Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[Solloby]

I'm not sure I understand how removing "non" as a valuation while keeping "ma" accomplishs anything. It's still the same system? I do like the idea of updating trading methods though, especially ones that support value ranges rather than exact values.

Ur peas is another pet considered low demand and it also can be traded down

-snip-

I’m still catching up on everything else but this caught my eye.

The UR Peas are an excellent example of how the “bad demand” rumour mill works to set prices. When they first came out they were well liked as they are cute (seriously two peas in a pod!). Then someone decided to put the “fruit/veggies have bad demand” label on them and the more it was repeated the further their claimed trade value dropped. The only reason the UR Peach escaped the same fate is that it was listed under butterfly wolves in the archives so BW collectors all wanted it to complete their collection (similarly to how the UR Lion and August PPS values are pushed higher by Lion collectors).

I personally think peas have good demand still as I never have issues trading them and they are super cute

The popularity poll proved that UR Peas are not low demand, it's an average demand pet.

[Bluefly26799]

^ That’s great that you find it rewarding to sell pets at 1C$ each but it supports what I was trying to say. If C$ was so easy to get and in such low demand as people say then nobody (or at least no established player) would bother putting in the time and effort to gain just 1C$ at a time. The fact that so many players prefer to take the time and effort to trade even their low rarity pets for C$ rather pets indicates C$ is in high demand, not low

Highly disagree with this. A lot of well established upper value traders, if not some of the biggest established upper list traders all have some form of C$ shop as its passive value being gained. There’s not much time that goes into those shops once they’re established honestly. Passively I’ve gained around 4000C$ in the last maybe 10 days? That’s from trading store pets for bulk or even some upper list pets in the past for mass bulk. It’s yeah often 1-10C$ transactions but when you have 10+ of those a day + a few 100-300C$ sales going through at the same time it adds up beyond quickly



It’s all about saving time, C$ is in low demand. if I have a random 2010 rare I can sell for 30C$ and then buy 30x pets I hoard or towards a collection or anything then that’s going to take me a fraction of the time to find those exact pets I want and set up that exact trade. Hell I’d even be inclined to take 20-25C$ if it meant I could buy exactly what I was wanting without more effort. C$ is the easy route and often leads to loss in value as you’re taking the lower demand but quick way through a situation.


No one is taking time to sell their low demand pets also. If you say you got a non for C$ even a poor demand one as long as you’re only asking 2000 (lower end of current non) people will bite your hand off. Same of high demand nons atm you can very easily sell for 2500

[Bluefly26799]

I'm not sure I understand how removing "non" as a valuation while keeping "ma" accomplishs anything. It's still the same system? I do like the idea of updating trading methods though, especially ones that support value ranges rather than exact values.

The popularity poll proved that UR Peas are not low demand, it's an average demand pet.

So my thoughts behind simplifying and removing non is well, non is an outdated term that adds an extra layer of confusion when it’s not needed. I see a lot of cent/dollar references but that’s our rares/mas IMO. If everything in real life cost less then $10 then dollar wouldn’t be the default.

You also have to consider if we like the idea of splitting values then you’re gonna end up with 0.1 non , 0.4 non, 2.3 non and idk personally I find just saying 1,2,7,15 what easier than working with decimals

The proposal is to split the values anyway, while we’re at it why not strip away a whole layer of confusion that adds no value aside from “it’s what it’s always been” as we’re trying to encourage the growth of the trading community are we not?


IMO peas are a mid demand 5ma pet this is because they’re where they should be valued. If they were being pushed into 0.75 values it would be a totally different story

Most UR food doesn’t do that well demand wise anyways as we’ve seen but the ones that do the best are the ones people don’t try to force where they should be. Ur peas wouldn’t really ever trade 1:1 with an android or sorb ect so they’re definitely on the lower end of the 0.5 non scale


Also just to add and this is fully my personal option on the popularity poll but you shouldn’t use it as your sole demand data point… people can just vote for what they like not what actually trades well. Peas are cute. Doesn’t make them easy to trade, people can also vote in their best interest on stuff like that. It’s a great tool, but honestly like every other guide/system or thread it shouldn’t be the only thing used IMO

[Solloby]

UR Peas are about the same demand as Noncoon but higher rarity.
This means logically UR Peas are worth more than Noncoon.
But the current "non" system puts UR Peas at 0.5 and Noncoon at 1.

So a pet logically worth more than another... trades for half its value???

[Bluefly26799]

UR Peas are about the same demand as Noncoon but higher rarity.
This means logically UR Peas are worth more than Noncoon.
But the current "non" system puts UR Peas at 0.5 and Noncoon at 1.

So a pet logically worth more than another... trades for half its value???

Value = supply + demand. Just because something’s liked the same amount doesn’t make it worth the same I’m afraid

Once you get above ma value rarity tags are meaningless. We current have rares trading for ma prices. When the rarity overhaul happened I was so disappointed to see not more tags were added up er+ pets we’ve ended up with 7 euc and below tags but 3 vr and above, the one place these value brackets can be huge

Demand only makes up a part of how we determine value and to be honest rarity tags don’t even enter the equation to a majority of upper list traders. Sure some do care, most don’t

[himarry 124]

UR Peas are about the same demand as Noncoon but higher rarity.
This means logically UR Peas are worth more than Noncoon.
But the current "non" system puts UR Peas at 0.5 and Noncoon at 1.

So a pet logically worth more than another... trades for half its value???

Don't get me wrong I love the UR peas but that doesn't mean same rairty tag should = same value I can find ur peas a whole lot easier then any non dog. If rairty tag ment anything dragon cat oos would not get 1n+ OR the raven wouldn't be able to get over 60 omg so rares from one trade. (None of this is ment to be offensive and it is all said with I neutral tone I hope it doesn't come off rude.)

[Amani_Ink]

As somebody who has never understood values and can never seem to wrap my head around it or even the acronyms people use (I didn't know UR stood for ultra rare until 2 days ago. Who knows maybe I'm still wrong on that) I feel like the trading system has become a little behind. Luckily I've met some great people who are willing to work out something fair, despite how many questions I ask, and even others who are generous enough to give gifts! I do like the "is this a fair trade?" forum thing.....but it does get a little frustrating when you've been waiting hours for an answer. Or never get an answer. I don't know I feel like this might actually be able to help players who feel the same way I do. Might make trading a lot more fun again and not the anxiety trip it's become.

[Solloby]

UR Peas may have the same rarity tag as Noncoon, but we know from its history and it being an UR pet that it is almost certainly higher rarity in reality. Shouldn't it be harder to find than Noncoon if there are less of them around? I guess people think Nons make better trading stock because people seem to dislike the fruits, and because Nons aren't just pets, they are trading terms too.

I'm not suggesting UR Peas is the problem here mind - my issue is with the Nons. The Nons & GWJ were the common outcomes of the July 08 regular monthly releases. They were never intended to become so rare, and certainly not to swap for ultra rare pets like Zebras and UR pets. But they are actually valued at higher than some UR pets, which doesn't seem like it should be right?

I think this really highlights the issue with using terms like "non" and "ma" in a trading system. I don't think a non is worth 1 non, but we can't even begin to have that kind of discussion as long as Non is considered a trading term as well. Perhaps the popularity of the 08 dogs keeps them higher in value compared to the URs that are so much rarer than them. Perhaps not, but we can't even consider their values as long as they are used as a standard measure for trading. Using "Mid Advent" as a trading term has the same issues. Also Black Advent is technically a MA, but it isn't valued at 1 MA. Both terms are problematic imo.

[himarry 124]

UR Peas may have the same rarity tag as Noncoon, but we know from its history and it being an UR pet that it is almost certainly higher rarity in reality. Shouldn't it be harder to find than Noncoon if there are less of them around? I guess people think Nons make better trading stock because people seem to dislike the fruits, and because Nons aren't just pets, they are trading terms too.

I'm not suggesting UR Peas is the problem here mind - my issue is with the Nons. The Nons & GWJ were the common outcomes of the July 08 regular monthly releases. They were never intended to become so rare, and certainly not to swap for ultra rare pets like Zebras and UR pets. But they are actually valued at higher than some UR pets, which doesn't seem like it should be right?

I think this really highlights the issue with using terms like "non" and "ma" in a trading system. I don't think a non is worth 1 non, but we can't even begin to have that kind of discussion as long as Non is considered a trading term as well. Perhaps the popularity of the 08 dogs keeps them higher in value compared to the URs that are so much rarer than them. Perhaps not, but we can't even consider their values as long as they are used as a standard measure for trading. Using "Mid Advent" as a trading term has the same issues. Also Black Advent is technically a MA, but it isn't valued at 1 MA. Both terms are problematic imo.

I can agree both terms are confusing but I don't know what we would replace them with as for the normal release dogs trading for UR pets we had this as far back in 2012 when I joined the game. Sunjewel was the highest value pet on the site along with the UR tiger dog

[Bluefly26799]

As somebody who has never understood values and can never seem to wrap my head around it or even the acronyms people use (I didn't know UR stood for ultra rare until 2 days ago. Who knows maybe I'm still wrong on that) I feel like the trading system has become a little behind. Luckily I've met some great people who are willing to work out something fair, despite how many questions I ask, and even others who are generous enough to give gifts! I do like the "is this a fair trade?" forum thing.....but it does get a little frustrating when you've been waiting hours for an answer. Or never get an answer. I don't know I feel like this might actually be able to help players who feel the same way I do. Might make trading a lot more fun again and not the anxiety trip it's become.

Very close XD UR stands for unreleased which basically means all other dec 18 pets are rereleases from past years but these ones are new and so are “unreleased” so far


My dms are always open, I’m gonna link my guide below which should hopefully help you find some places to find data points rather than relying on the ftt as that also is never a good place to just get 1 reply from IMO

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=135&t=4670451