New Trading Standards Discussion (please join in!)

[Solloby]

I think this chart kind of demonstrates why factoring in date so much with all of the new rarities really doesn't work too well for the lower rarities. I'll make an updated version with your feedback in it too lil rascal.

We have too many ERs to make a specific guide for them, but I agree that they tend not to be as date-based. Perhaps they need a range or something. It's hard to get a feel for what they are currently valued before because ER is a new rarity.

Edit: I went through the archives and couldn't find any ERs newer than 2012. So ER needs a combination of a set price guide plus a list of specific pets.

So this is Draft v2 with both your feedback incorporated:

I'm not confident on the VRs still. This new chart removes overlap between rarities though. It's how I thought it should work originally, but a lot of people were saying they thought older pets should fetch higher rarity newer pets, so I'm not sure if this is right either.

I couldn't find any good guideline for ER.

I did find some valuations:
2012 ERs
July Lioness 750
August Lion PPS 1000

2010 ERs
May Lioness 600

But nothing up to date for pets like these, so I think 2011, 2010 and 2009 (who have ERs outside the lions) need a set valuation for ER to cover these sorts of pets.

2011 ERs
New Year Dog
Vday PPS Horse

[Sashtato]

I like the updated chart a lot more!! I do see how trying to incorporate years is harder for those lower rarities, but I feel like this looks a lot closer to what I’d reasonably pay.

The VRs keep that 2:1 ratio and personally I like the prices. It follows how I would trade (2 rares for 1 Very rare) and I don’t think the prices are too much or too little. I’m curious what others think of this version and if that might change my opinion but so far I think this is awesome! If others agree with this I’ll probably go update my personal C$ prices on my trade page lol

[~Atlas~]

I've always gone based on year -- I'd love to relearn the rarity system since I've been gone for some time. I just assume anything VR and up is impossible to get unless I want to trade some of my older faves, but I get too attached to pixels lol

[kee;]

at first glance I was thinking that some of the prices seemed too low, but was that part of the point? because the values for the rares and very rares seem low too me — and possibly the EUs.

-kee

[Solloby]

Are there any particular rare or VR pets you are thinking of? I think a lot of the top VR pets are now ER.

I tried to keep Rare value below store pets value because it doesn't make sense to me to value a VR edited store pet that will never be rereleased over a rare pet.

When looking at older rare pets, I didn't really see many special ones. If you look at 2009, the rares are just the old uncommons of yesteryear. Almost all of 09 is now VR and ER.

Happy to make another chart though if the values are still not right.

[SolarSonnet]

I don't agree that VRs should start at 30 C$, but with the revamp I like the higher-end of where you've put VRs.

VRs starting at 30 C$ only makes sense comparing them to store pets that turn VR when you're not thinking about the fact that Store Pets don't get rereleased. The problem with starting all VRs at 30 is that it assumes a VR of the year you're in right now, would 1:1 Swap with a store pet of the same year- which I don't think it would ? I certainly wouldn't trade a store pet in the store rn for 2 2023 rares. The recent-year VR would either be a lot more due to a skyrocket of demand due to being a cool pet/recent vr, or it would just be worth 2 of the year's rare pets.

For a more-constructive conversation and another take:
I've seen people doing "8 Rares any year for 1 Store pet in the store rn"
This assumes people are trading 8 Rares from 2023 for 1 Store pet from 2023, 30/8 = 3.75, probably under what they sell those rares for (because I've seen a few people with that deal, turning around and selling 2023 Rares for 5-7 C$, which is how they make their 'profit'.)

So, personally, I think valuing a VR of this year at like 10-14 C$ would be fine. Assuming Rares are 5-7 C$.

I value 12 2023 Rares as 1 09 Rare nowadays, so 5 x 12 = 60, 7 x 12 = 84. My personal value for 09 rares would be 60-84 C$ depending on where we put 2023 Rares with this chart.

I also would and have paid more than 1 C$ for older commons (up to like 5 I think?), and I've seen lots of people with uncommon C$ prices a lot higher than 4. There are commons out there that I've paid more than your maximum value Uncommon for. Personally, I've seen a 2015 Very Uncommon at like 10 C$ recently. But Idk how well that works out with the rest of your chart.

Just some thoughts ^^

[Solloby]

There aren't actually any 2023 VRs, to be honest I'm not sure what year has the newest VR right now. The only way we're getting a VR is if there's a hard to get rare event pet, or CS implements the community poll of a rarer pet in regular litters and it turns out to be VR. In either case, it will be a very heavily sought after pet, so I do think it would command a higher value. Although I suppose the question is, how much would such a pet actually trade for? It's very hard to tell.

Regarding rares, do you really think the date still matters that highly despite the extra rarity labels? All of the valuable 09 pets are now VR and ER, there's not much left in the R tag and they are nothing special from what I can see. I'm not sure if they are worth so much, but maybe I am wrong here. I know the old UC C$ charts had massive value differences for dates, but UC pets are now spread out amongst C, UC, VUC, EUC. So I think they should not vary so much. People who paid more for UCs, are the pets they were buying now EUC?

I do think it's worth noting that the chart does not cater to demand. I literally just received this trade today, and I am guessing the other trader offered generously because of the species (lion) and they are PPS. But I'm not sure how to accommodate such things in a C$ chart. I guess with a value range, but I don't want the chart to look complex and become harder to understand.

It's not easy to work out how we should value pets, is it.

[lil rascal]

It's not easy to work out how we should value pets, is it.

It sure isn’t and I hope anyone reading along realises we’re just a few people throwing around ideas.

You’re probably going to hate seeing my replies since I keep making more work but your comment about dates has me wondering if we’re going about the C$ values the wrong way. Maybe instead of trying to put a set price via years there should be a range per rarity? That way people can decide for themselves whether their pet is deserving of the higher price or the lower. This is how I have personally always priced my own pets. As your trade shows there are some pets that are just going to go for more regardless of their age or rarity and of course some that will go for less.

So for example (not suggesting these are the actual prices used based on the above but no idea what else to put as the examples)

Pets C$ prices can vary depending on things such as species, line edits, or age. We recommend using this as a guide for how to value pets of these rarities. Please note that these prices are not set in stone and some pets may go for more or less than their rarity range suggests.

OMGSCs range from 0.25-0.5
Extremely Commons range from 0.25-0.75
Very commons range from 0.25-1.5
Commons range from 1-3C$
Uncommons range from 2-6C$
Very Uncommons range from 4-12C$
Extremely Uncommons range from 7-25C$
Rares range from 15-50C$
Very Rares range from 30-150C$

Or would people prefer a set price per year?

[kee;]

since we’re trying to move away from having to use rates as much since we can use rarities more to determine fairness now, I like the idea of a range. I’m also all for more flexibility in trading, and I like ranges rather than hard values allow for that.
of course we can still brainstorm what the ranges would be, but I like the idea of using a range in general.

-kee

[Sashtato]

Maybe we can consider ranges for groups of years? Because while I absolutely wanna get rid of the idea of dates I know most people won’t, so I’ll still need to trade that way.
Having a huge range like 7-25 stresses me out because it’s almost too vague. Maybe like groups of 3-4 years have a range, then people can decide what’s fair from within that range based on multiple factors, including date, species, design, etc.