amarok. wrote:Jellybean Wolf wrote:
UR Foal=1-1.5 nons, although recently its been getting only 1 non.
UR Lion=1.5 nons as well. some people value it higher or lower due to demand.
a non is a nonjewel, nonswirl, noncoon, or nontag. these are all quite rare and were fairly high up on the ex list. since the ex list is now discontinued, people describe a highly valuable pet's worth in nons.
to add on to this, "non" has two meanings. the first refers to the list term "non", or the four non dogs, but this is not actually really used anymore despite it being the standard given definition.
these days "non" is considered to be the "base" value of an omgsr, and rather confusingly the four nondogs (which also aren't actually all worth the same amount, despite what the list says) are technically worth more than a non under this definition because they have all been omgsr longer. they still only trade for " a non", though. this is beginning to cause problems since the sorbets (originally touted as a third of a non, now valued at around half of a non) are beginning to turn omgsr themselves
you can find a pretty interesting resource here!
Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4201164TooTiredToThink wrote:TooTiredToThink wrote:
What's the most valuable store pet I can get for one of these three pets, or a combination of two or all three of them?
Also, just to clarify something, since I only understand the rarity tag and demand and dates confuse me very much... a pet from any given year is worth twice as much as a pet of the same rarity from the next year, right? Also, store pets in general are worth more, right? Also, does this apply to store pets as well? So like, two store pets from this year are worth one store pet from last year, for example. Did I misunderstand anything? Thanks in advance!
so the thing with the 2:1 rule you're referring to is a bit controversial right now. an older pet is not automatically worth 2 of a younger pet, since "worth" really only refers to rarity, but a fair chunk of the community ask for that due to a mistaken belief that an older pet is automatically rarer (generally, yes, an older pet is more likely to be rarer, but there's a lot of exceptions) and also something called the forever home effect. the forever home effect refers to the statistic that the longer a pet is around, the more likely it is to fall into the hands of somebody who will not want to trade it away again. because there are less older pets in circulation (as in, people are still actively trading them), they may not necessarily be rarer but they probably will be much harder to find. the 2:1 rule calculates for the chance it might maybe be rarer and the inconvenience of trying to find another of the same pet for trade. as a general rule it's a good way of working out exactly how much more you should offer for older pets but it definitely does have some flaws.
the problem with this is that whilst it's fairly reasonable over small rarity/date gaps (for example, a 2009 rare for 2 2010 rares, a trade which actually likely makes sense rarity wise due to the largest increase in site members being around those years, or 4 '11s, etc) it gets absolutely ridiculous over larger gaps. for example, a 2009 rare would be valued at 16 2013 rares, 32 2014 rares, 64 2015 rares, etc, which is ridiculous. few people have that ready to trade for a single pet. you'd probably find something like 10 '13 rares being more realistic. similarly, a VR would clock out to be 8-16 commons of the same year, or 16-32 very commons of the same year. for a single pet i think a lot of people, especially people who aren't extremely active within the trading community and have not seen this 2:1 rule so zealously advocated, would be unwilling to trade that much. quantity has its own value and whilst it's a nice guideline for small date gaps i definitely want to emphasise that it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt when the numbers start getting a little bigger.
as for your pets here, you're looking at a market value of around 3+ '09 rares. Given demand you should be able to manage 2-3 pets from 2015-2016, or perhaps 1-2 '14 store pets. take that with a pinch of salt, though, since demand is really subjective.
Thank you so much for such a detailed in depth response, this was all so confusing to me and your explanation made it so much clearer. Thank you!
