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

[Cloverstream]

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?

They are generally being valued the Same as they were before. Cake dogs and grinners are definitely not worth the same as sorbets.

[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?

They are generally being valued the Same as they were before. Cake dogs and grinners are definitely not worth the same as sorbets.

My bad, should’ve checked the posts more carefully. I meant the pets that have been moved to the same tier like the wwa/blood pps/bunnies/etc. Since they have been placed on the same section will they all be 0.5 noms since that’s what their rarity is?

[fιяєfℓу]

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?

They are generally being valued the Same as they were before. Cake dogs and grinners are definitely not worth the same as sorbets.

My bad, should’ve checked the posts more carefully. I meant the pets that have been moved to the same tier like the wwa/blood pps/bunnies/etc. Since they have been placed on the same section will they all be 0.5 noms since that’s what their rarity is?

Technically they are the same rarity as sorbets, but it's unlikely they will trade for that just because they are on the same tier. Same case as countless other pets.

[glitter]

They are generally being valued the Same as they were before. Cake dogs and grinners are definitely not worth the same as sorbets.

My bad, should’ve checked the posts more carefully. I meant the pets that have been moved to the same tier like the wwa/blood pps/bunnies/etc. Since they have been placed on the same section will they all be 0.5 noms since that’s what their rarity is?

Technically they are the same rarity as sorbets, but it's unlikely they will trade for that just because they are on the same tier. Same case as countless other pets.

Then i don’t really understand the point of asking for an update on the rarities of pets and even this thread tbh. I asked this question cause everyone is just continuing to use old values so really what’s the point? I thought the reason everyone wanted the rarity update was to change the value system and try to stop the inflation caused by demand and make pets easier to obtain 😭

[Clayflower.]

i think it just takes time to establish new values; especially when the rarity update was a few months ago. i'm not sure what new values people are expected to use when we've really had one thing, the lists, to go off before.

i've seen good discussion here about new lists or proposed values. all it takes is some good discussion, pioneers, and time to establish change. might be slow, feel weird, be awkward but i believe changes will come with time!

[SolarSonnet]

I thought the reason everyone wanted the rarity update was to change the value system and try to stop the inflation caused by demand and make pets easier to obtain 😭

That's definitely not why I voted for the rarity update, but it's why some did. Everyone had their own reasons for the update- but demand is unfortunately never going away.

Personally, the values I'm liking right now are using 2011-2012 Rare+ pets as "Old Rares" for our List trading values, instead of using 2009 pets. This makes it easier to obtain "fodder" for Lists.

I also like the idea of knocking down what a "Non" is worth in value to like 50 "Old Rares" as opposed to the 100-150 as before.

So- in my opinion- the main way that trading is being revamped is more that it is easier to trade up to the list, rather than changing demand or anything like that, since I think changing demand is going to be really hard, if we tried.

Will the Orange Cerb still go for 8-10 nons? Yeah, probably. But now, 8-10 nons isn't going to be 800-1500 09 rares.

With a system like 50 Old Rares for a non, 1:1 between 2009:2010, 2:1 between 2010:2011, and 1:1 between 2011:2012. You end up with:

Old Rares = 2011/2012 Rares
1 Non = 50 Old Rares
1 09-10 R = 2 Old Rares
1 Non = 25 09 Very Rares (most 09s are VR now)
10 Nons = 250 09 VRs/500 09 Rares.

If you don't think 2009 and 2010 should be grouped together, think of it like this:
2009 is like how "early 09" was before, and 2010 is like how '"late 09" was before. There are very few 09 rares left that weren't extended releases. An "09 rare" as we knew them almost doesn't exist anymore. So I think 2009-2010 should be grouped.

I personally do 1:1 for 09 Rares and 2010 Rares, but I don't 1:1 VRs. I think an 09 Very Rare is worth a 2010 VR + a 2010 Rare, but that's just my personal valuation.

With some of the most recent non-list trading conversation, people have been talking about 4-5 Recent Rares equaling 1 09 rare.

Meaning that instead of the insane gaps between pets we had before, it becomes much, much easier to trade up. Yeah, 2000 Rares of any date for 1 pet seems like a lot, and bulk itself has value so it probably wouldn't realistically go for that if you had them all in bulk.. But for the rarest pets on the website? When before it took like 32,000 2024 Rares to equal 1 09?

We're going places.

[glitter]

I thought the reason everyone wanted the rarity update was to change the value system and try to stop the inflation caused by demand and make pets easier to obtain 😭

That's definitely not why I voted for the rarity update, but it's why some did. Everyone had their own reasons for the update- but demand is unfortunately never going away.

Personally, the values I'm liking right now are using 2011-2012 Rare+ pets as "Old Rares" for our List trading values, instead of using 2009 pets. This makes it easier to obtain "fodder" for Lists.

I also like the idea of knocking down what a "Non" is worth in value to like 50 "Old Rares" as opposed to the 100-150 as before.

So- in my opinion- the main way that trading is being revamped is more that it is easier to trade up to the list, rather than changing demand or anything like that, since I think changing demand is going to be really hard, if we tried.

Will the Orange Cerb still go for 8-10 nons? Yeah, probably. But now, 8-10 nons isn't going to be 800-1500 09 rares.

With a system like 50 Old Rares for a non, 1:1 between 2009:2010, 2:1 between 2010:2011, and 1:1 between 2011:2012. You end up with:

Old Rares = 2011/2012 Rares
1 Non = 50 Old Rares
1 09-10 R = 2 Old Rares
1 Non = 25 09 Very Rares (most 09s are VR now)
10 Nons = 250 09 VRs/500 09 Rares.

If you don't think 2009 and 2010 should be grouped together, think of it like this:
2009 is like how "early 09" was before, and 2010 is like how '"late 09" was before. There are very few 09 rares left that weren't extended releases. An "09 rare" as we knew them almost doesn't exist anymore. So I think 2009-2010 should be grouped.

I personally do 1:1 for 09 Rares and 2010 Rares, but I don't 1:1 VRs. I think an 09 Very Rare is worth a 2010 VR + a 2010 Rare, but that's just my personal valuation.

With some of the most recent non-list trading conversation, people have been talking about 4-5 Recent Rares equaling 1 09 rare.

Meaning that instead of the insane gaps between pets we had before, it becomes much, much easier to trade up. Yeah, 2000 Rares of any date for 1 pet seems like a lot, and bulk itself has value so it probably wouldn't realistically go for that if you had them all in bulk.. But for the rarest pets on the website? When before it took like 32,000 2024 Rares to equal 1 09?

We're going places.

this is a really good explanation - I think it needs to be put somewhere on the front page ngl. Thankyou for taking the time to write out such a detailed explanation. i do think whats been explained about the 2009/2010 merging and "devaluing" of the non makes sense. I think, from reading this, we could maybe go a step further a merge together years such as 2022/2023 since there doesnt seem to be a huge difference in the amount of 2023 rares in circulation when compared to 2022 rares (if that makes sense) hopefully these changes make pets more attainable and help close the huge gap in pet worth between users :)

[Horror]

Updated some things based on posts ^^ I'm messing with formatting to make the thread less of an eyesore but I still want to throw something out there again so we can keep adjusting & moving forward!

There's an updated mockup/draft to match, but I think next we need a consensus on whatever year currency "Rares" to use from the poll first

Using these compiled ideas!:

• OMGSR upper limit theory
• Numbered tiers going down
• Some degree of separation from 2010 & 2011 due to huge influx of users
• (I can't find the post for this one) but I saw having a "mixed tier" for pets on the cusp of OMGSR and ER (pets with similar numbers that just barely flicker between showing one rarity label or the other)
• Having "high" and "low" within tiers based on how the pet trades
• Considering rarity intent to an extent (which is why you see the 3 zebras together again or sorbs together now)
• Idea that pets (at least before the update) we kept closer to the cusp than we thought, and that there's likely only a few groups in OMGSRs. OMGSR threshold was either expanded or adding the other new rarities pushed more pets into there anyway. Pets that might've been close to the border before (ie. zebras, maybe sorbs) are likely all pushed more snuggly into their rarity & there isn't a notable difference between them now
• Still adding a little "this tier = tier below + (add)" bit
• "Non" still scaling 50 rares as it's met with good reception. Easier to account for all these valuable pets now being OMGSR & give a more gradual slope
• Pets are calculated in Rares/Very Rares/ERs to reduce confusion
  
  ** All tiers right now are just placeholders until we get fresh evidence from Dec 18th rarity changes **
  (Pets will be moved with more accurate info when we have it)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pet in the same tier = same by rarity
Each tier has it's own assigned trading worth (given as a range)
Pets are organized by High/Mid/Low depending on where in the range they trade @
Popular (+) or Unpopular (-) pets trade Above (+)/Below (-) tier worth.

"These pets are from Tier 3. They're the same rarity-wise, but won't all get the same amount in a trade"

Tier 3

BEG (+) --- (High T3) Tribal Dog

(Mid T3) Purple Tess Horse --- (Low T3) Tribal Bunny

Tier worth: 20-35 Rares
High T3: 35 Rares
Mid T3: 25 Rares
Low T3: 20 Rares

(made up numbers for this example)

Tribal bunny & Tribal dog are the same rarity-wise, but the Bunny trades @ lower end of the tier range, so it won't swap 1:1 with a Tribal Dog. You would need to add 15 rares worth to the bunny to get to the Higher end of this tier
The Tribal Dog can swap with another High Tier 3, but it won't swap for a BEG because the BEG trades above (+) tier worth

[Solloby]

Not trying to be rude but I don't understand the obsession with rares. If we are talking about OMGSRs then we should only be referencing ERs, or VRs at the lowest.

There aren't even any more rares left for the older years, and pets from 10/11 were never used for trading up to OMGSRs, it was always lower 08s and early 09s. So why this new push to value the highest pets in terms of random rares? It doesn't make sense to me.

"Old rare" should not be a currency for dealing with anything above VR.

[SolarSonnet]

I'm really hoping we can do 2011 (and/or) 2012 pets for the "Old Rares" thing! I like having pets a tier above the standard for trading up the list, without them being list pets themselves.

Whether they're 2:1, or 1.5:1, or whatever between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, having a tier above it is going to feel nice. It's going to make trading up a lot easier.

Trading up to 2012 is so much easier than trading up to 2009-2010. Both 2011 and 2012 have a good amount of Rares to use, and it immediately makes the list more accessible.

--

Huge disagree with only ERs-VRs being able/considered in trading for OMGSRs. I thought we were trying to make it easier to get there, not harder? The thing I didn't understand about the old guide was the "pets of a tier below + this add" valuations.

How is one supposed to get to T1 from Bulk T4 without a standard valuation for all pets?

If T1 is worth 100 rares
T2 is worth 75
T3 is worth 50
T4 is worth 25

Then its easy, 4 T4s are equal to 1 T1.

I have no idea how I'd figure out a guide that isn't like that. The math should be simple and not require multiple equations like nons and MAs do. The problem with nons and MAs was that you had "1 non = 10-12 Mid Advents = 100-150 09 Rares = 2000 C$" but a lot of times those things did not add up. Low 10 MA is 60 Rares. High 12 MA is 108 Rares. Where did high-range 150 come from ?? what the heck? 60-108 09 rares was 2100-5940 C$. 150 09 rares was 5250-8250 C$. Nothing added up here at all. Whatever our new "Non" and "MA" thing is, the math should math. (If not in C$ then at least in the rest of it.)

I really liked my chart here, because the math was mathing with nons being 2000 C$ and using 2011-2012 pets as the Old Rare baseline. But all of the polls seem to value new Rares at like 5-8 C$ and VRs at 10-16, which I still don't really understand.

For those who don't want to click, here's a quote.

If we value Old Rares as 2011-2012 rares, and if those 2011-2012 rares are like 40 C$ for one, on average, and a "non tier" pet is worth 50 of those old rares, then a non is worth 2000 C$.

"Old Rare" needs to be a currency for especially ERs, if not OMGSRs. I don't want a list that makes 09 Pets part of it as VRs, and then there's more tiers to trade through to get to an OMGSR. I don't want 09 Very Rares to be worth exactly what they were before, it should be easier to use 09-2012 pets to get to OMGSRs than ever.

I'm tired of a list that makes itself inaccessible to players without high-value pets already.

It doesn't really matter that 10/11 pets weren't used in the past to trade up to OMGSRs, part of the point in the rarity update was making trading up easier. What using "Old Rares" to value OMGSRs does is make the standard easier to achieve. I did mention that it isn't the top priority to make high-value pets easy to achieve, but it sure would be nice for the trading economy to nix some of that inflation and get rid of the idea that only 08 and 09 pets have any real value.

If we say that regular rares are worthless to OMGSR trades, it tanks their value, and then you also cut off like, a ton of people from trading up. On top of that, you create the same problem as people not trading their Rares for Uncommons.

"I won't trade my VRs for Rares since they're worthless for trading onto list".

We would need a whole new list/guide for trading up to ERs.

It would be disastrous if we removed regular rares from the equation.