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

[King Andre]

I don't think the exact numbers really matter to be honest. For example, we know for a fact that the eat me is rarer than the drink me because it turned omgsr a month prior yet people value the drink me a whole non more. We know that the jeweled and non jeweled liontails are so much more rare than the green liontail that they turned omgsr a year prior, yet everyone values them the same, I don't because rarity matters the most to me.

What we're really just getting at here is general demand, and I don't think we should at all conflate demand with their own rarity tags. That's doing a little bit too much although I will agree that people generally prefer having 1 rare to 2 uncommon. At the end of the day, demand is king. And that is essentially saying that something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Fair is whatever the community dictates and ultimately that just comes down to people liking certain species (dogs) more and certain dogs with certain designs being massively more popular than others regardless of the difference in rarities (ex: joker dogs and black advents going for lump sums more than their rarity swaps would or UR b wolf's/fruits struggling to fetch a non back in the day when they were at-least twice as rare)

Case in point, the punk dogs are currently going for "0.5 nons." The raven dog from the same year is going for 6 nons or 12x the value of one punk dog. The raven dog is still not even OMGSR while all of the punk dogs are. All of the 2010 store pets, except the raven, are OMGSR, yet good luck doing a 1:1 trade with any of them except the red cerb. From that same year, another example, people value the brown sleipnir the same as the liontails despite the liontails going omgsr THREE YEARS prior to when the sleipnir did meaning the liontails are much, much rarer. I do wonder if there was a super duper omgsr tag that people would value them differently.

Some quick thoughts. I think trying to break it down too much will overcomplicate things and ultimately no one is going to stick to it because at the end of the day shiny dog > whatever rarity math you've come up with.

I think it would be better to gather the opinions of as many active traders and just users in general over a long period of time on large polls as we've been doing. How do they treat rare for uncommon etc gaps? Do they care about the date of the pets or just rarity? Bulk is great, but there's no amount of uncommons I would trade for a very rare, but for a rare we can talk. I personally don't care about dates, especially for non-omgsr pets because we refined the system so much. But I also understand that more people do than don't, and so therefor I'm lessening my gains by trading a 2013 rare for a 2016 rare even though I think people should value them the same assuming all else equal, because I could probably get more bang for my buck.

But everyone differs on this in little ways, so instead of trying to create a set system for people, its probably better to just educate traders on the general opinion and trends and let them form their own guidelines.

[kee;]

I was thinking exactly what @King Andre said below. whether each individual person would accept a particular trade goes into demand and their own preferences. we shouldn’t get hung up on “would I personally take 4 uncommons for a rare?” we’re trying to make a guide, not a set of hard rules. we will have to list a value for how many uncommons, etc. equal a rare. that doesn’t mean anyone has to take it. for example, there will be a value of how many very commons equal a very rare; that doesn’t mean anyone has to accept that trade.

it’s ok if there are some of these theoretical trades that we wouldn’t accept as (especially with the very rare and below pets) we’re trying to make a workable guide of how pets of different rarities stack up against one another for users to use while trading. there will still be some amount of subjectivity which is ok since everyone likes different pets more or less anyways.

I hope this makes sense!

-kee

[Clayflower.]

I don't think the exact numbers really matter to be honest. For example, we know for a fact that the eat me is rarer than the drink me because it turned omgsr a month prior yet people value the drink me a whole non more. We know that the jeweled and non jeweled liontails are so much more rare than the green liontail that they turned omgsr a year prior, yet everyone values them the same, I don't because rarity matters the most to me.

What we're really just getting at here is general demand, and I don't think we should at all conflate demand with their own rarity tags. That's doing a little bit too much although I will agree that people generally prefer having 1 rare to 2 uncommon. At the end of the day, demand is king. And that is essentially saying that something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Fair is whatever the community dictates and ultimately that just comes down to people liking certain species (dogs) more and certain dogs with certain designs being massively more popular than others regardless of the difference in rarities (ex: joker dogs and black advents going for lump sums more than their rarity swaps would or UR b wolf's/fruits struggling to fetch a non back in the day when they were at-least twice as rare)

Case in point, the punk dogs are currently going for "0.5 nons." The raven dog from the same year is going for 6 nons or 12x the value of one punk dog. The raven dog is still not even OMGSR while all of the punk dogs are. All of the 2010 store pets, except the raven, are OMGSR, yet good luck doing a 1:1 trade with any of them except the red cerb. From that same year, another example, people value the brown sleipnir the same as the liontails despite the liontails going omgsr THREE YEARS prior to when the sleipnir did meaning the liontails are much, much rarer. I do wonder if there was a super duper omgsr tag that people would value them differently.

Some quick thoughts. I think trying to break it down too much will overcomplicate things and ultimately no one is going to stick to it because at the end of the day shiny dog > whatever rarity math you've come up with.

I think it would be better to gather the opinions of as many active traders and just users in general over a long period of time on large polls as we've been doing. How do they treat rare for uncommon etc gaps? Do they care about the date of the pets or just rarity? Bulk is great, but there's no amount of uncommons I would trade for a very rare, but for a rare we can talk. I personally don't care about dates, especially for non-omgsr pets because we refined the system so much. But I also understand that more people do than don't, and so therefor I'm lessening my gains by trading a 2013 rare for a 2016 rare even though I think people should value them the same assuming all else equal, because I could probably get more bang for my buck.

But everyone differs on this in little ways, so instead of trying to create a set system for people, its probably better to just educate traders on the general opinion and trends and let them form their own guidelines.

I like the way you said this! Getting back into trading since 2021 has blown my mind and I've been trying to get back into the swing of things including what people consider .5 non, .75 non etc based off a list that doesn't really exist anymore. The demand has changed so significantly; the Raven I remember went for like 2 nons and now It's 6. I've agreed before that I like the idea of a list as for a majority of players It's the easiest to understand. After all the poll vote said clarity was most wanted. Recently though, and I know this does NOT apply to majority I assume, I have enjoyed cross referencing the successful trade thread and finding values there. I notcied some people value the same pet lower or higher - meaning you could potentially trade less to certain players or others might trade more for your pet then you expected. I don't think that's a bad thing! It's also something you don't really find within the lists as much because the tiers are meant to equal each other. Basically saying the same thing as you here but in my own way: "But everyone differs on this in little ways, so instead of trying to create a set system for people, its probably better to just educate traders on the general opinion and trends and let them form their own guidelines. "

I 100% agree with you in the sense that the Eat Me SHOULD be more valuable than the Drink Me because of the tags. The Punk Dogs should be more valuable than the Raven. As you said though demand is king and will always be a factor within trading. That's where a list is helpful in my opinion at least. It can show that the Eat Me is "more rare" than the Drink Me, or that the Punk Dogs are "more rare" than the Raven. In time that might help lower demand for other pets and raise it for others.

That's why I liked Solloby's list idea because it does just that, showing which pets are "more rare" but also highlights the low/high demand for pets. It almost feels like a catch 22 for me. I like the fluidity of the successful trade thread, but also appreciate the visual and easy aspect that a list provides. It's difficult to balance!

I noticed that when I've been looking at the smaller trades, I've been valuing rarity over year. In my eyes a 2021 ext uncommon is worth more then a 2020 very uncommon. How the community wants to value what equals a rare will just take time! I'm excited to see how it evolves personally :)

[nemohappyturtlepants]

Okay I've read through a lot of the discussion on here and one thing I've seen come up a few times is the goal of making an easy to understand list and helping newer players learn what everything is worth. Coming from someone who has only dabbled in high-value trades but has tried to understand values since back when "the rares list" was still the law, these are my opinions:

• Referring to pets as nons/ma/.75non is very confusing to players that don't trade high value often. I think that having one base measurement would be the easiest.
  
  • ie: use nons and get rid of ma, vice versa, or introduce a new label.
• my first thought when I saw the list on the first page was simply "does this mean 2 tier 2 OMGSR=1 Tier 1 OMGSR?"
  
  • ex: UR pickle + UR flower = UR Cinnabun.
  • If that isn't how the list is supposed to be interpreted, what is the conversion?
• I feel like if we have the pets separated into tiers like this then we should make a simple conversion between the tiers. It doesn't have to be 2:1, but I feel like a conversion between tiers, even if it's different between the OMG tier, ER tier, and VR tier makes the most sense and would be comprehensible to new players. We also wouldn't need the labels of non or ma anymore.
• tbh, I feel like if there isn't a conversion between the tiers then I don't see the point of having them.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding a lot about high value pets, so don't feel like I'm saying my opinions should be law. I'm just hoping that by sharing my views on the issue you guys can see things from the perspective of a noob that wants to learn how to trade high value, since I think most of the discussion is being done by people who really understood the old list.

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

[Ashki]

I don't think the exact numbers really matter to be honest. For example, we know for a fact that the eat me is rarer than the drink me because it turned omgsr a month prior yet people value the drink me a whole non more. We know that the jeweled and non jeweled liontails are so much more rare than the green liontail that they turned omgsr a year prior, yet everyone values them the same, I don't because rarity matters the most to me.

What we're really just getting at here is general demand, and I don't think we should at all conflate demand with their own rarity tags. That's doing a little bit too much although I will agree that people generally prefer having 1 rare to 2 uncommon. At the end of the day, demand is king. And that is essentially saying that something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Fair is whatever the community dictates and ultimately that just comes down to people liking certain species (dogs) more and certain dogs with certain designs being massively more popular than others regardless of the difference in rarities (ex: joker dogs and black advents going for lump sums more than their rarity swaps would or UR b wolf's/fruits struggling to fetch a non back in the day when they were at-least twice as rare)

Case in point, the punk dogs are currently going for "0.5 nons." The raven dog from the same year is going for 6 nons or 12x the value of one punk dog. The raven dog is still not even OMGSR while all of the punk dogs are. All of the 2010 store pets, except the raven, are OMGSR, yet good luck doing a 1:1 trade with any of them except the red cerb. From that same year, another example, people value the brown sleipnir the same as the liontails despite the liontails going omgsr THREE YEARS prior to when the sleipnir did meaning the liontails are much, much rarer. I do wonder if there was a super duper omgsr tag that people would value them differently.

Some quick thoughts. I think trying to break it down too much will overcomplicate things and ultimately no one is going to stick to it because at the end of the day shiny dog > whatever rarity math you've come up with.

I think it would be better to gather the opinions of as many active traders and just users in general over a long period of time on large polls as we've been doing. How do they treat rare for uncommon etc gaps? Do they care about the date of the pets or just rarity? Bulk is great, but there's no amount of uncommons I would trade for a very rare, but for a rare we can talk. I personally don't care about dates, especially for non-omgsr pets because we refined the system so much. But I also understand that more people do than don't, and so therefor I'm lessening my gains by trading a 2013 rare for a 2016 rare even though I think people should value them the same assuming all else equal, because I could probably get more bang for my buck.

But everyone differs on this in little ways, so instead of trying to create a set system for people, its probably better to just educate traders on the general opinion and trends and let them form their own guidelines.

While I agree with your point as a whole for sure, I think we should be cautious on valuing pets based on when they turned OMGSR in the past, mainly due to how things have changed in the new update in regards to inactive accounts. While Liontails may have turned OMGSR before the sleipnir, we have no idea how many are in circulation now with inactive accounts being considered.

[SolarSonnet]

It's really interesting to see everyone's different takes.

Personally, I'm a fan of having tiers, but I don't like the idea of it being as simple as "X Tier B Pets swap for Y Tier A Pets" I don't think that leaves enough room for a gradual slope of rarity, especially if it's 2:1. And then using decimals gets really confusing because what even is "half" a pet in any category? I like the idea of having tiers, and then valuing those tiers with a number like "Old Rares"

I.E. (Not what I'm looking for exactly, but as an example.)
TIer 1 is worth 126-150 Old Rares
Tier 2 is worth 101-125 OR
Tier 3 is worth 76-100 OR
Tier 4 is worth 51-75 OR
Tier 5 is worth 26-50 OR
Tier 6 is worth 25 OR

Which means to get to trade up to T1 from T2, you would typically need a T2 and a T6 Pet, which isn't quite as simple as an exact ratio of pets, and allows for more tiers with a sliding scale of value at a higher accuracy. That way, all tiers can be divided into how many "Old Rares" they're worth, with "High" Tier 1 being closer to 150 OR and "Low" T1 being closer to 125.

"High" and "Low" can be interpreted as demand, or rarity, or whatever else goes into what a pet is "worth".

It also mimics how I trade regular pets.
A 2023 Rare isn't worth 2 2022 Rares, it's more like a 2022 Rare and a 2022 Common-Uncommon.

-

I also tend to disagree on trying to factor in "We don't know how many of them are left now, even though that pet turned OMGSR first!"

I just think it makes things a lot harder for no reason.

As a general example with a standard, lower-value pet, if a pet in a litter turned Extremely Uncommon first, it's probably rarer than the rest of the litter, even if the rest of the litter went EUC while it hadn't hit Rare yet. I'd still think the pet that went Extremely Uncommon first was closer to being Rare than the rest of its littermates.

My Ideal 'list' would even take into account what rarities the 2008 Sundogs were on release/after the first rarity update.
I.E. The Sunjewel was rarer on release than the Sunback.

And then taking into account later rarity updates as well, we figure out when each one went Rare, or VR, or OMGSR and then calculate based on that, with notes for demand-value with confirmed trades at the bottom. (I don't know when rarities became a thing or what they were exactly on release.)

But we don't have all of those metric and if we do, it'd be hard to research, and seems like it'd make things more complicated than it needs to be.

I know that, technically, it could have changed a lot since then. Someone with a Sunback hoard could have gone inactive and its rarity could have gone up massively. We have no idea how many times things like that have happened with any pet, though, so I think it's kind of silly to consider it, it basically puts the skew of, "Well, if its not a store pet, and hasn't gone OMGSR 'recently enough', then we have no idea as to how many of the pet is actually in circulation or if its rarer than any other pet." on every single pet that has hit OMGSR. I think it's just natural to assume that pets that hit OMGSR earlier are probably rarer, outside of cases like URs.

I also saw a theory* made somewhere that there seems to be an "Upper Limit" to OMGSR pets, and that when pets start to hit those limits, Dec 18th pets tend to be pets of those litters. (The theory would explain why you see so many Sunpup litters on Dec 18th.. Don't you think that'd be weird otherwise? Out of all the rares+ on the site, so many people get OMGSRs.)

*It's just a theory, so it's unconfirmed, but I personally believe it to be true.

Which can skew our results. I think, if that theory is true, it means that we should have an "Upper Limit" to our new guide, for pets that we have theorized have hit that point. I think it's going to be something to look into this Dec 18th, and checking in on previous Dec 18ths. I really wanna make sure I (or someone else in the community) collects metrics on it when the time comes. It'll be useful for the new guide and testing that theory.

Overall, a pet like the Sunjewel and Sunback might end up being equal if there is an upper limit to rarity, its interesting that it kinda seems like there might be.

[nemohappyturtlepants]

It's really interesting to see everyone's different takes.

Personally, I'm a fan of having tiers, but I don't like the idea of it being as simple as "X Tier B Pets swap for Y Tier A Pets" I don't think that leaves enough room for a gradual slope of rarity, especially if it's 2:1. And then using decimals gets really confusing because what even is "half" a pet in any category? I like the idea of having tiers, and then valuing those tiers with a number like "Old Rares"

I.E. (Not what I'm looking for exactly, but as an example.)
TIer 1 is worth 126-150 Old Rares
Tier 2 is worth 101-125 OR
Tier 3 is worth 76-100 OR
Tier 4 is worth 51-75 OR
Tier 5 is worth 26-50 OR
Tier 6 is worth 25 OR

Which means to get to trade up to T1 from T2, you would typically need a T2 and a T6 Pet, which isn't quite as simple as an exact ratio of pets, and allows for more tiers with a sliding scale of value at a higher accuracy. That way, all tiers can be divided into how many "Old Rares" they're worth, with "High" Tier 1 being closer to 150 OR and "Low" T1 being closer to 125.

"High" and "Low" can be interpreted as demand, or rarity, or whatever else goes into what a pet is "worth".

It also mimics how I trade regular pets.
A 2023 Rare isn't worth 2 2022 Rares, it's more like a 2022 Rare and a 2022 Common-Uncommon.

~snip~

I really like this idea! It simplifies the tiers down in a way that is easy to understand but still flexible in terms of demand for certain pets! Would we keep the tiers like OMGT1, T2, T3, T4, T5, ERT1, T2, T3, etc, or would ERT1 become just tier 6 and so on?

(I'm personally in favor of the latter)

[King Andre]

so I think it's kind of silly to consider it, it basically puts the skew of, "Well, if its not a store pet, and hasn't gone OMGSR 'recently enough', then we have no idea as to how many of the pet is actually in circulation or if its rarer than any other pet." on every single pet that has hit OMGSR. I think it's just natural to assume that pets that hit OMGSR earlier are probably rarer, outside of cases like URs.


I agree.





While I agree with your point as a whole for sure, I think we should be cautious on valuing pets based on when they turned OMGSR in the past, mainly due to how things have changed in the new update in regards to inactive accounts. While Liontails may have turned OMGSR before the sleipnir, we have no idea how many are in circulation now with inactive accounts being considered.



Interesting. This post prompted me to do some research which honestly amounted to little. Free flowing thoughts and speculation below

Did they just expand the time it took for an account to be considered inactive? They never said exactly how they were calculating it now just that



As part of the update we've also updated the horizon beyond which a player is considered to be inactive, so we now get a more accurate view of how many pets might be available for trading.




Truthfully this wording is very vague and so anything I can conjure up from it is greatly assumptive. Because we've always known that inactive accounts were considered in regards to how a pets rarity is calculated. So to my understanding this is just saying that before, an account may have had to be inactive for 6 months to be considered inactive. Now it may have had to be inactive for 8 months or whatever. I think for very short gaps in between rarity changes maybe this is notable enough to say, "well, under the new system they might've become OMGSR at the same time." but for pets to be omgsr for a year or more, or 3 years in this case longer, we can still safely that the pets that turned omgsr first are much rarer because they would've remained rarer past whatever expanded time frame it.

That doesn't make them more "valuable," because the UR grapes, UR b wolf and nick Unicorn were OMGSR for nearly 10 years without change IIRC before the nons became and remained omgsr in 2019, yet people value them the same or less than, why? Because shiny dog.

Unless they massively expanded the requirement time, which they could've, but I doubt because I'm pretty sure that would lead to a lot of pets actually going down in rarity. Or perhaps they're saying that they actually reduced it, so instead of 6 months maybe you only have to be inactive for 4 months, as an example, and that would actually coincide with that fact that we've seen a lot of new omgsrs rather than the comparatively less amount falling down that you'd expect from expanding the threshold for activity vs shortening it. But that also just means that pets that turned OMGSR first are a bit rarer than the later ones, even more so than previously thought. And or they changed the parameters entirely for what they consider an inactive account based on the actions/log ins/log in time a player completes. And if thats the case I have nothing but I'd still probably continue valuing pets that maintained their rarity for longer periods unless we get actual information.

Honestly the amount of clarity and information on these things we have available is kind of disappointing especially given how large and central to CS's activity that trading and it's economy is. I understand the motivation for not revealing everything, but some degree of transparency would make trading smoother and peoples motivation's towards trading and being active higher. You reduce the amount of players that refuse to trade, i.e interact with a core part of the website, based upon confusion and lack of clarity, you increase the amount of people who stay active to trade and complete whatever goal they might have in regards to the pet collecting aspect. You might say that revealing certain information will just hurt trading as we want players to trade for pets they like more than anything; well, you can see people already do that as the raven dog is still going for multiples of OMGSRS despite not having the same tag...


Now, something I didn't see mentioned yet but maybe it was. I'm not sure how relevant it is to everyone else's trading but maybe food for thought. CS has increased the threshold of which pets are able to be considered OMGSR in order to create a more normal distribution of pet rarities, as before it was positively skewed towards UC and commons. That is, the ratio has increased. Let's say, in the past, a pet needed to have a ratio of only 2 pets for every 500 active players to be considered OMG so rare. However, with the recent changes, a pet can now achieve OMG so rare status with a higher ratio, such as 20 pets per 500 active players. Just as an example of course we'll never know the exact mechanisms or ratios. But all of that is to say, while no pet have gotten rarer or less rare, what qualifies a pet for a given group HAS changed, and the OMGSR's of before were there based on stricter requirements to get in. And this is demonstrated by the what, 164(?) new OMGSR pets. Though I am glad the rarity system is more even and better defined, it is something I'm keeping in mind with regards to older OMGSRs.

[SolarSonnet]

^

We used to have the exact numbers. I wish they'd give us the exact numbers/thresholds again.

-

I also think its really interesting to bring up cases like the Basilisk Dogs and other store pets. Because for what some store pets lack in rarity, they make up for in demand, and what some lack in demand they make up for in rarity.

Case in point: Skelebun.

Wasn't worth much until it got its OMGSR Tag. Its OMGSR Tag is what gave it its demand and value.

The 2011 Basilisks clearly had a favorite from their group.
How do I know? Because one of the Basilisks didn't hit OMGSR with this update. Meaning whatever the threshold is, this basilisk is probably only just missing it.
Why?
Probably because more people bought it, making it higher "demand" than the other two basilisks. At least for the time. I bet they all could still swap 1:1 despite the rarity discrepancy.


You can even tell that with newer stores.

Why is the Dragon Snake Set Rare and not VR? Probably because of the PPS Snake and the general coolness of the entire set. What it lacks in being VR, it makes up for in having enough demand to carry it to the same level or higher than other stores of their time.

Same with the 2021 Cats.

On the flip-side, you have that Extremely Rare 2020 Store Zebra Set? Those were probably not bought very much, so they have a higher rarity tag to match and bring them up to the level of the other stores of their time.

I think Store Pets working like that is kind of genius.

[glitter]

quick question. so are cakedogs and sorbets worth the same now (0.5 nons) same with all the other pets like grinners, all those bunnies etc. ik ppl have known that the bunnies, for example were a lot rarer than 1 MA but now that the actual tags have changed should I hold off on trading them away?