NEW POLL CS Community Wants YOUR help on Trading Guidelines!

[SolarSonnet]

The first few calculations I did were:

2 to 4 EUC of average demand for 1 Rare of Average Demand (same year)

This was a test, just to see how it worked.

I don't like that even with 4 EUCs, it only says "Might be" unfair to Side 1. I'd like to see it range from like..
"Might be unfair" (small difference in value)
"Slightly unfair" (small difference in value but still could be acceptable 'overpay')
"Unfair" 1.5:1 ratio, basically. So like 3 VUCs for an EUC.
"Very unfair" 2:1 Ratio, like 4 VUCs for an EUC.
"Extremely unfair" More than a 2:1 Ratio. Like 5 VUCs for an EUC.

I think its funny that 7 High-Demand Uncommons are worth a rare of their year. I think at some point, quantity high-demand might like, add up more than that?

For example:
This uncommon from April 2023

..
I think I'd feel ripped off if someone offered me 1 Rare from 2023 for 7 of them.

Idk how to calculate that in a math-way, though.

My personal valuation for 2023/2024 rares to 09 rares is 4:1, I don't like that it says it might be unfair to Side 1 when I do that. Though 3 says "About fair" I'm interested in knowing what kind of math went behind that, I feel like you might've mentioned it before but I can't tell.

I also tried an 09 VR for 7 '24 rares and it still said unfair to the 2024 side. Which I disagree with. I think it'd be slightly unfair to the 09 side, but about fair overall.

-

Would it be possible to make a version of the script using my earlier chart as a reference? Ik that'd require a lot of work, so no worries if not, I am interested in seeing what kind of trades I can output that might not seem fair.

-

More general user-friendly features, I'd love to see a "Number" next to the Demand thing. So we don't have to put in each pet one-by-one.

I'd also like to see what I mentioned above.

If we're making this a real tool, maybe something where you can actually input your own rarity math and it'd take that into account instead. If that's not plausible, I'd love to see transparency on the page itself about what math its using.

I'd also love an "equalize" button, but Idk how that would work or how it'd calculate it or decide what kind of pet to put there.

I.E.

"Might be Unfair to Side 1" and you click the "Equalize" button and it adds pets to side 2 that would make the trade "fair".

-

Mostly it's just hard for me to think of on-the-spot ideas to shove into the calculator other than the kinds of trades I'm most interested in doing or think would be funny to try and calculate/find. So I haven't done as much testing with it as I'd like to.

[Solloby]

Yeah it doesn't calculate level of unfairness, just whether or not a trade is within 5% of fairness values or not.

I currently have demand set to increase/decrease a pet's value by 10%. That's probably not enough though, I had no idea what to set it to but on reflection that's too low. Part of me wanted to have 5 levels (low, slightly low, mid, slightly high, high) but I figured it'd be hard to decide what level of demand the pet should have, so I just have low/mid/high. If you want to increase the impact demand has on the trade, maybe try adjusting the values? I can do it for you if you like (what % do you think is suitable?), otherwise open the .JS file in notepad and change the following values from 0.9 and 1.1 to whatever you like:

Code: Select all

      switch (petD) {
         case "low":
            petvalue = petvalue * 0.9;
            break;
         case "high":
            petvalue = petvalue * 1.1;
      }

Some example values you could use:
0.8 and 1.2 would be a 20% demand adjuster.
0.75 and 1.25 would be a 25% demand adjuster.
0.5 and 1.5 would be a 50% demand adjuster.

For years, yes I think it's set to triple is the maximum in terms of age discrepancy. I think this is fine given there are no notable 09 rares left, all of them went VR and ER. I wouldn't use the calculator for 2009 VRs. It has no special logic in there for them, but I would consider them differently. So maybe don't plug any of those in, as it will probably not calculate them fairly.

It doesn't really work off a chart system, so probably not sorry :c
It sets base values for pets by rarity, then adjusts the values for age and then demand. So it's mostly calculated mathematically from the rarity bases. Your chart looks fairly close to what it's trying do though, I think?

[SolarSonnet]

Oh! That makes sense. I'm going to input some of my chart things to see what it considers fair, starting with C$ Values that = each other on my chart.

EUC 2015 = 10 C$
Rare 2024 = 10.66 C$

Trade Checker Says: Might be unfair to 2024 Rare. If I change the demand on the 2015 to "High" it says "About fair" which makes sense within the system's calculations.

Uncommon 2015 = 2.5 C$
VUC 2024 = 2.42 C$

Checker Says: Might be unfair to 2024. But, add 'high demand' to 2015 again and you get 'fair' again.

09 EUC = 20 C$
15 R = 20 C$

Checker says: Might be unfair to 2015 Rare
(add high demand to 09 EUC and you still get unfair to side 2, add low demand to 2015 and high demand to 2009 and you get 'about fair')

To get it to say "Fair" with no demand added, the 09 EUC had to swap 1:1 with a 2017 Rare. Which on my C$ chart is 16-17 C$.
With demand added, (high on 09 side) it still says a 2016 R isn't fair.

So overall I personally think the checker might need a little bit of tweaking. Either in the values itself, or what it considers to be "fair" since unfortunately the math isn't compatible with a chart.

[Solloby]

That's interesting, it sounds like your chart uses much larger age gaps than the tool uses.

The tool was based off the survey results, which currently have the favoured options as:
1. Sliding scale
2. Pet from the rarity below (so 1.5:1)
3. Double (so 2:1)

So I built a sliding scale trying to incorporate those values the most heavily:
2009 (triple value)
2010-2011
2012-2013 (double value)
2014-2016
2017-2019
2020-2022
2023-2025 (single value)

I tried to incorporate the 3 year age gaps that the survey results show poeple wanted, but had to do a bit of a sliding scale for that as well to seaprate out the top years and make sure 2016 and 2017 were separated since they seem to have a big rarity jump there. I hope that makes sense!

[SolarSonnet]

I laid it out earlier, but this is about what my chart goes by, the ranges below are basically areas that could probably be 1:1 swapped, within a C$ of each other.

Uncommon
2017-2023 = 1-2 C$
2015-2013 = 2-3 C$
2011-2012 = 3 C$

Very Uncommon:
2021-2024 = 2-3 C$
2017-2022 = 3-4 C$
2015-2016 = 4-5 C$
2013-2014 = 5-6 c$
2011-2012 = 6-7* C$
*Rounding up from 6.67

EUC:
2022-2023 = 5-6 C$
2020-2021 = 6-7 C$
2018-2019 = 7-8 C$

The rest have individual numbers.

And so looking at that, you've got a 2013-2015 Uncommon worth 2-3 C$, which would be a direct/fair swap for a 2021-2024 Very Uncommon, there's a rarity difference there.

I think it's more that the way I calculated things is different and less that I set out to have higher age gaps in the first place.

2009-2010 are the same, as are 2011-2012, meaning it'd be a fair trade to 1:1 swap a 2009r and a 2010r, and it'd be fair to swap a 2011 and 2012 r. I do think 09 VRs are more like 3 2010 rares, or a 2010 VR + 1 R, though.

I used 1:1.5 from 2010-2011 and kind of eyeballed from there to make my sliding scale with no exact valuation in mind. I also didn't make the 2016-2017 Gap significant, I might do that for my next chart, though I wouldn't know exactly how to implement it.

I knew I wanted a 2024 VR to hit around 30 C$, it hit 29 which is.. eh good enough, and I knew I wanted 4 2024 VRs to = 1 09 VR. So I did 30 x 4 and got 120. Everything else had to fall in the middle of those two ranges, and the rest of the chart was formed around it.

Here's a blank version of my chart if anyone wants to make their own:
Link!

And a png for those who don't wanna click on a google sheets link

[Solloby]

I'm not sure it's correct to set a 2024 VR to 30C$ even though that's the store price. I know I used it as a guide to build my original chart, but looking at the poll results and some thread comments and such, I think we need to consider store pets higher value than regular pets of the same rarity, and also keep in mind that a lot of people still think 1 new rare = 5C$ which doesn't work if we are going to set a VR at 30$.

So to use 2:1 ratio between R:VR, our options are:
R = 5C$, VR = 10C$
R = 7-8C$, VR = 15C$
R = 10C$, VR = 20C$

Looking at the survey, it tell us that people think:
1. Store pets should be higher value than non-store, and increase at the same rate
2. Store pets should be higher value than non-store, and increase at a higher rate
We can compromise if we set a higher rate that's a very gentle slope up until the older years, maybe? Or simply maintain the same rate until a specific older year and then start the incline from there based on existing trades for the really old store pets.

People had a very large range of suggested values for a current year VR. 10C$ was the most commonly selected answer, but there's a fair amount of different values on either side.

For Rare, keeping in mind that people selected multiple answers to create a value range:
32 suggestions for a current year Rare should go for under 5C$
24 suggestions for a current year Rare should be 5C$, the most common answer
75 suggestions for a current year Rare should be above 5C$

For an event VR like the 2022 halloween dragon, roughly half (40.7%) thought the value should be be 10C$, while the other half (38.4%) wanted a higher value between 15 - 30C$, with more votes the lower the price. This changes for a rare monthly outcome that goes VR. While the top selected value is still 10C$, almost double the amount of people who wanted that price voted instead for a higher value in the range of 15 - 40C$. It's worth noting that there were no lower options available to select.

So I am thinking for a current year VR, we may want to be setting a starting value somewhere in the range of 10 - 20C$, rather than 30 like a store pet. This will create a pretty sizeable gap between non-store and store pet, which didn't exist before because the store pets used to be cheaper. I am wondering if it's viable to set a non-store VR at 15C$ to keep it at half the value of a store pet for simplicity's sake. Obviously people would trade in a range rather than an exact figure, but it would be a neater starting point perhaps?

[SolarSonnet]

Woah this became a text wall. Sorry about that lol.

-

Personally, I feel extremely strongly about store pets increasing at a higher rate than regular VRs, or at least making a very big initial jump and then following a similar increase.

Regular VRs will be rereleased and store pets will not be. If we end up with a guide that values regular pets similarly to store pets, simply put: I will not be trading away my store pets for their 'fair' valuation. I just don't think that the way we separate that valuation should be a decrease in the value of 2023 VRs.

Its funny because it looks like we've swapped positions here, initially I was the one saying "I wouldn't trade a store pet for a current year VR" but I would- just one that's in the store right now, making it easy to get more.

The event VR Halloween Dragon mentioned was a banner pet, I don't think its "just an event pet that wasn't considered that much rarer than its littermates".

I'd consider that like, a token pet. I think banner pets are worth more than token pets. I also think that the "Rare Monthly Release Pet" would be worth less than a Banner pet.

Subtracting demand, I think a pet like the Gold Gacha Dog should be worth less than a pet like the Banner Dragon that came out later that year. Despite them being the same rarity, one was a pet released during an event and one was a pet released that entire month. I think event pets are worth more than regular release pets as a baseline. In a less-severe demand sense, I'd even put the EUCs from the banner as higher-value than the Gold Gacha Dog.

I also think that Banner pets are worth more than token pets, so for me, the standard value, subtracting any super special looking pets (though event pets tend to look better than standard release pets in general so there will likely be some kind of sway there no matter what) it looks like this:

Event Banner Pets > Event Token Pets > Rare outcome of monthly releases > Regular outcome of monthly releases that has since turned rare.

Ex: PPS Lion here is worth more than the rest of its litter, even if it stays a regular Rare when the rest of its litter goes Rare, and even if the rest of its litter was both rare right now, and had the same demand as it. It'd still be worth more because it was the "rare" release of its litter when it was released.

This is how I feel about all pets, and is something I want to take in mind when trading, my problem is I don't know all of the old rarities, and I don't know how those numbers have changed since release, my lack of knowledge here makes me upset and I wish each pet came with an extra tag that told me what rarity it was on-release.

Ex: The Sunjewel was much more uncommon than the Sunback when it was released. In my ideal trading guide, it would still take that into account to this day.

-

A few problems I have with the thought process of making 2023/2024 Rares/VRs cheaper, since we're trying to make the C$ chart calculate-able:

1: Setting a non-store VR at 15-20 C$ makes 09 VRs 60-80 C$ at the 1:4 Ratio I use.

The lowest I'd go for an 09 VR is 90 C$ (Low-demand), with my preferred value for a regular-demand one at 100-120 C$. At 15 C$ for a 2024 VR, that makes the ratio 6 2023/2024 Very Rares to 1 09 at minimum value. Which I think is 1.5x of Overpay on the 2023/2024 Side.

2: I think that, as they're being released actively, a store pet is equal in value to a VR from that year, but they increase drastically as soon as they are no longer available since they won't ever be released again.

Meaning that, I value a current to last-year VR the same as a store pet in the store right now. I would trade one of the current store butterfly wolves for a centipede dragon, and I would kind of feel like I'm ripping off the banner pet, I'm not going to lie.

To me, that suggests that a current VR similar to the dragon might be worth more than a current store pet. Heck- I would offer a current store b-wolf for the pps coccoon currently on the banner right now, and its value is to be determined.

3: I enjoy the 3:1 R:VR method. Meaning if a 2023/24 VR is worth 15 C$, a rare is only worth 5. Making an 09 Rare 20 C$. Which is frankly insulting, and I'd never trade an 09-10 rare for that.

It's less than it was before the rarity update.
I think, 2009-10 regular rares should be like 40 C$ minimum if we're doing 3:1 R:VR, and like 45-50 C$ if we're doing 2:1 R:VR.

Making a regular 2023/24 rare 11.25 C$, which brings us right back to a 22.5 C$ VRs at 1:2, and a 33.75 C$ 2023/24 VR at 3:1.

Math like this makes me agree that a Pet -> C$ chart is not going to work for all trading. Because if it wasn't for the kind of ratios I'm talking about using having to match up with the C$ Value, I'd have no problem pricing 2023/2024 Rares and VRs lower. Especially since we have quite a few people who like the 1.5 method, making it 3 2023/2024 rares for an 09, which prices them even lower, which I super disagree with.

The next best thing I could see would be a 5:1 2023/2024:2009/2010 thing where a 2023/24 VR is worth 20 C$ and an 09 VR is worth 100. (That would put an even bigger gap between me and the people who want 3:1 2023/24:2009.)

Which means a 2023/24 R is worth 6.67(3:1 R:VR) to 10 C$ (2:1 R:VR), and a 2009 regular rare is worth 33.5 (3:1 R:VR) to 50 C$ (2:1 R:VR) and in this case I like 2:1 better, I don't think 2010 rares should be worth any less than 40 C$.

It's one of those things where I look at it and go "If somebody offered me less than 40 C$ for my 2010 rare, I wouldn't even have to think about it, I would immediately decline. That is unfair to me." and the same thing for 09 VRs, "If someone offered me less than 90 C$ for my 09 VR, I wouldn't even have to think about it, I would immediately decline. That is unfair to me."

I don't like hitting the minimum C$ value for pets in a guide. I don't want it to be so unfair that it's an immediate decline if we go 5 C$ under in offering when it comes to older pets.

It was an unfortunate side-effect of my last chart, personally, but I'd have loved to put 2009-10 rares at 50 C$ and 09 VRs at 120, but that's a weird ratio (2.4:1). Because it leaves room for under-valuing, demand, and error. The C$ value should be the average pet, not including low-high demand. To me, a 2009-2010 low-demand pet is like 35-40 C$. If I was selling an average demand pet it'd be more like 45-50. And if it was a high-demand pet it'd be closer to 55-60. So my "Range" for an 09-10 Rare is "35-60 C$" Similar to what it was before.(I think it was 35-55 C$ with the old guide?)
Similarly:
I'd sell a low-demand 09 VR for like 90-100 C$.
A mid-demand 09 VR for 105-120
A high-demand 09 VR for 125-150

A regular-demand ER, if we're going by similar values, would start at 150 C$.

I just don't know how to reckon those kinds of values with my current chart, while keeping similar ratios and not making it feel unfair to the 2023/2024 side. The last time I used 5 C$ as the base for 2023/2024 it turned out like this and I was unable to calculate the Uncommons and below because 5 C$ was just way too small of a value to start out with.

5/2 = 2.5 C$ EUC
2.5/2 = 1.25 C$ VUC
1.25/2 = 0.625 C$ UC

Which is ridiculous and I don't think an EUC should drop below like 3-4 C$, we'd have to totally ditch 2:1 to make that work, which I also completely disagree with.

I'd feel personally insulted if somebody offered me 1 C$ for 2 Uncommons. I don't foe people over trades, but that would make me come close.

We need to keep in mind that it won't be 2023-2024 forever, and we can't keep stretching out the numbers. In like 2025-2026, the 2023-2024 pets being worth what they are is going to make a lot more sense when we have to make them less valuable than them.

Old Chart:


^ This thing is going to be outdated immediately come 2025. We'll need a new chart entirely by then if we use something like that. I want a chart that's at least a little bit designed with the future of trading in mind. In 2025, if it's okay to swap a pet currently in the store for a 2023 VR, I think that will still be fair.

[lil rascal]

-snip-
The event VR Halloween Dragon mentioned was a banner pet, I don't think its "just an event pet that wasn't considered that much rarer than its littermates".

I'd consider that like, a token pet. I think banner pets are worth more than token pets. I also think that the "Rare Monthly Release Pet" would be worth less than a Banner pet.

Subtracting demand, I think a pet like the Gold Gacha Dog should be worth less than a pet like the Banner Dragon that came out later that year. Despite them being the same rarity, one was a pet released during an event and one was a pet released that entire month. I think event pets are worth more than regular release pets as a baseline. In a less-severe demand sense, I'd even put the EUCs from the banner as higher-value than the Gold Gacha Dog.

I also think that Banner pets are worth more than token pets, so for me, the standard value, subtracting any super special looking pets (though event pets tend to look better than standard release pets in general so there will likely be some kind of sway there no matter what) it looks like this:

Event Banner Pets > Event Token Pets > Rare outcome of monthly releases > Regular outcome of monthly releases that has since turned rare.
-snip-

-snip-
2: I think that, as they're being released actively, a store pet is equal in value to a VR from that year, but they increase drastically as soon as they are no longer available since they won't ever be released again.

Meaning that, I value a current to last-year VR the same as a store pet in the store right now. I would trade one of the current store butterfly wolves for a centipede dragon, and I would kind of feel like I'm ripping off the banner pet, I'm not going to lie.

To me, that suggests that a current VR similar to the dragon might be worth more than a current store pet. Heck- I would offer a current store b-wolf for the pps coccoon currently on the banner right now, and its value is to be determined.
-snip-

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you personally feeling that way about them and putting that in your trade rules or taking it into consideration when you’re trading but it’s important to remember that it’s your personal preference values, not necessarily how others feel. Personally once the event is over I don’t value banner pets any differently to other cool pets of the same rarity from the same event. Once the event is over and they have their rarities it no longer matters to me whether they were token, banner or free pets. If they have the same rarity and are equally good designs than I consider them equal in value.

I also would personally never trade a current store pet or the equivalent in C$ for any of the recent banner pets, even if they are VR. If you choose to that’s totally fine and up to you but I personally don’t value them that high.

I am curious where the VR = 3 Rares value came from? Is that just the amount you would personally want for a VR? Only asking as I’ve seen VR = 2 Rares more commonly and use that myself unless it’s a high demand pet.

I know I’ve said it before but I think when making any valuation guide it’s very important to keep in mind not just what you personally would want for your pets but also what you would be willing to pay for others pets. If high, unrealistic, C$ values are set you’re just going to end up with Group A who follow the guide to set their prices and then wonder why no one buys anything and Group B who understand that there’s no point having a C$ store if no one buys anything so ignore the guide and set prices they feel to be more realistic. In both cases the guide is useless.

[Solloby]

I fully agree lil rascal, it's important that we try to take as many opinions into consideration as possible while building new trade guidelines. I've just gone through the current survey results in the C$ area to try and build some new C$ charts. I have 2 different options, how do they look? I'm trying to push the charts as close to what I think people are telling us they want based on our poll results.





What I used to build the charts:
1. C$ values in the current survey results
2. Rarity gap of 2:1 as per the current survey results
3. Age groups of 3 years as per the current survey results
4. Sliding scale for age values as per the current survey results (I chose 2016 group to double the values and 2009 to triple, but would like opinions on if this is appropriate to do or not).
5. Thread discussions

The second chart I manually edited the values to convert them to value ranges.

[SolarSonnet]

It came from the sliding scale of rarity concept and this post !

Also I totally agree, but I would probably be required to change my trading or not get trades if we set up the new guide in a way that's far-off from my own trading perspectives. I also would not pay that for one if that's multiple times higher than what they were going for actively, it'd be overpay in that case. I'd just forever be settled on "Huh, I don't think these pets are being valued the way that they should be" and I don't know if that's a better aspect to have concerning regular vrs or concerning store pets.

I guess I also don't consider store pets rare or hard to come by until they're out of the store. C$ is easy to get. I could buy whatever store pet I wanted if it was in the store rn. My pets are worth enough that I could find someone to buy them for C$ and just grab whatever I wanted. So I actually value "current" store pets as a lot lower than what I maybe should. It's just that there's a theoretical infinite amount of them until they leave the store, so the only value they have while they're available is the value that the website forces onto them (30 C$ each).

So I'm looking to either change my trading perspective, or change other people's perspectives to match or be similar to mine. So that we can all have a generalized guide that works for the most amount of people possible.

Honestly, I'm less concerned about the 1:1 current store pets for recent VR pets, and more concerned about the C$ Value and ratio of 2023/24 Very Rares to 2009 Very Rares.

I think anywhere from 4-5 works and I.. won't go lower than that. I was at 12-14:1 earlier this month, and at 24:1 earlier than that, I don't think lower than 4 would be fair for the 09 side, and I don't think more than 5 would be fair for the 2023/24 side, personally.

So for me, my question is:

How do we set 2023-2024 pets at a value that makes them 1:4/1:5 to 09/10 rares, and keep 09 VRs at like 100 C$ Avg?
Making it 5:1 is 20 C$ for a 2023/24 very rare. But that seems like too much according to quite a few people on the form.

Alternatively:
How do we make a reasonable estimate of how many 2024/2023 rares are = to an 09 rare, and how do we keep their C$ balanced in a way that can still feel fair to the maximum amount of people?

If a 2023 VR is 10 C$, that's 10:1 for an 09 very rare. Which I think is a little bit unreasonable, specifically because.. 10 2023 VRs are going to be hard to come by. There aren't many of them.

Maybe it's just as silly to talk about 2023 VRs as it is to talk about 2011 Commons and talking about valuing them in terms of 09 VRs isn't very productive.

I'm looping back to the mindset that, just like people don't want 16 Commons for their rare, people don't want 2023 Rares for their 09 rares, and nobody wants to trade that much bulk in rares for anything.

Specifically: I don't want 2023 rares for my 09 rares, but I also keep seeing it from the trading 2023 rares for 09 rares perspective. I'm trying so hard to keep that in mind that I can't find a fair valuation.

I wouldn't want to trade more than 4 or 5 2023/24 rares for a singular pet. Which means that technically, for a 2009 Very Rare, that'd still be 8-10 regular 2023 rares, which are obviously easier to find than VRs, but I still wouldn't want to trade that, and so I've hit a wall.

I also am disheartened that I'm the only person coming up with charts right now. I keep trying to encourage other people to make charts but nobody is doing it. I need another perspective/chart to bounce off of, I'm echo chambering myself and want push-back.
--

@ Solloby

I still can't get behind anything less than like 40 C$ for an average-demand 2009-2010 rare. Bottom line, I don't think they should be worth less than they were on the old C$ Chart.

I also personally group them together. Grouping 2010-2011 doesn't make sense because of the influx of like 400,000 users that joined in 2011.

I think its funny that I was just about to send something about nobody else making charts when you posted a chart. I think I otherwise like your chart, but I'd shift most of the values either over or up by one.

My personal chart/take if we're doing an x-years rule, would be accounting for the 2016-2017 weird rarity jump (like 5 years for 2025-2020, 2 for 2019-2017, 3 for 2016-2013, then 2 again for 2011-2012 and 2010-2009, tripling at 2010 instead of 09.)

Also that's such a huge range for 09 VRs. I don't disagree with it, though. I think that 09 VRs are worth more than '10 VRs even if I value their rares 1:1.

I also don't like the ratio of current pets to 09 pets.