Idea to add another rarity between VR & OMGSR? (Poll added)

[veggie]

Shian's post had me thinking...

Maybe we should just split every single rarity. Double the number of rarity tags. Considering we went from 300 pets and 6 tags to 3000 pets and 7 tags to... now 8000 pets and still 7 tags, I have to say that 8000 pets and 14 tags doesn't sound too unreasonable. It only sounds bad if you say "14 tags" all by itself because we're so used to just 7 tags.

(But have the thresholds for every two levels stay the same; basically, imagine each tag as a "parent" tag giving birth to two "children" tags, where each parent covers the same range as both of its children)

Maybe that should be a separate suggestion. idk

I actually really like this idea. I have no idea how much work this would be to actually implement, but I think this evens things out just a bit, rather than having all of this new confusion landing squarely on the new VR/'New Unnamed Rarity'.

[Eaglespirit]

14 rarities?
Please no
I get enough trades saying they arent sure how to add rarities properly without twice as many to think of

[musicgurl333]

14 rarities?
Please no
I get enough trades saying they arent sure how to add rarities properly without twice as many to think of

I agree. I don't like that idea at all. I think it would make it a lot harder to trade.

Adding a rarity between VR and OMGSR is just to break up the VR tag, because right now it's suspected that there's a really big range. A tag between VR and OMGSR would help differentiate between the more "common" VR pets (like many of the store pets) and pets that are on the rarer end of the spectrum, closer to OMGSR. I do think this would shake up trading a bit, but I think it would be a good thing overall.

[Kaizoku]

I have to agree, even though the site has expanded the number of pets greatly, 14 rarity tags would be a bit too much in my opinion. The other tags are quite clear, and so is the discrepency between them. As musicgurl333 said, the issue is between the VR and OMGSR tags, and that the gap between some of the pets under the VR tag is very large and need more clarification. The other rarities really don't need this, they're clear enough, they're not the ones that can be harder to trade for.

[ElementalInsanity]

@above
I don’t think we’re actually suggesting 14 rarities. It was more just to show a comparison of just how many rarities we actually could need with how many pets that are on this site now.

[Kaizoku]

Oh don't worry, I knew it wasn't serious, but I feel like just focusing on adding one rarity label where it's really needed is what should be discussed. But I do see the point of how many rarity labels we could need with the current amount of pets.

[Shian]

14 rarities?
Please no
I get enough trades saying they arent sure how to add rarities properly without twice as many to think of

See I get people upset when I tell them a certain very rare isn't worth the very rare they have and they can't understand why or what I mean... I'd rather have someone not sure than someone insisting that a trade should be fair when it's not at all.

[Eaglespirit]

You get that with brand new rares and old rares all the time, if someone get upset over a well known fact of the game that's their problem. If they keep insisting theres always the foe option

[nickjr]

You get that with brand new rares and old rares all the time, if someone get upset over a well known fact of the game that's their problem. If they keep insisting theres always the foe option

Highlighted part is only true for active forum posters and active lurkers in the CS-specific boards

[Eaglespirit]

You get that with brand new rares and old rares all the time, if someone get upset over a well known fact of the game that's their problem. If they keep insisting theres always the foe option

Highlighted part is only true for active forum posters and active lurkers in the CS-specific boards

Its in a lot of rules to
And some common sense can tell you that

How do you even find people ti trade without going to some forum or another? you're bound to find some mention of old and new pets being unequal

I get the feeling this reads as aggressive, its not. For some reason my neutral writing tends to read angry?