New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Loelya]

Whatever units are used, rares shouldn't be part of the equation. Even VRs probably don't need to be included, we should be valuing OMGSRs in terms of ERs, not lower rarities. If someone wants to go with lower rarities, they can use VR -> ER valuations to work out how many VRs for an OMGSR.

If you do Gold/Silver/Bronze, maybe something like this?

Diamond = high UR pets & high July 08s
Platinum = low UR pets & low July 08s (so Nons would live here)
Gold = Aug 08s (Sorbets live here, but so do Toxics & Tribals)
Silver = Late 08s (Sept, Oct, Nov & Advent 08s)
Bronze = higher value 09+ OMGSRs
Copper = lower value 09+ OMGSRs

i honestly LOVE this idea, I hope players feel up to discussing something like this. I was really hoping something like this would come into play back in 2019 when the old list was officially retired, but while it seemed the idea of value approximation caught on (through the non/MA system,) it was a bit like no one could conceive of any sort of value that didnt correspond to a pet. but legit this would be so cool and so easy to understand even for someone brand new to trading.

[marmoris]

Whatever units are used, rares shouldn't be part of the equation. Even VRs probably don't need to be included, we should be valuing OMGSRs in terms of ERs, not lower rarities. If someone wants to go with lower rarities, they can use VR -> ER valuations to work out how many VRs for an OMGSR.

If you do Gold/Silver/Bronze, maybe something like this?

Diamond = high UR pets & high July 08s
Platinum = low UR pets & low July 08s (so Nons would live here)
Gold = Aug 08s (Sorbets live here, but so do Toxics & Tribals)
Silver = Late 08s (Sept, Oct, Nov & Advent 08s)
Bronze = higher value 09+ OMGSRs
Copper = lower value 09+ OMGSRs

i really like and agree with this! maybe if this idea gets more attention i’ll adopt such a system for myself

[Wysterinka]

Whatever units are used, rares shouldn't be part of the equation. Even VRs probably don't need to be included, we should be valuing OMGSRs in terms of ERs, not lower rarities. If someone wants to go with lower rarities, they can use VR -> ER valuations to work out how many VRs for an OMGSR.

If you do Gold/Silver/Bronze, maybe something like this?

Diamond = high UR pets & high July 08s
Platinum = low UR pets & low July 08s (so Nons would live here)
Gold = Aug 08s (Sorbets live here, but so do Toxics & Tribals)
Silver = Late 08s (Sept, Oct, Nov & Advent 08s)
Bronze = higher value 09+ OMGSRs
Copper = lower value 09+ OMGSRs

I think that would be pretty much same as old "Tier" list we used to have. The current list is still based of the pet demand and not the amount of them in circulation, nor the year of release. It's more about favorite species and cuteness in general so I am not sure how this would work for all the new OMGSR rats? I would generally like if we had set values for most of the new rarities for some general idea of majority of users. The whole list can be probably renamed to something along "popularity based values of favorite pets".
Either way if there are some new tiers and such, I would separate UR pets and store pets from all of it and make pricing system for just those as they are the most special. And then every other OMGSR pet based off the year they became OMGSR, which we have lot of information about already
It's not a bad idea but I think having 4 new rarities added will already make lot of people confused and adding 6+ tiers for each category just seem like overkill to me. As I mentioned before, it's way too similar to the old rares tier list to me.
Personally if we want more accurate evaluation of the most favored pets, it might be the best to make poll for at least the most popular ones to see where would majority of people value them...but the values for each person will still be very subjective anyway

[-MOOSHROOM-]

Whatever units are used, rares shouldn't be part of the equation. Even VRs probably don't need to be included, we should be valuing OMGSRs in terms of ERs, not lower rarities. If someone wants to go with lower rarities, they can use VR -> ER valuations to work out how many VRs for an OMGSR.

If you do Gold/Silver/Bronze, maybe something like this?

Diamond = high UR pets & high July 08s
Platinum = low UR pets & low July 08s (so Nons would live here)
Gold = Aug 08s (Sorbets live here, but so do Toxics & Tribals)
Silver = Late 08s (Sept, Oct, Nov & Advent 08s)
Bronze = higher value 09+ OMGSRs
Copper = lower value 09+ OMGSRs

I really like this!! agree that it’s much easier to understand and it just makes more sense! it can be easily worked around demand/popularity also:D

[Loelya]

so this is not the direction I thought the poll would go in 😂 but I think it’s fascinating! I wonder if it would be possible to value all these higher demand pets with the median unit, which would have been MAs before, but maybe now could be ER advents? if that unit was valued a certain amount, and then we said high-demand pets were “worth” like 5-10 of those, and then if we could feasibly use rarity math to go down 1 ER advent = 2 old VR pets = 4 old rare pets? But then all the high-end values could be written in “ERAs?” potentially

like if you picked an older store pet as a random example and said “this is worth 4 ERAs” then you could both say well 3 of these would be “worth” 12 ERAs, or if you wanted to get from the store pet down to regular rares, you could go 4 ERAs = 8 old VRs = 16 old rares

(this is just meant as a math example!)

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

Whatever units are used, rares shouldn't be part of the equation. Even VRs probably don't need to be included, we should be valuing OMGSRs in terms of ERs, not lower rarities. If someone wants to go with lower rarities, they can use VR -> ER valuations to work out how many VRs for an OMGSR.

If you do Gold/Silver/Bronze, maybe something like this?

Diamond = high UR pets & high July 08s
Platinum = low UR pets & low July 08s (so Nons would live here)
Gold = Aug 08s (Sorbets live here, but so do Toxics & Tribals)
Silver = Late 08s (Sept, Oct, Nov & Advent 08s)
Bronze = higher value 09+ OMGSRs
Copper = lower value 09+ OMGSRs

I think that would be pretty much same as old "Tier" list we used to have. The current list is still based of the pet demand and not the amount of them in circulation, nor the year of release. It's more about favorite species and cuteness in general so I am not sure how this would work for all the new OMGSR rats? I would generally like if we had set values for most of the new rarities for some general idea of majority of users. The whole list can be probably renamed to something along "popularity based values of favorite pets".
Either way if there are some new tiers and such, I would separate UR pets and store pets from all of it and make pricing system for just those as they are the most special. And then every other OMGSR pet based off the year they became OMGSR, which we have lot of information about already
It's not a bad idea but I think having 4 new rarities added will already make lot of people confused and adding 6+ tiers for each category just seem like overkill to me. As I mentioned before, it's way too similar to the old rares tier list to me.
Personally if we want more accurate evaluation of the most favored pets, it might be the best to make poll for at least the most popular ones to see where would majority of people value them...but the values for each person will still be very subjective anyway

whilst i do see how having non-currency names could be helpful, i agree with Wysterinka's point that having them in addition to however the new version of Horror's list refers to categories will start to get very confusing very quickly. Maybe if these names were used on Horror's guide rather than as a separate way of categorising pets entirely? so instead of having to memorize two ways of referring to the same pet there is only one

Also as a side not i love the idea of having a poll for pet demand! maybe just a simple would you rather style, where you vote between two randomly selected options, and over all the pets with more 'would rather' votes= higher demand. For me demand has always been a bit difficult to understand as its mainly just other people who have more familiarity with trading which has high/low demand without being able to see the data behind this. (i am not trying to be rude about this, i recognise this advice is usually very accurate, but i also would just prefer to see numbers). But also i realise this may be too much to organise & analyse, and that if not enough people take part this data wont be very helpful. So yeh i think this would be a great idea, but also probably wont actually be feasible to be done by one person.

[Loelya]

whilst i do see how having non-currency names could be helpful, i agree with Wysterinka's point that having them in addition to however the new version of Horror's list refers to categories will start to get very confusing very quickly. Maybe if these names were used on Horror's guide rather than as a separate way of categorising pets entirely? so instead of having to memorize two ways of referring to the same pet there is only one

yeah I would honestly say that everything that happens on this thread is ultimately just a way for players to feel like they can discuss their thoughts and maybe if we’re lucky come to a consensus on a few things here and there. Personally I’m not intending to try to take anything from here and make an official guide out of it, and I don’t know if anyone else out there is planning to. Horror does seem to have the most frequently-referenced guide, so if there’s anything from here that players really wanted to see implemented there, it’d probably have to be suggested over on that thread.

[Mattise]

Edit part 2:


I like this version better, but ER and OMGSR should still depend on the pet IMO

For C$, I have a lil more experience with pricing pets in that. I've seen 09 Rares go for anywhere from 35 to 55 C$ in the past.
I'd apply 55 ERs, apply 35 to rares, and hit somewhere in the middle with VRs.

Rares should never be worth less than 1 C$ lol.

One problem I see with this is that as of right now, Idk how many ERs there are in later years. It might be better to discount that one entirely and say "For every year after X, only R and VR are calculated" so for example, if we can't find many ERs in 2015, then the 2015 VR would be worth 20 C$ and the R would be worth 10 still. Also implies 1:1.5 for a few of these, but C$ has never really portrayed pet value entirely accurately so Idk.

I'm late to this but I made this up, Let me know what you think

[Wysterinka]

Edit part 2:


I like this version better, but ER and OMGSR should still depend on the pet IMO

For C$, I have a lil more experience with pricing pets in that. I've seen 09 Rares go for anywhere from 35 to 55 C$ in the past.
I'd apply 55 ERs, apply 35 to rares, and hit somewhere in the middle with VRs.

Rares should never be worth less than 1 C$ lol.

One problem I see with this is that as of right now, Idk how many ERs there are in later years. It might be better to discount that one entirely and say "For every year after X, only R and VR are calculated" so for example, if we can't find many ERs in 2015, then the 2015 VR would be worth 20 C$ and the R would be worth 10 still. Also implies 1:1.5 for a few of these, but C$ has never really portrayed pet value entirely accurately so Idk.

I'm late to this but I made this up, Let me know what you think

Personally, going by trading experience and having C$ for a long time, I don't thing any of these charts really work or are useful in general. Most of new monthly pets usually take part all in same group once they get lower rarities and even if so, I personally go lowest .5C$ per pet with the group being 2023-2022 anything up to uncommon. I understand many people might actually still count all these pets lower and separately but it just seem like such a low price for so many... And especially after the new rarity update, ER and OMGSR pets are now much closer to each other for ER pets being priced so low. With new OMGSR pets most likely being new UR pets, which will never go for anything less than 1000 C$ (being .5n) although most likely any new OMGSR will be 2k+ until demand "calms down" at some value. I would say make a chart up to very rares like we used to have before the update and implement whichever rule passes. If it's 2:1 again then each VR should be worth double the rare of same years for sure. Going by +10C$ for the new years would also not work since for new VR or even ER to appear out of nowhere it would be really extremely rare, making those pets worth probably even more than some old pets now. (aka July lioness, August PPS etc....)
I get that the charts are probably for more of a general idea but I would definitely leave out at least OMGSR pets for the sake of new people who might get them, not to lose them for 300C$ or some other small amount that they will regret later on. Also store pets mostly get their pricing based off year only, not really rarity and even before when some were rare and some very rare, pricing was always same and rarity doesn't matter much with new stores.

[SolarSonnet]

I don't have time for a super-long post right now, but I have been reading and want to mention two things:

1: I still think OMGSRs should be valued in Old Rares (2010-2011 Rares)
I disagree with valuing them in ERs or VRs especially if they're worth a high amount of ERs/VRs. The baseline should be 2010-2011 rares, as I think that's both the easiest way to figure out how to value them from our current system, and it allows for the easiest method for players to trade up to Higher Rarity pets.

I think using strictly ERs or strictly VRs would be an issue.

2: I don't like the above C$ Chart for more than one reason.

A: I think trying to value stores with a solid guide is pointless, as each year older they get, they actually gain so much value that just a simple "Oh its 5-10 C$ more expensive" is never going to work for them. It'd have to be exponential, I think.

B: I don't think OMGSRs can be valued like that. I'd even argue that ERs can't be valued like that as well.

C: I just don't agree with the massive jump from VUC to EUC. As well as just outright thinking 09 pets are worth more than that.
I'd probably do VUC = 15, EUC = 30 C$, R = 60, VR = 90(? Ideally I'd 1:2 but 120 seems too much for a VR) Might make my own chart later, don't have the time rn.