Let's talk (non-list) store pet values

[lil rascal]

All the threads I see looking to redefine what we call a fair trade are aimed at the higher, ex-list, value pets but the reality is that those trades affect only a small portion of the CS community so I thought it was time we start a discussion about some of the more accessible pets.

The standard advice that a fairly recent retired VR store pet is only worth a '10 rare has always bothered me but even more so after the big rarity update last year.

There are two issues I see with this advice -

First demand wise anyone with experience knows the store pets go for more than a single '10 rare and a lot of people who give this advice wouldn't take that for their own store pets. I have been buying and trading store pets since 2011 and can't think of an occasion where I have ever traded a store pet for a single '10 rare.

Secondly, with the rarity system CS has, how can we justify telling someone that any rare is "worth" a VR store pet? Sure this might be okay advice for one of the rare store pets (though they turn rare because they were in such high demand that many more people wanted and bought them, so maybe not) but with VRs?

I know how this idea came into being, the people giving advice were basing it off the pets C$ value but those values state it is for a rare or VR, yet when translating it to store pets people decided to drop the VR part and just say they were worth a rare. Also C$ values just don't translate to pet values like that, otherwise we'd be able to trade for a non (worth 1050C$) with as few as 21 early '09 rares (worth 35-50C$ each). So why do we try to translate a retired store pets C$ value into pets like this?

In my opinion giving this advice sets inexperienced players up to take much less for their pets than they could otherwise get or to get confused and disappointed when more experienced traders refuse to take the rare they have been told is "fair" for the persons VR store pet.

Overall with the current rarity system we have it just doesn't seem right to tell someone a rare is ever "worth" a VR.

What does everyone else think, is it time we look at redefining these values?

[kal]

Overall with the current rarity system we have it just doesn't seem right to tell someone a rare is ever "worth" a VR.

this this this !!! i’ve always thought the way people go about using dates is a little convoluted because from what i know rare is rare. i think it’s gotten a little bit away from us.
also ! 2010 rares get rereleased while store pets don’t !

[amarok.]

I mean personally I frequently trade off recently retired sps for the quoted value, and as that is what is consistently quoted as fair I don't go around trying to get any more out them.

But otherwise, I do agree. A '10 VR is much more fair for a recent VR.

[Aurora Storm]

I don't generally trade store pets for general release pets, but if I did I wouldn't take a rare for them. I've also very very rarely had someone accept a rare for a store pet, and I usually offer '09s.

I agree that they should trade for VRs instead. It seems bizarre to me that we have such a high price for older store pets because they're limited and only getting rarer over time, but expect recent ones to go for chump change, when in reality they will eventually meet the same fate. Obviously I'm not saying we should expect Nons for all store pets, but at the very least the rarity tag should match.

[odin]

I don't generally trade store pets for general release pets, but if I did I wouldn't take a rare for them. I've also very very rarely had someone accept a rare for a store pet, and I usually offer '09s.

I agree that they should trade for VRs instead. It seems bizarre to me that we have such a high price for older store pets because they're limited and only getting rarer over time, but expect recent ones to go for chump change, when in reality they will eventually meet the same fate. Obviously I'm not saying we should expect Nons for all store pets, but at the very least the rarity tag should match.

I think if the pet's value in C$ is close to the value of the store pet in C$, then it should be a fair trade (and this is about pets currently in the store, not retired ones, their values are more subjective fore sure, but if it's vr, I would not trade it for a r). That being said, I rarely trade for C$ or store pets (old or new lol), so I"m not up and up on the values of site pets in C$. But if I had a newer store pet and someone offered a few older rares, I might take it. It would totally depend on the pets, though... I wouldn't trade for rats, horses, or ponies, but that's just my personal preference because I don't collect the latter two and collectively, imo, those are harder to trade off species. Where as store pets are usually popular, so I'd like more popular species for them.

[♥HazelNightmare]

I agree with this 100 percent and it’s the main reason why I no longer accept rares for store pets ( with some minor exceptions ) At this point I’m only accepting store pets for store pets.

[firestar123456789]

I like to trade either a bunch of rares from the same year as the store pet or VR's depending on the pet since the rarity update, ive always had to trade at least 5-10 rares depending on said pet and its demand even 3-4 VR's for other older VR store pets like lets say a 2014 store pet :3 but usually as of late ive been trading store pet for store pet, usually go off of what the other user is looking to trade for or how they value store pets when getting to agree on a nice trade.

[Seasonal]

I think the reason that people are keen on trading store pets for rares is because we've had popular sets be only rare once their rarity is calculated. I think this leads people to believe that most store pets are on the low end of VRs, and I would bargain that '10 rares are on the high end of the rare scale. So I can understand trading unknown rarity store pets like that to a point, but once they've received their rarity I think it makes much more sense to swap them for other VRs.

With all of this discussion happening lately, I'm starting to change my opinion on dates being important. I used to be someone who would find a '10 rare more valuable than a 2019 VR, but now I can see how statistically that logic is flawed. We're all conditioned into this way of trading but mathematically it makes no sense.

[amarok.]

I think the reason that people are keen on trading store pets for rares is because we've had popular sets be only rare once their rarity is calculated. I think this leads people to believe that most store pets are on the low end of VRs, and I would bargain that '10 rares are on the high end of the rare scale. So I can understand trading unknown rarity store pets like that to a point, but once they've received their rarity I think it makes much more sense to swap them for other VRs.

With all of this discussion happening lately, I'm starting to change my opinion on dates being important. I used to be someone who would find a '10 rare more valuable than a 2019 VR, but now I can see how statistically that logic is flawed. We're all conditioned into this way of trading but mathematically it makes no sense.

in short i basically feel like i've been hit by a brick.

[Shian]

With all of this discussion happening lately, I'm starting to change my opinion on dates being important. I used to be someone who would find a '10 rare more valuable than a 2019 VR, but now I can see how statistically that logic is flawed. We're all conditioned into this way of trading but mathematically it makes no sense.

Actually I would argue that this might not be the case. Yes, there's less 2019 VRs than 2010 rares on accounts. But that's the key words.

On accounts.

The system that counts pets in active accounts just counts all the pets. It does not matter if that pet is in a trade folder or is locked away in a "Favorites NEEEEFT" folder. Don't most people have about half their pets in a collections folder and the other half in trades? Yes, mathematically it makes sense, but availability is hard to gauge and also a factor that is hard to ignore. The older the pet, the more likely that it's found a forever home.

I... used to believe that anything could be for trade if the price was right. But if you have a full collection, that means even if you trade that one thing away for a terribly unrealistic price, that "full collection" status is lost no matter what you may have gained.