated stuff? I don't mind making 1:1 swaps for OMGSRs/ER/VR/R (for me every OMGSR/ER/VR/R has the exact same value) and ignoring dates at all or which pet is "nearer" to another rarity category and get rid of these ma/non system. That's just overcomplicating things and pushes people away.

The "list" values or the MA/non system will likely never dissapear as demand will always be a thing due to pet desirability and no matter how many rehauls and community decisions are made no one will ever want to swap a UR Tiger Dog for a UR Malk or a Sunback for a Nonjewel. Even though they are all under the same rarity tag some are much rarer than others (such as a Skelebun being much more rare than a Blue Rose) and some have much higher demand than others so unfortunately 1:1 swaps probably won't be a thing unless they are actually identical in rarity/demand (I.e, a Noncoon for a Nontag or a Rose PPS for a Red-X PPS.)