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

[Miladux]

Obviously what this whole thread needs is more math theory... I don't think there's a way to replace the 2:1 rule with a new rolling rule, is the problem, and that just comes down to how rarity works. I mean, outside of URs and wonky demand, the basic rarity calculation is a function of two things: the relatively rarity of outcomes in a given litter, and the number of players who were around to adopt it, right? So the real calculation we're trying to figure out is the relative number of active players from each year. Obviously plenty of people active today have taken hiatuses at some point between when they joined and now, but for simplicity's sake, we're assuming everyone who joined in 2008 or 2009 adopted the 2009 pets, and the next year, 2008-2010 people adopted the 2010 pets, and in 2011 it was 2008-2011, etc. So the 2:1 ratio between years has historically assumed that every year, there are about twice as many of the new pets being adopted. Except we can pretty easily figure out that this isn't the case.

With every year that goes by, we have fewer and fewer extras from those earlier years, which is the thing the new rarity changes can't accurately account for (even if they are factoring in inactive accounts), and is the thing a lot of people here have already mentioned. The 2010 people picked up most of the 2009 extras for their collections, so there weren't as many left for the future members and thus everything gets rarer. But at this point, yeah, there's a negligible difference between the number of 2010 and 2009 rares left over and 2009/2010 members still active. And the pets from 2009 that are still rare and not VR were super common when I started. Like, I picked up most of them from free adoptions, there were so many. Nobody was making a big deal at that point about trading them for 2010s because we were talking what would now probably be in the omgsc-vc range. So I would still argue for a 2009 rare = a 2010 rare (probably + an uncommon, in practice, because old habits die hard) and then 2 '09 or '10 rares for an '09 VR, which would more or less maintain the values we had pre-update, really.

But also, a lot more people joined in 2011-2013. Like, a LOT more. Right away, about 50% more people joined in 2011 than in 2010. In terms of overall membership, for reference, we're currently at about member #1,090,000. Roughly 400,000 of those accounts were made from 2011-2013. Pets in that range still get rarer with time, sure, but I think it's worth factoring in these numbers if you want to build a rarity math system that can last. Since then, membership has fallen off but fluctuates a bit year to year, and I think the within 3 years rule starts making more sense.

So basically, my adjustment to the tiers suggestion above:

1 2009 rare = 2010 rare (or platinum, if you like)
[2:1 gap]
1 2011 rare = 1 2012 = 1 2013 (gold)
[2:1 gap]
1 2014 = 1 2015 = 1 2016 (silver)
[2:1 gap]
1 2017 = 1 2018 = 1 2019 (bronze)
[+1 gap - neater than 1.5 imo]
1 2020 = 1 2021 = 1 2022 (copper)
[+1 gap]
<current year here>

This at least gives new members the chance to trade up, but exactly how it converts to moving up to MA+ is a trickier question. This would give us 1 '09 VR = 2 '10 rares = 4 '11s = 8 '14s = 16 '17s = 17 '20s = 18 '23s, which, I dunno. I think we might be doing this part backwards. We can all agree that north of a thousand 2023 rares for 1 '09 is ridiculous, but 10 feels a little low. Maybe we should be asking people's minimum current year rare : '09 rare exchange rate, and then adjust the gaps between the new tiers accordingly.

I agree with this! Really well broken down to, and easier to understand without the 0.5 breaks

[SolarSonnet]

I've probably said it enough times for it to be grating, but I still am a little hung up on 2009-2010 having a gap.

The above method would also totally ruin the "old rares" system we were/are developing where 2010-2011 rares are considered "Old Rares" and that 2009 pets aren't on the same level as them.

I think all of your logic and statistics makes sense, so I don't really have another argument other than..
"B-but.. I want my 09 rare pets to be worth 2 2010 rares! :c "

Which probably means it's a bad argument, as much as I don't want to admit it.

So, this leads me into my next question, which you did say is tricky:

Which tier are we using to calculate our new rarity system?

Because rather than using the 09/10 tier, I'd prefer use of the 11/12 tier.

What I really liked about moving to "Old Rares" as a valuation is that it gave a tier 'above' Old Rares while also not considering those pets as part of the list that Old Rares are being used to calculate. Meaning you can still trade up past an "Old Rare" without moving on to the "List". (Ik List is an outdated term, its just the easiest term for me to use for the kinds of pets I mean)

I liked that the "Mid OMGSR (Non Tier)" is 50 "Old Rares" and that "Old Rares" are not 2009 pets anymore. Them being 2010-2011 pets meant that it takes less 09s to get to a non. Because 1 09 R = 2-4 2010-2011 R, meaning it'd take like 12.5-25 09 Rares, not even VRs, to equal a former "non".

This means that both people with 09s already on their account, and people who have 2010-2011 pets on their account, will be able to trade for lists under the new system. It also makes it easier to trade down to "valuable" pets that have weight in the "list" market, because you only have to trade down to 2011 and not all the way down to 09 like you used to have to.

But if the method for trading up the list keeps including 09 rares, then it takes 25 09 VRs to equal a non, and people still have to trade all the way down to 09.

Which to me feels very similar to the issue I ran into of:
"Nobody wants to trade 23 2023 rares for an 09 Rare."

Just on a higher-value scale. Calling it 6.25-12.5 09 Very Rares for a non suddenly feels so much more reasonable.

2010-2011 felt perfect, because it wasn't 09 and wasn't as late as 2012. So Idk how I feel about 11-12 being the new "Old Rare" standard.

With the proposed system above, if 2011-2012 ends up being the new "Old Rare" system, then we have:

2009-2010 = 2 2011-2012
Which means 1 09/10 Very Rare = 4 2011-2012 Rs, which keeps the math the same, and eliminates the range.

It'd end up being
"Mid OMGSR (Non Tier) === 25 Very Rares === 50 Old Rares (2011-2012 Rares) === 12.5 2009 Rares === 6.25 2009 Very Rares"
If you don't like decimals, make it 12 and 6, probably. Otherwise its 13 and 6.5 which still has a decimal in there. (It is easier to classify an 09 VR as a "0.5" though, since half of an 09 VR is usually an 09 Rare- or with this system, a '10 rare can also work, which are funnily enough easier to find because 09s are mostly VR now.)

At this point, I'd really love more input from Horror, and maybe another poll with the options of:

How should we categorize Old Rares going forward?

- Keep Old Rares as 2010-2011
- Revamp the system and make Old Rares 2009-2010
- Revamp the system and make Old Rares 2011-2012
- I don't like the system of "Old Rares" and want something else.
- Other/I just want to vote

--

Something great about the idea of revamping it is:
No matter where you lie, you will likely be able to find someone to trade with.
If your old rares are 2011-2012, you can still trade with somebody who's Old Rares are 2010-2011.
If your old rares are 2009-2010, you can still trade with people who consider 2010-2011 to be old rares.
The only issue is there's no overlap between the 2009-2010 people and the 2011-2012 people.

[lil rascal]

Can I just point out that the pets you’re thinking of as ‘09 rares are no longer actually ‘09 rares. Most of the current ‘09 rares were ‘09 uncommons until very recently, which is why it was suggested to include them with the ‘10s and ‘11s as “old rares”. Even as someone who highly values bulk I highly doubt someone is going to take 12.5-25 of the current ‘09 rares for an OMGSR.

snip…
my only worry with this tiering is that there will be confusion about the worth of pets between tiers. a 2015 rare is in one tier while a 2016 rare is in an entirely different tier. in reality, there is not much difference between the worth of these two pets. but this tiering implies that a 2015 rare is worth either two 2016 rares or two 2019 rares, which doesnt seem right. while i think users may come together to figure something out, is there possibly a detail you could add to address this? its confusing me a bit and im sure new users may have even more confusion about it.

I also agree with this being an issue. If I’m reading it correctly the suggestion is to value a 2015 as being equal worth to a 2012 but than saying a 2016 if worth half as much. Wouldn’t the reality be that the 2015 and 2016 are likely to be swapped, possibly with a tiny add on the 2016 side?

So basically, my adjustment to the tiers suggestion above:

1 2009 rare = 2010 rare (or platinum, if you like)
[2:1 gap]
1 2011 rare = 1 2012 = 1 2013 (gold)
[2:1 gap]
1 2014 = 1 2015 = 1 2016 (silver)
[2:1 gap]
1 2017 = 1 2018 = 1 2019 (bronze)
[+1 gap - neater than 1.5 imo]
1 2020 = 1 2021 = 1 2022 (copper)
[+1 gap]
<current year here>

This at least gives new members the chance to trade up, but exactly how it converts to moving up to MA+ is a trickier question. This would give us 1 '09 VR = 2 '10 rares = 4 '11s = 8 '14s = 16 '17s = 17 '20s = 18 '23s, which, I dunno. I think we might be doing this part backwards. We can all agree that north of a thousand 2023 rares for 1 '09 is ridiculous, but 10 feels a little low. Maybe we should be asking people's minimum current year rare : '09 rare exchange rate, and then adjust the gaps between the new tiers accordingly.

This sounds a bit more realistic, though I still think the 2014 would realistically swap for a 2013 with a small add, not require double (unless of course you’re talking the slumber party pets but they’re not what I’d class “normal” rares). Likewise with the 2016 and 2017.

[musicgurl333]

Can I just point out that the pets you’re thinking of as ‘09 rares are no longer actually ‘09 rares. Most of the current ‘09 rares were ‘09 uncommons until very recently, which is why it was suggested to include them with the ‘10s and ‘11s as “old rares”. Even as someone who highly values bulk I highly doubt someone is going to take 12.5-25 of the current ‘09 rares for an OMGSR.

snip…
my only worry with this tiering is that there will be confusion about the worth of pets between tiers. a 2015 rare is in one tier while a 2016 rare is in an entirely different tier. in reality, there is not much difference between the worth of these two pets. but this tiering implies that a 2015 rare is worth either two 2016 rares or two 2019 rares, which doesnt seem right. while i think users may come together to figure something out, is there possibly a detail you could add to address this? its confusing me a bit and im sure new users may have even more confusion about it.

I also agree with this being an issue. If I’m reading it correctly the suggestion is to value a 2015 as being equal worth to a 2012 but than saying a 2016 if worth half as much. Wouldn’t the reality be that the 2015 and 2016 are likely to be swapped, possibly with a tiny add on the 2016 side?

Yes! These was my thoughts as well, so I'm glad to see that other people are seeing the issue here.

Regarding the tier system, if this became the "standard" then there would absolutely be people who would refuse to swap '15 and '16 pets because they're in different "tiers", even if they're actually less than 12 months apart. I know this from experience. On multiple occasions, I've offered pets within the "3 month rule", but they were canceled because the other person's pet was a "year" older, even when theirs was from December of the previous year...making the pets really only a month apart!

That's why I'm still on team "3 year rule" except for old rares. I know one of the complaints I've seen about suggested the "3 year rule", is that you could potentially keep trading up a current pet to a much older one in only a few trades. Something like,
'23 -> '20
'20 -> '17
'17 -> '14
'14 -> '11

Which is true, but is that such a bad thing? That's still 4 trades required to move from a '23 pet to an '11 one, and with '11 being considered "old rares", I don't even know if it would work like that. They might only be able to go back as far as '12. But regardless, I don't really see what the problem is with that. It's a trade off...sure, you can keep swapping up until you get an old pet...but it's going to take longer and be more effort. Or, you can offer more pets and cut right to the chase. I think this seems like a viable way for newer players to work their way up, while taking into account that years don't matter quite as much with the new rarity system.

[fιяєfℓу]

So basically, my adjustment to the tiers suggestion above:

1 2009 rare = 2010 rare (or platinum, if you like)
[2:1 gap]
1 2011 rare = 1 2012 = 1 2013 (gold)
[2:1 gap]
1 2014 = 1 2015 = 1 2016 (silver)
[2:1 gap]
1 2017 = 1 2018 = 1 2019 (bronze)
[+1 gap - neater than 1.5 imo]
1 2020 = 1 2021 = 1 2022 (copper)
[+1 gap]
<current year here>

This at least gives new members the chance to trade up, but exactly how it converts to moving up to MA+ is a trickier question. This would give us 1 '09 VR = 2 '10 rares = 4 '11s = 8 '14s = 16 '17s = 17 '20s = 18 '23s, which, I dunno. I think we might be doing this part backwards. We can all agree that north of a thousand 2023 rares for 1 '09 is ridiculous, but 10 feels a little low. Maybe we should be asking people's minimum current year rare : '09 rare exchange rate, and then adjust the gaps between the new tiers accordingly.

I like these tiers, they definitely seem more balanced. I'm unsure on what you mean by +1 though. That works when trading up Copper rares for Gold Rares, but what about Copper to Bronze? With that ratio, a Bronze rare would be how many Copper rares?
Personally I don't think it's too far fetched to trade 2 2020 rares for a 2018 rare or even 2 2018 rares for a 2016 rare, but the gap could also be smaller than a rare if that's seen as an issue by the majority. Maybe a couple EU or so.

[fιяєfℓу]

For list trading, I think our current issue is due to the lack of a value unit. Yes, we have Horror's list, but each tier doesn't have a set value. I think if we measured everything in old rares it'd make things a bit easier. Sure, we can still use the Non and MA term, but have them correspond to a set rare value, so they are equivalent.

For example:
1 MA = 8 Old Rares (2008-2009)
1 Non = 10 MAs = 80 Old Rares
0.5 Nons = 5 MAs or 40 Old Rares
0.5 MAs = 4 Old Rares

Another problem is that we don't have a "mid advent" tier anymore, so by using this term I think what people really mean is they want a pet worth 6-9 Old Rares. I guess the closest to that would be the "Higher Extremely Rare".

Overall, what I'm trying to say is, every pet/tier should have a set value. I think the list worked. Years later it is still used, although a bit differenty. It's so much easier to go "Ok, my pet is worth x rares, and yours is worth y. So you need to add this amount to make the trade equal" than (What I currently see) "Ok, my pet ranges from x to y rares, and according to this guides it is slightly rarer than yours so I'm going to try and guess the value gap between them by having to look at a bunch of different threads and trades".
It's just simpler than dumping 100 different pets into a tier and have people guess whether they all trade for the same value or not.
I know this is a rarity list, but we have sorbets and pets valued at mid advents in the same tier. They won't realistically swap. How will that help a new user learn about values? By having to click every single pet to look at successful trades and try to find the exceptions and from there try and gather a value? That's why people say trading is hard.

I think another list could be made, based on community trading value over rarity. Everyone and their mother knows a bmd will trade for at least a sorbet, it's been like that for a while. So put it on the sorbet tier. Putting it with other advents is just confusing and unhelpful to someone who's trying to figure out a fair trade. Note this is meant for values that have been stable for a long time, years even (nons, sorbets, pets like the balloons, joker, BA, BMD, etc.), not pets that suddenly go up or down to avoid driving up the demand. (Looking at you Raven and UR Lion).

It doesn't have to be a "List" as in a rule, just a quick reference. "Pets that commonly trade for 1.5 Nons: UR Malk, Joker etc." To figure out if a trade is fair you just take a quick look at the guide since it includes usual trading value, not just rarity.
You look at the list, you see "My rat goes for 5 rares", you trade. Sounds so much simpler to me than "My rat is worth 10 rares." No one offers that. You find out the rat actually only trades for half of the listed value. You get confused.
With that second list, the user could see both their pet's actual rarity here and demand there, and decide which one matters the most to them. I'm aware this list mentions exceptions in tiers, but I mean grouping same trading value pets together so no tier has an exception.

[Bronze!]

Can I just point out that the pets you’re thinking of as ‘09 rares are no longer actually ‘09 rares. Most of the current ‘09 rares were ‘09 uncommons until very recently, which is why it was suggested to include them with the ‘10s and ‘11s as “old rares”. Even as someone who highly values bulk I highly doubt someone is going to take 12.5-25 of the current ‘09 rares for an OMGSR.

Fully agreed. The '09s that are currently rares are not the ones that used to be in that '09 rare benchmark bucket that we all used to use. They've always been closer to '10s. I'm still gonna maintain that there is objectively a big gap between 2011 rares and 2010 rares, though. We can elect to ignore it to make this process smoother, but it is there. I say this knowing I'm arguing against my own interests, too, as someone with like 50 pages of '11 rares in trades that would suddenly become much more valuable.

snip…
my only worry with this tiering is that there will be confusion about the worth of pets between tiers. a 2015 rare is in one tier while a 2016 rare is in an entirely different tier. in reality, there is not much difference between the worth of these two pets.

I also agree with this being an issue. If I’m reading it correctly the suggestion is to value a 2015 as being equal worth to a 2012 but than saying a 2016 if worth half as much. Wouldn’t the reality be that the 2015 and 2016 are likely to be swapped, possibly with a tiny add on the 2016 side?

I still think the 2014 would realistically swap for a 2013 with a small add, not require double (unless of course you’re talking the slumber party pets but they’re not what I’d class “normal” rares). Likewise with the 2016 and 2017.

Honestly I think the tiers should be another layer of complicated in order to be more "right" but that's gonna make it that much trickier to learn. Because the truth is that there are degrees of fair. A three month swap is more fair than a three year swap, even if it intersects with a tier gap. The tiers make the most sense in bulk - my mix of 5-10 '14-'15 rares is about the same as your 5-10 '15-'16 rares. My single '14 rare for your '16 rare will always seem less fair even though it's probably fine, really.

My one argument in favor of tiers is sustainability. I think "old rares" is too nebulous a term and will 100% for sure be confusing to new players. Today, I think 2010s =/= 2011s, but in five years, that could change. With time and more people chipping away at that pool of extras, the difference between them flattens. I think that if we don't want to have this debate over and over, we're gonna want to have a built in way to expand your "old rares" or "gold tier" or whatever at regular intervals. You want the neat chart to paste in yoir trade rules, but we also want a slightly more robust plan somewhere. When does "old rares" expand to include 2012? When do 2010s fall out of "old rares" and into that intermediate place with the '09 VRs? Do we just say that happens on X date, or is it when X percentage of that year's releases turn VR? I like the idea that it takes 20 pets from the gold tier/old rares (just making up that number) to get to an MA, but with the understanding that today's gold tiers will one day be closer to list level in their own right, and eventually old rares might be 2013-2015s.

<snip>

I like these tiers, they definitely seem more balanced. I'm unsure on what you mean by +1 though. That works when trading up Copper rares for Gold Rares, but what about Copper to Bronze? With that ratio, a Bronze rare would be how many Copper rares?

The plus one system just means one more copper than bronze. 2:1, 3:2, 4:3. It gets weird with bulk as all the systems do, for sure, but "one more of the newer year than the older year with an additional newer rare added for every five older rares after the initial five, so 6:5 but then 8:6, 14:11, etc" is not very catchy.

[Miladux]

For list trading, I think our current issue is due to the lack of a value unit. Yes, we have Horror's list, but each tier doesn't have a set value. I think if we measured everything in old rares it'd make things a bit easier. Sure, we can still use the Non and MA term, but have them correspond to a set rare value, so they are equivalent.

For example:
1 MA = 8 Old Rares (2008-2009)
1 Non = 10 MAs = 80 Old Rares
0.5 Nons = 5 MAs or 40 Old Rares
0.5 MAs = 4 Old Rares

Another problem is that we don't have a "mid advent" tier anymore, so by using this term I think what people really mean is they want a pet worth 6-9 Old Rares. I guess the closest to that would be the "Higher Extremely Rare".

Overall, what I'm trying to say is, every pet/tier should have a set value. I think the list worked. Years later it is still used, although a bit differenty. It's so much easier to go "Ok, my pet is worth x rares, and yours is worth y. So you need to add this amount to make the trade equal" than (What I currently see) "Ok, my pet ranges from x to y rares, and according to this guides it is slightly rarer than yours so I'm going to try and guess the value gap between them by having to look at a bunch of different threads and trades".
It's just simpler than dumping 100 different pets into a tier and have people guess whether they all trade for the same value or not.
I know this is a rarity list, but we have sorbets and pets valued at mid advents in the same tier. They won't realistically swap. How will that help a new user learn about values? By having to click every single pet to look at successful trades and try to find the exceptions and from there try and gather a value? That's why people say trading is hard.

I think another list could be made, based on community trading value over rarity. Everyone and their mother knows a bmd will trade for at least a sorbet, it's been like that for a while. So put it on the sorbet tier. Putting it with other advents is just confusing and unhelpful to someone who's trying to figure out a fair trade. Note this is meant for values that have been stable for a long time, years even (nons, sorbets, pets like the balloons, joker, BA, BMD, etc.), not pets that suddenly go up or down to avoid driving up the demand. (Looking at you Raven and UR Lion).

It doesn't have to be a "List" as in a rule, just a quick reference. "Pets that commonly trade for 1.5 Nons: UR Malk, Joker etc." To figure out if a trade is fair you just take a quick look at the guide since it includes usual trading value, not just rarity.
You look at the list, you see "My rat goes for 5 rares", you trade. Sounds so much simpler to me than "My rat is worth 10 rares." No one offers that. You find out the rat actually only trades for half of the listed value. You get confused.
With that second list, the user could see both their pet's actual rarity here and demand there, and decide which one matters the most to them. I'm aware this list mentions exceptions in tiers, but I mean grouping same trading value pets together so no tier has an exception.

Big support! I've been saying this forages, having all the pets of the same rarity on the same 'MA' tier is detrimental to the community.

The old rares list had subtiers within a larger tier that were seperated by a low value margin. Whether they are separated by demand/Objective rarity/date .ect will be up to the community to decide on. We aren't as fortunate as to be able to use the same method for OMGSR's and base it on the dates rarity changed, as almost all Extremely rares got their rarity together this update.

[SolarSonnet]

For list trading, I think our current issue is due to the lack of a value unit. Yes, we have Horror's list, but each tier doesn't have a set value. I think if we measured everything in old rares it'd make things a bit easier. Sure, we can still use the Non and MA term, but have them correspond to a set rare value, so they are equivalent.

For example:
1 MA = 8 Old Rares (2008-2009)
1 Non = 10 MAs = 80 Old Rares
0.5 Nons = 5 MAs or 40 Old Rares
0.5 MAs = 4 Old Rares

Another problem is that we don't have a "mid advent" tier anymore, so by using this term I think what people really mean is they want a pet worth 6-9 Old Rares. I guess the closest to that would be the "Higher Extremely Rare".

Overall, what I'm trying to say is, every pet/tier should have a set value. I think the list worked. Years later it is still used, although a bit differenty. It's so much easier to go "Ok, my pet is worth x rares, and yours is worth y. So you need to add this amount to make the trade equal" than (What I currently see) "Ok, my pet ranges from x to y rares, and according to this guides it is slightly rarer than yours so I'm going to try and guess the value gap between them by having to look at a bunch of different threads and trades".
It's just simpler than dumping 100 different pets into a tier and have people guess whether they all trade for the same value or not.
I know this is a rarity list, but we have sorbets and pets valued at mid advents in the same tier. They won't realistically swap. How will that help a new user learn about values? By having to click every single pet to look at successful trades and try to find the exceptions and from there try and gather a value? That's why people say trading is hard.

I think another list could be made, based on community trading value over rarity. Everyone and their mother knows a bmd will trade for at least a sorbet, it's been like that for a while. So put it on the sorbet tier. Putting it with other advents is just confusing and unhelpful to someone who's trying to figure out a fair trade. Note this is meant for values that have been stable for a long time, years even (nons, sorbets, pets like the balloons, joker, BA, BMD, etc.), not pets that suddenly go up or down to avoid driving up the demand. (Looking at you Raven and UR Lion).

It doesn't have to be a "List" as in a rule, just a quick reference. "Pets that commonly trade for 1.5 Nons: UR Malk, Joker etc." To figure out if a trade is fair you just take a quick look at the guide since it includes usual trading value, not just rarity.
You look at the list, you see "My rat goes for 5 rares", you trade. Sounds so much simpler to me than "My rat is worth 10 rares." No one offers that. You find out the rat actually only trades for half of the listed value. You get confused.
With that second list, the user could see both their pet's actual rarity here and demand there, and decide which one matters the most to them. I'm aware this list mentions exceptions in tiers, but I mean grouping same trading value pets together so no tier has an exception.

Big support! I've been saying this forages, having all the pets of the same rarity on the same 'MA' tier is detrimental to the community.

The old rares list had subtiers within a larger tier that were seperated by a low value margin. Whether they are separated by demand/Objective rarity/date .ect will be up to the community to decide on. We aren't as fortunate as to be able to use the same method for OMGSR's and base it on the dates rarity changed, as almost all Extremely rares got their rarity together this update.

I think you guys are talking about something like the now-defunct demand data cloud

It was made after the ex-list was retired to keep track of pet values/demand/etc... And I think it might be time for another one. I wish Loelya hadn't left, they did such a good job of organizing the first one.

Also, in Horror's list, down at the bottom you do have something like that. Or you used to. This was on the old guide!

It looks like this part of the post on the new guide is reserved for that, it just isn't there yet.

[ButterflyChaser]

I don't have much insight to offer other than you may want to check how you spelled the word "copper" in your post explaining the tiers.

As for gaps and stuff it made more sense to me years ago when there was this thing about 2008 being unique and different from 2009/2010. But that is over 10 years ago now, so it makes less sense overall. I guess there is something about having pets from when the site opened.

As a side note I was around the time when CS was hosted on a petz site, and Tess would offer petz hexes for high demand on the petz forum that I was active on.

As usual though, I give it some time before I join a new site and waited until 2009.