New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[mechaerial]

Personally, I think this chart is fantastic, its a perfect balance between the new, more accurate rarities and the older dates being worth more, and is very easy to remember and understand. I'd be more than happy to trade like this :D
It also accounts for higher demand pets too, which is very important on here!

[Thinking.Kiwi]

I love the data we are collecting from the current poll, we will definitely have to save a copy of it in this thread before it's taken down.

Going back to the charts I made, for the first chart I didn't really see anyone saying they wanted to change it? It would be nice to know if this is a good guide for trading across rarity tags or not.

I do not like this chart very much, it is less clear than the two below! (aka i have trouble reading charts like that x'D)

unrelated and I might be an outlier here since i don't keep up with the trading guides, but i just value my pets in c$. It helps cause you'll know exactly how much you're overpaying or being overpaid. Like, I use my chart to know how much c4 each side currently has! and you can also use it to figure out how many pets i need to offer: if i value a 2023 Rare at 32C$, and a 2023 uncommon at 4C$, i know my rare is worth 8 uncommons. (but yes i use a calculator a lot-)
The scaling I use is almost the 3 year-rules you guys are talking about but it's a bit more complicated x'D I value years differently at the moment, but I may switch to the 3-year I think? anyways, this is the chart style i've been using and updating for years:

[SolarSonnet]

I haven't been here for a while but I have been active on Horror's Guide where we're discussing trading methods between later year rares as well!

This was my latest suggestion (with a chart and math explanation and everything lol)

If you don't wanna read the post or catch up, basically, there was discussion of 2009-2010 Rare pets swapping 1:1, 2010-2011 being 1:2 and then I was using an 09r to 2023 rare method to calculate the difference between other years with the baseline that an 09 rare should probably be around 12 2023 rares or no more than 15 at most.

This is the math I came up with, using ratios and breaking them down with 2:1 between rarities math:

The way this is set up might be confusing so here's a little guide

Year-Year = Ratio of Rares (R + Rarity to add to make it 'fair')

# Of pets multiplied by Ratio multiplier to get to the next year.

The ratios are "When trading between two of these years, this is the add to put on."
So 2012-2013 is a Rare + EUC, because 0.5 of a rare is an EUC.

09-10 = 1:1

10-2011 = 1:2

1 10 r = 2 11 r

2011-2013 = 1:1.5 (R + EUC)

2 11 = 3 12 = 4.5 2013

2013-2015 = 1:1.25 (R + VUC)

4.5 2013 = 5.625 2014 = 7.03 2015

2015-2019 = 1:1.125 (R + UC)

7.03 2015 = 7.91 2016 = 8.89 2017 = 10.01 2018 = 11.26 2019

2019-2023 = 1:1.06 (R + C)

11.26 2019 = 11.9 2020 = 12.64 2021 = 13.4 2022 = 14.20 2023

So, a 2009 Rare for a 2013 rare would be the value of 3 2013 Rares.

A 2014 pet for a 2017 pet is a little more complicated to figure out with this. But, basically, you'd end up taking the # of 14s you need to trade for an 09, and doing the same for a 2017 pet, and then ratioing it. Or just going through each step.

5.625 2014 is 1 09 rare, and 8.89 2017s is an 09 rare.
5.625:8.89, divide both sides by 5.625 and you get 1:1.58-ish
Meaning that your 2014 R is worth a 2017 R and EUC.

Doing this the other way:
2014 -> 2015 = 2015 R + VUC
2015 R -> 2016 = 2016 R + UC
2016 R -> 2017 R = 2017 R + UC

You'd end up with 1 2017 R, A 2015 VUC (0.25), and a 2017 and 2016 UC. (0.125 each) Which is, in all technicality, 1.5 rares, ish, though you would end up with earlier pets doing all of the breakdowns than you would just doing the math, so this ends up being really efficient for trading year-by-year, but more complicated when trading multiple years.

Basically, taking the ratios of how many 09rs a pet is worth assumes that pets under R can be evenly swapped year to year even though they can't for some. This is less of a problem the later into the years you get, and the fewer years you're going through. So a few Uncommons in value here and there from 2015-2017 might not be the biggest deal, but it could be from other years, since some people will just swap EUCs throughout the 2020s easily, but a 2013 EUC is different.

[Sashtato]

I haven't been here for a while but I have been active on Horror's Guide where we're discussing trading methods between later year rares as well!

This was my latest suggestion (with a chart and math explanation and everything lol)

If you don't wanna read the post or catch up, basically, there was discussion of 2009-2010 Rare pets swapping 1:1, 2010-2011 being 1:2 and then I was using an 09r to 2023 rare method to calculate the difference between other years with the baseline that an 09 rare should probably be around 12 2023 rares or no more than 15 at most.

This is the math I came up with, using ratios and breaking them down with 2:1 between rarities math:

The way this is set up might be confusing so here's a little guide

[quoute=" "]Year-Year = Ratio of Rares (R + Rarity to add to make it 'fair')

# Of pets multiplied by Ratio multiplier to get to the next year.

The ratios are "When trading between two of these years, this is the add to put on."
So 2012-2013 is a Rare + EUC, because 0.5 of a rare is an EUC.

09-10 = 1:1

10-2011 = 1:2

1 10 r = 2 11 r

2011-2013 = 1:1.5 (R + EUC)

2 11 = 3 12 = 4.5 2013

2013-2015 = 1:1.25 (R + VUC)

4.5 2013 = 5.625 2014 = 7.03 2015

2015-2019 = 1:1.125 (R + UC)

7.03 2015 = 7.91 2016 = 8.89 2017 = 10.01 2018 = 11.26 2019

2019-2023 = 1:1.06 (R + C)

11.26 2019 = 11.9 2020 = 12.64 2021 = 13.4 2022 = 14.20 2023

So, a 2009 Rare for a 2013 rare would be the value of 3 2013 Rares.

A 2014 pet for a 2017 pet is a little more complicated to figure out with this. But, basically, you'd end up taking the # of 14s you need to trade for an 09, and doing the same for a 2017 pet, and then ratioing it. Or just going through each step.

5.625 2014 is 1 09 rare, and 8.89 2017s is an 09 rare.
5.625:8.89, divide both sides by 5.625 and you get 1:1.58-ish
Meaning that your 2014 R is worth a 2017 R and EUC.

Doing this the other way:
2014 -> 2015 = 2015 R + VUC
2015 R -> 2016 = 2016 R + UC
2016 R -> 2017 R = 2017 R + UC

You'd end up with 1 2017 R, A 2015 VUC (0.25), and a 2017 and 2016 UC. (0.125 each) Which is, in all technicality, 1.5 rares, ish, though you would end up with earlier pets doing all of the breakdowns than you would just doing the math, so this ends up being really efficient for trading year-by-year, but more complicated when trading multiple years.

Basically, taking the ratios of how many 09rs a pet is worth assumes that pets under R can be evenly swapped year to year even though they can't for some. This is less of a problem the later into the years you get, and the fewer years you're going through. So a few Uncommons in value here and there from 2015-2017 might not be the biggest deal, but it could be from other years, since some people will just swap EUCs throughout the 2020s easily, but a 2013 EUC is different.

I appreciate the thought that goes into this, but I will say I am quite confused ^^; I also worry about having the right amount of certain pets of certain rarities without having to do even more math to figure out which different pets would add up to what I'm missing.

I love the data we are collecting from the current poll, we will definitely have to save a copy of it in this thread before it's taken down.

Going back to the charts I made, for the first chart I didn't really see anyone saying they wanted to change it? It would be nice to know if this is a good guide for trading across rarity tags or not.

I do not like this chart very much, it is less clear than the two below! (aka i have trouble reading charts like that x'D)

I personally like the info on the chart, but I do think its a bit hard to read. If we could get a version with lines for each row and column I think that would help!

unrelated and I might be an outlier here since i don't keep up with the trading guides, but i just value my pets in c$. It helps cause you'll know exactly how much you're overpaying or being overpaid. Like, I use my chart to know how much c4 each side currently has! and you can also use it to figure out how many pets i need to offer: if i value a 2023 Rare at 32C$, and a 2023 uncommon at 4C$, i know my rare is worth 8 uncommons. (but yes i use a calculator a lot-)
The scaling I use is almost the 3 year-rules you guys are talking about but it's a bit more complicated x'D I value years differently at the moment, but I may switch to the 3-year I think? anyways, this is the chart style i've been using and updating for years:

I like this method, and I have done this in the past for figuring out trades! I never fully understood why we valued C$ differently, and as some users have pointed out, it makes trading directly for an 09 rare pointless. YOu might as well trade for C$ to get there.

I think valuing them the same would really help with rarity math for a lot of people. Will it raise C$ prices for higher rarities? Likely, but I do think its a simple way of doing things. Not sure who else would be interested in that method.

[Screemnigcheesepuff]

unrelated and I might be an outlier here since i don't keep up with the trading guides, but i just value my pets in c$. It helps cause you'll know exactly how much you're overpaying or being overpaid. Like, I use my chart to know how much c4 each side currently has! and you can also use it to figure out how many pets i need to offer: if i value a 2023 Rare at 32C$, and a 2023 uncommon at 4C$, i know my rare is worth 8 uncommons. (but yes i use a calculator a lot-)
The scaling I use is almost the 3 year-rules you guys are talking about but it's a bit more complicated x'D I value years differently at the moment, but I may switch to the 3-year I think? anyways, this is the chart style i've been using and updating for years:

I like this method, and I have done this in the past for figuring out trades! I never fully understood why we valued C$ differently, and as some users have pointed out, it makes trading directly for an 09 rare pointless. YOu might as well trade for C$ to get there.

I think valuing them the same would really help with rarity math for a lot of people. Will it raise C$ prices for higher rarities? Likely, but I do think its a simple way of doing things. Not sure who else would be interested in that method.

Im sorry but i cant see myself ever using this chart, mainly because it places a 2023 rare at c$32 whist the most recent store pets were c$30 (and previously c$25). I am fairly confident in saying that most of the community views store pets to have a higher value than normal rares, so it doesnt make sense to me why a rare would be worth more in c$ than a store pet.
Also as a note the current c$ guide how much is this worth (has not been updated with new rarities) has a 2010 rare/very rare at c$25-40, but here that suddenly jumps to c$144-288.

Other than that these numbers are just far too high for me to be comfortable with, c$ values already get high enough with omgsr pets currently, without making a 2009 eunc c$80 (which on this chart is the same value as a 2016 rare, which also doesn’t follow logically for me)
I understand wanting c$ to match rarity maths, i would also love that to be the case, but this chart just seems unrealistic to what people are used to paying in c$ for pets.

[lil rascal]

I am also someone who, unless it’s a trade for pets I really want, work out the offered value in C$ vs what I could sell mine for. I believe that C$ prices need a big shake up and would love to see a system where C$ prices matched up with normal value but agree that the above chart is unrealistic. For example I can’t imagine anyone paying anything like 4-10C$ for a common, regardless of age.

In regards to the other charts.
Solloby’s chart is basically saying that (for normal pets) each rarity is worth 2 of the rarity below it until you get to Extremely Rare, where the value comes down to the individual pet. Obviously you would adjust the values for special pets. I can understand that the chart is a bit difficult to read but the suggestion makes sense I think.

The other charts with the 3 year rules I personally see two issues. 1 I think they all complicate lower rarity trading to the point people will have to look at the charts constantly when trying to trade. 2 I think that the 3 year system sounds great in theory but in reality are people actually going to take a normal (non-WL) pet 3 years older than theirs without any add on? Or will it be like it always has been that unless the newer pet is one the other person actually wants or is an edited pet, or more desired species a 1:1 swap is not likely to happen?

Honestly it’s unlikely to affect me much whatever system people want but personally I think it would be easier and much more realistic to just say that each year gap you add a pet from 2 or 3 rarities below. So when dealing with Rares you’d add an Uncommon (or Very Uncommon if going with that) for every year difference. I know this hits an issue with the really low rarities like extremely common and omgsc but I think people would be likely to be much more flexible with them than Uncommon and up.

[Solloby]

Ok, I've made this C$ guide as a DRAFT.
The guidelines I used to make this are as follows.

• Grey squares are non-existent pets, but please let me know if I have incorrectly marked a rarity that does exist.
• There is some overlap between rarity tags, but not to a crazy extent anymore like there used to be over the years, because of the new rarity tags. For example, UC pets are now spread between C, UC, VUC, EUC. So we don't need to have such big date gaps anymore.
• I rounded to avoid decimals above VC.
• Store pets start at 30C$ and top at existing store pet values for 2012 onwards. I did my best to seamlessly join between these values with smaller gaps at the start and larger at the end, but the jumps in recent years may be too much?
• VR starts at 30C$ because this is the cost of buying a VR from the store. I built the entire chart starting from this point.
• I used 2:1 to go between rarities for the same starting date. But I did not maintain this as the dates get older, so if you don't like the current figures, this may be a reason.
• I incremented ER by 5 until it needed to jump bigger. Some ERs are close to OMGSRs and 2008 ERs are going for big prices, so I tried to set a gradual incline with bigger jumps when the pets start getting older. This may not be correct at all though. Different ERs probably have different prices, but there are too many ERs to list individually I would have thought. Perhaps 2008 & 2009 ERs need ranges or some lists?
• VRs are incremented by 3. Rares are incremented by 2. EUCs are incremented by 1.5 with rounding. VUCs are incremented by 1. UCs are incremented by 0.5 with rounding. Commons and below were manually filled out.

I have not made a list of OMGSR prices. But an approximate one is probably good to have.
Store pet price list is as follows, I tried to gather existing store pet C$ values.

Here's my original post before I made this chart and edited my comment:

Speaking of C$, I just went through some threads (C$ worth, pet worth, successful trades) and tried to make a list of what the oldest store pets go for in C$. Some of these prices are crazy, but to be fair some of these pets are virtually impossible to find for trade because they are never rereleased. I wasn't sure of the names of some pets in 2012. If any of this is wrong, please correct it in case anyone doing a forum search stumbles upon this.

2009
Liontail (any) 6000
Drink Me 12000
Eat Me 10000
Orange Cerberus 20000
Skelebun 25000

2010
Seal PPS (any) 1500
Red Cerberus 10000
Brown Sleipnir 6000
Green Android 2000
Android (Yellow/Blue/Red) 1000
White Lolita 3000
Punk Dogs (any) 1000
Patchwork 4000
Raven 12000
Clockwork Bunny 3000
Marionette 4000

2011
Arabian 500
Basilisk 500
Gryphon Dog 400
Hippocampus 400
Forest Guardian 400
Carousel Horse 400

2012
Alien Dog 300
Fluffy Dog 300
Horse 300
Fairy Dog 500
Jackalope 300
BFW 300
Cheshire Cat 1000

I know there's a lot of very different C$ charts going around, but many were made before the store price changed, and a lot consider date too highly in my opinion. We have more rarities now, so date matters less than it used to because older pets are now sorted into higher rarities as a general rule. They still matter, just not as much. I have built this current chart based around the new store pricing. Interested to know if people think this is close to accurate, and what changes could be made to improve it. Does anything look wrong or off?

[Sashtato]

Okay I think that this chart is a really awesome start! I have a few thoughts and suggestions, but of course you don’t have to agree, as these are just my thoughts and idk how others feel.

I think the EC-VC should have slightly lower prices. I personally would not pay 1c$ for just one EC, regardless of year. Maybe make EC worth .25 through 2018 then .5 through 2014, then .75 for the rest? Similar thoughts for the VC. Maybe others disagree but 3 just seems too high for a VC. Unless maybe it’s not if we’re considering using this guide for regular trades too? 1 2011 VC would be worth 3 2023 C - Maybe it’s fine and I’m just overthinking stuff ^^; sorry, my thoughts are changing as I write, and I’m curious what others think. Idk, I personally value them all (omgsc-vc) at roughly the same and maybe I shouldn’t? What do you guys think?

I like the rest of the pricing if it also means using it as a regular trade guide. Could a 2009 EUC being worth the same as a 2017-2016 rare, and a 2011 VUC worth a 2023 rare? I think it could to me personally. That’s under the assumption we use it as a regular trade guide though!

Should the last 3-4 years of rares be priced slightly higher? Or is that feeling different now with the new rarities? Just another last minute thought.

Sorry for the rambling, I feel like I asked more questions that I answered, but maybe that’s cause it’s 5:00am and I’m sleep deprived sidisoskdlspapsjf

[Solloby]

^ I filled the lower columns in manually, because the decimals were too getting small to really be workable. So they can definitely be tinkered with, for sure. It's hard to give OMGSC - VC any range because they are dropped below 1C$ by the 2:1 system working backwards from a 30C$ VR.

I absolutely want to use this as a foundation for regular pet trading. Because I think it's illogical that C$ don't align with regular pet trades, and based on the trading behaviour I was seeing while looking up the valuable pet prices, people were absolutely mathing with the C$ to align them. So if you think pets with even C$ in the chart would be fair trades, that's absolutely the goal! But if you think they are not fair trades then that's an indication the chart needs adjusting.

The only 08 Rares left are 2 from the 2nd gen litter (Nov 08) that was available into 09... so I guess technically they are not 08 rares. Should that square be greyed out, or would that cause confusion? There are very few 09 rares either, and they are not particularly special pets. They are the old 09 UCs. Your point about the oldest years might be worth exploring for the VRs though.

Looking at the current ER chart, I'm not happy with the values. They were going up by 5 until 2016 when I had to increase them by 50 after that to gradually incline to the 2008 value. I'm not sure that's the best place to start the increase, or that the formula should have changed so abruptly. I'll have to look at it again tomorrow. If anyone has any ideas on better ER valuations, please do share.

[lil rascal]

A few quick things. I don’t think a common of any age should be more than 1C$, I just don’t think people would pay it. Most people don’t separate their commons and under via age when selling them.

Likewise I think uncommons shouldn’t go above 5C$, which might even be pushing it since when doubled it gives you a 10C$ max for VUC, 20C$ max for EUC. Would people actually pay 20C$ for an EUC? It also puts rares capped at 40C$, which I personally don’t think would be awful but don’t know what others think?

With the above in mind I think the lower rare values need adjustment as currently it has a 2015 Rare being equal in value to a new store pet, which I don’t think is a good fit personally.

On the other end I think that the VRs and ERs are underpriced. If the aim is to make a a C$ chart that reflects pet trading than the Rare prices would need to double for VRs.

I personally don’t really think ER prices should be via a blanket yearly price. I know we don’t have any recent year normal ERs, I think the newest ERs are the 2020 store pets, but on the off chance we did get one it doesn’t seem right to me that an ER of any age would be valued as low as 60C$.

If the community decides to go with the 3 year rule for pets it might actually make the C$ values easier to work out.