Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[sunka]

-snip-


To a point yes exactly!

But then you would have to have 0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,1.1 ect non valued pets and so on which people havent done

So i do agree with you 4 ma would = 0.4 non but that's the current system and no one does. People just round up or down and push for max potential value

that’s why i’m in agreement that something needs to change, but honestly i can’t say for certain i think it would make a difference. so many people were upset about the shift from the rares list to horror’s guide (which objectively was the BEST change thus far imo), it would be an uproar all over again if things change even if it’s a change that makes sense.

which is why, i think everything having a more set value is a better idea than continuing with the idea of X pet is worth 2-3 ma. many people will always demand the highest amount possible, which is fine, but defining what the value of a pet is more than giving it a range would be more helpful than leaving it open for a debate i would think.

[stellasaurus]

fully support, the .25n being 3-4 ma makes absolutely no sense, and both a pickle and the dragoncat is worth 1 non but theyre not a fair swap at all, pickle being 9 and dragoncat 11 would make so much more sense and make it much easier to trade w! the non value has just lost meaning overtime honestly, everyone values everything in mas, and saying something is 30 ma instead of 3 nons to new players who werent around when the old rares list was a thing would make it easier for them to understand i think, since ma is used way more for pretty much everything

[Wookieinmashoo]

To a point yes exactly!

But then you would have to have 0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,1.1 ect non valued pets and so on which people havent done

So i do agree with you 4 ma would = 0.4 non but that's the current system and no one does. People just round up or down and push for max potential value

I'm starting to understand what you are getting at. I found it odd that there was nothing in between the quarter nons values. As of right now, pets are definitely moving into some of those spots and it might be better to change 'nons" now rather than later.

On the positive, the change could actually give value to all the 09,10,and 11 rares floating around as they can be used to fill gaps. If I had a 3 ma high demand pet and the other person had a 2 ma high demand pet, I wouldn't be upset if they added 5 vr funky looking dogs to fill the gap.

On the negative, people could just use the MA scale to add or subtract one MA and use demand as an excuse. Not that that's already done, it would just give people more room to do so.

I do think the good outweighs the bad if the Non label is dropped though.

I did want to talk about the trades you listed. Not so much to you (since you will already be aware of this), but just for people who might be reading. Those two trades would almost never work and it's not that the pets don't have the same "value" but it's more so about how few people are going to have complete collections. It's getting harder and harder to have a complete collection and more and more people are ditching the idea of having one. Therefore people will only generally trade for pets they like and only trade away pets they like for something they like more or something that is as easy to trade. High demand pets will go for other high demand pets. That doesn't mean that the low demand pets won't be valued where they are placed, you just have to get more creative. Trade low demand pets for something slightly higher in demand, auction low demand pets for commons and put the commons in a c$ shop, etc.

I typed this over about half an hour at work, so I apologize if it seems like it's rambling

-snip-


To a point yes exactly!

But then you would have to have 0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,1.1 ect non valued pets and so on which people havent done

So i do agree with you 4 ma would = 0.4 non but that's the current system and no one does. People just round up or down and push for max potential value

that’s why i’m in agreement that something needs to change, but honestly i can’t say for certain i think it would make a difference. so many people were upset about the shift from the rares list to horror’s guide (which objectively was the BEST change thus far imo), it would be an uproar all over again if things change even if it’s a change that makes sense.

which is why, i think everything having a more set value is a better idea than continuing with the idea of X pet is worth 2-3 ma. many people will always demand the highest amount possible, which is fine, but defining what the value of a pet is more than giving it a range would be more helpful than leaving it open for a debate i would think.

I always thought the lower end range would be for lower end demand pets and that's how I treated it. As for the transition from the old list to the new one, people did eventually got over it. That old list was awful and made no sense. Condensing a rarity change list and marking where demand applies was the way to go

EDIT: I just saw a post stating the value of nons to MAs and yeah, just get rid of the non label; it is not serving its purpose anymore

[da,]

big support ^^ ive always felt the .25n value threw things off majorly. why am i trading 3-4 ma for a pet thats supposed to be worth 1/4th the value of a 10ma pet? just using mas as value with trading would simplify things majorly. granted, it woikd take some getting used to and rehauling but in the long run i feel it would make trading healthier

[Bluefly26799]

EDIT: I just saw a post stating the value of nons to MAs and yeah, just get rid of the non label; it is not serving its purpose anymore

Lol quote for the thread

On the negative, people could just use the MA scale to add or subtract one MA and use demand as an excuse. Not that that's already done, it would just give people more room to do so.

I get what you mean entirely, I think switching to ma over non would help this issue mind you

so just as an example

If 10 trades were posted showing a pet valued at 1-1.5 non. 9/10 of these trades had the pet worth 12 ma but one had it worth 14 ma none of these would be considered outlier and then before we know it people see the 14 and expect that and push for that every time

now if 9 people posted a pet worth 12 ma, and one person posted their trade valuing it at 14 ma it would be a lot easier to label it as an outlier trade

that’s why i’m in agreement that something needs to change, but honestly i can’t say for certain i think it would make a difference. so many people were upset about the shift from the rares list to horror’s guide (which objectively was the BEST change thus far imo), it would be an uproar all over again if things change even if it’s a change that makes sense.

I fully hear you with this, I think its one of those any change will upset somebody situations but even if this isnt the solution I think at the moment with the system how it is theres so much opportunity for ambiguity and scamming/ninja trading weather intentional or not

[Merlinslair]

i’m definitely in support of making things easier, and i agree the current system is difficult to understand, but in order to get rid of confusion i truly think the sliding scale values need to be taken out and everything just needs to be what it is. demand has turned into greed, and greed is ruining this game. last week you could trade fairly for a raven for 6-7 nons (if you ask me, a 1 non difference is drastic and already makes it difficult to understand how to trade fairly), now because one person paid 10 nons, everyone else is expecting 10 nons. and because of that the value has practically doubled for absolutely no reason other than one person overpayed for a pet so now it’s expected everyone following that will overpay.

i think it would be easier instead of saying X value - X value, everything that’s ’more expensive’ is given a value and that is what it is. if it changes, the guides change with it, but having those sliding scales for what something is worth causes a lot of confusion because while something may be worth 1-1.5 non, you’re always going to have people demanding the top of the value. so if it’s worth 1-1.5 nons we should look at the trading data - if it has been trading closer to 1 non, make it 1 non. closer to 1.25, make it 1.25. closer to 1.5, make it 1.5. i personally think the bigger issue is the grey area between values, but if the start to making trading less frustrating is getting rid of nons, i am in support of it.

i do agree the current ma breakdown is a cluster of confusion and it’s hard to even advise on a trade being fair anymore because what is a fair and honest trade can be seen as unfair depending on who’s looking at it. i just think something needs to change.

I saw this raven thing happen too it was very sad tbh ahhahhh. I don't believe it is rare enough to be 10 nons at all

I mostly get the current trade system myself ^^ but the whole demand thing I do find very ridiculous at times. I think this is mostly an issue with greed and not measurement

I think re releasing stores would be good

[Bluefly26799]

I saw this raven thing happen too it was very sad tbh ahhahhh. I don't believe it is rare enough to be 10 nons at all

I mostly get the current trade system myself ^^ but the whole demand thing I do find very ridiculous at times. I think this is mostly an issue with greed and not measurement

You're not wrong, so value is based on demand + availability and unfortunately store pets wont ever be rereleased so over time we do expect to see them go up as players will be banned/leave the site ect and those pets will be lost to the void lol

Thing is people pay for what they want. Im very guilty of that myself. When i want something Ill pay a lot for it, these trades are outliers but unfortunately its really hard to quantify greed



So as an example

4 x 1.5-2 non pets. on the lower end thats 6 non

However on the upper end thats 8

When trades like this are posted people interpret it however benefits them the most. Its beneficially for me to wait for an offer that hits that upper end of the boundary. It also would benefit me to pay the lower end.

But if we say have 4 x 15 ma pets that room for interpretation is gone. Im hopeful this would limit people ability to value push. Values would still change of course as its a player driven economy but it would be slowly, not by the huge chunks were seeing for some pets.

The raven situation right now is an amazing example of this tbh as well as things like the pps dragon cat

[sunka]

i do think defining pets more in terms of ma gives the option to narrow the values down. however, if 1 non is 10 ma, what would be the difference between just broadening the entire scope of trading now and just adding onto the current values as opposed to changing the entire value system.

1.1 non is 1 non and 1 ma
1.2 non is 1 non and 2 ma
so on up to 2 nons
it could still be broken down into ma’s, since 1.2 nons would equate to 12 ma’s, but wouldn’t require as large of a change as getting rid of the non structure all together.

and would open the door for less sliding scale values. for example, instead of listing something as 1-1.5 non, it could be 1.3 or 1.35 to define it as opposed to leaving it so open ended.

[Bluefly26799]

i do think defining pets more in terms of ma gives the option to narrow the values down. however, if 1 non is 10 ma, what would be the difference between just broadening the entire scope of trading now and just adding onto the current values as opposed to changing the entire value system.

1.1 non is 1 non and 1 ma
1.2 non is 1 non and 2 ma
so on up to 2 nons
it could still be broken down into ma’s, since 1.2 nons would equate to 12 ma’s, but wouldn’t require as large of a change as getting rid of the non structure all together.

and would open the door for less sliding scale values. for example, instead of listing something as 1-1.5 non, it could be 1.3 or 1.35 to define it as opposed to leaving it so open ended.

Honestly i think that points fair however if people were gonna do that they would have done? We all know how this current system sucks, we have even started seeing ma being broken down into 0.1/0.2 ma exc but even after all this time we only have 0.25 non/0.5 non/0.75 non/1 non/1-1.5 non/1.5-2 non and so on.

In reality it would be much for muchness, just the terminology would be easier for people new to the system to learn as if were doing the non system by decimal value then its like an extra layer we probably dont need

You reference the UR banana right - But you compare it to a BA - BA is an old list pet, but banana was one of the first actual "pets" to go OMGSR - which it the literal only reason it gets 1N, even then lately it's traded closer to .75N, or tends to only get 1N in other "bad" demand pets. Even if you say they're both worth 10MA each, this would do nothing to make them swap. Even if you add a 2MA difference, most players would still not accept a UR banana +2MA add for a BA, due to the demand difference between the 2.

Im honestly not to sure thats the case for the banana, its interested but i personally had no clue about it being the first omgsr and paid a solid non for it within the last 2 weeks. Even if the banana settled at say 8 ma theres no reason the ba would stay at 10 as it probably wouldnt being one of the higher demand 1 non pets currently. the banana + 3 ma however seems like a better offer and if its not enough then either the banana drops or the ba goes up. But if you then look at a more mid non for example the gwj, a banana + 2 ma for that seems not so bad right?

However, lets take UR Zonkey and Marionette. Both would be worth 25MA - but it would still be very hard to find someone willing to swap them, due to one being a storepet and significantly higher demand

I get what youre meaning here however the zonkey is 2-2.5 with common demand spikes ( the TD is 2.5 solid though) Which almost sorta proves my point as they wouldnt ever go for a 1:1 swap unless it was something someone was after. the zonkey probably would sit about 22 ma going up to 24 with the demand spikes / 25 for the TD. and the marionette as its got store demand would likely settle above 25 ma probably closer to 26/27

Honestly i hear what youre saying and i do think it would be a lot of work to get the initial values but then in the long run it would be more streamline and would limit the potential to demand push from value. Demand as a concept isnt the issue. its more peoples ability to interpret the demand thats the issue

[puffy]

i think you're looking at it as the term "non" defining the worth of the pets, but in reality (or how i thought it was) is that pets set the worth of the term "non". i'm not sure if i'm explaining that right, but i'll try to explain it? so, how non used to be 10-12 MA. pets like the black advent or banana would be 1n each. but the pets had their own individual value- say, banana goes for the lower end of 1n (10 MA) or black advents went for the higher end (12 MA). both fitting into a term, but it not meaning the same thing. that's how i think the value/term "updated" and 1n just means one concrete value (10 MA).

0.25n, which was a problematic term, is not a currently used on horror's thread/other guides, as far as i'm aware. pets people define as being 0.25n are either 3-4 MA, 3 MA, or 4 MA. this being used still in trading circles, i think, is just people having to get used to the change, as 0.25n isn't an official, current value. i agree that the old system had issues, which is why 1n now is equal to 10 MA and have more of a set value. 0.75n is still used, but in all times i've traded for a 0.75n pet it's translated literally to 7.5 MA. i think the 0.25n value would be fine if it translated to 2.5 MA, but it doesn't, so it's not used.

i think removing nons would be a little inconvenient, reworking the term or updating people on how the term has updated would be best in my opinion. nons and MAs coexisting makes values a lot easier- it's just looks nicer to say, in my head atleast, ur pancakes are worth 1.25-1.5n instead of 12.5-15 MAs. i do disagree with the c$ stacking, though- the single price for a 1n pet being 2000-2400 is because you're paying for one pet. paying 3000 c$ for one pet when you could buy 10 pets that are worth the same total value for 3000 c$ seems like it'll harm the economy more, and inflate the value of different pets.