Mega Mega Rare?
CyPha 5 monthsSo, i'm pretty confused about the value mismatch here, could someone explain that one to me, aha
I'm trying to do up a fair trade offer, this has just pissed me off if anything lol.
28.17 Inverse, Scott Mclaughlin '18, Mega Rare, 87 Collectors, 6 Inverse holders, no longer available, that sets the value for a trade.
vs
86.98 Normal, Marcus Armstrong '23, Mega Rare, 37 Collectors, no longer available, mostly matches the value,
included with
52.87 Inverse, #87 Damaged @ Miami 2010, Common, 136 Owners, 22 Inverse holders, still available, fills the gap?
According to the trader measure, this is a deal i would 'receive 97% more valuable cards' in.
https://www.darcyf1.com/cards/index.php?c=28.17
https://www.darcyf1.com/cards/index.php?c=86.98
https://www.darcyf1.com/cards/index.php?c=52.87
Jasie 5 months
Point values of cards are so (based on the old rarities, but still fine):
C: 2
U: 20
R: 100
M: 1,000
X: 10,000
Inverse cards come with a x100 multiplier, but I don't think a number exists that really makes that fair; it's just easier to stick to trading cards of the same type.
That means for the trade you mentioned:
inv 28.17 [M] = 100,000 pts
for
86.98 [M] = 1,000 pts
inv 52.87 [C] = 200 pts
(100,000 - 1,200) / (101,200) = .9762 = system says you are getting 97% better cards (rounded down)
So, maybe just wait until you have a spare of a different inverse Mega Rare :)
Point values of cards are so (based on the old rarities, but still fine):
C: 2
U: 20
R: 100
M: 1,000
X: 10,000
Inverse cards come with a x100 multiplier, but I don't think a number exists that really makes that fair; it's just easier to stick to trading cards of the same type.
That means for the trade you mentioned:
inv 28.17 [M] = 100,000 pts
for
86.98 [M] = 1,000 pts
inv 52.87 [C] = 200 pts
(100,000 - 1,200) / (101,200) = .9762 = system says you are getting 97% better cards (rounded down)
So, maybe just wait until you have a spare of a different inverse Mega Rare :)
Bloopy 5 months
I was always curious about the formula as it makes for a quirky scale, so I looked at the Javascript. The above is close, though each is multiplied by 100, divided by the total, rounded down, and then the subtraction is done. The card values are all halved compared to that old list, so it'd be 50,000 vs 600 if you really wanted to know:
floor(5,000,000 / 50,600) - floor(60,000 / 50,600) = 98 - 1 = 97
When I say quirky I mean: 1 card shows as 100% more valuable than 0, while 2 cards of a given rarity show as 33% more valuable than 1 of the same rarity, and 3 cards show as only 50% more valuable than having 1 card.
I was always curious about the formula as it makes for a quirky scale, so I looked at the Javascript. The above is close, though each is multiplied by 100, divided by the total, rounded down, and then the subtraction is done. The card values are all halved compared to that old list, so it'd be 50,000 vs 600 if you really wanted to know:
floor(5,000,000 / 50,600) - floor(60,000 / 50,600) = 98 - 1 = 97
When I say quirky I mean: 1 card shows as 100% more valuable than 0, while 2 cards of a given rarity show as 33% more valuable than 1 of the same rarity, and 3 cards show as only 50% more valuable than having 1 card.