We need your feedback on an update to the rarity system!

[wucaian]

I don't know if adding new categories would help or not. Getting people to trade with the categories we have now is hard enough. People are reluctant to trade between rarity labels and I don't know if more categories would exacerbate that.

Customs are mostly for staff as reward for their work if I remember correctly.

[Blaubär]

I still have doubts more rarities will do much other than make trading more complicated. I don't really see myself trading a 2009 rare for a recent one, even if they have the same rarity label, simply because I'm convinced, the older pet is harder to come by. Most of them, is what I think, are sitting in collections, unavailable for trade or famously "HTTF".
And that's without any added personal value because of it simply being older. I agree that leaving this aspect out of the equation is what would make things a lot easier. My other point still stands, though: rarity level alone says little about actual availability.
Still hoping that I'm wrong and this will only be a problem in the minority of trades.

[musicgurl333]

I still have doubts more rarities will do much other than make trading more complicated. I don't really see myself trading a 2009 rare for a recent one, even if they have the same rarity label, simply because I'm convinced, the older pet is harder to come by. Most of them, is what I think, are sitting in collections, unavailable for trade or famously "HTTF".
And that's without any added personal value because of it simply being older. I agree that leaving this aspect out of the equation is what would make things a lot easier. My other point still stands, though: rarity level alone says little about actual availability.
Still hoping that I'm wrong and this will only be a problem in the minority of trades.

I definitely don’t think it will be an immediate change, just because so many people have valued older pets higher for so long. And I do think that, especially with things like events, recent pets ARE easier to trade for, because they’re all on currently active accounts and people will get duplicates specifically to trade, so there are more being actively offered. But once you go back a couple of years, I don’t think it makes as big of a difference. Honestly, I think a lot of it is just people’s perception, because that’s what we’ve been told over and over.

As an example, there are some rares from 2019 that I can’t find ANYWHERE (and they’re not pets with any kind of high demand) and rares from 2010 where I have multiples for trade and no one ever offers on them. And I think part of that is because of those big gaps in rarity that we can’t really see right now. So even though my ‘10 rare and the ‘19 rare are both the same rarity, the ‘19 might ACTUALLY be more rare, but with the big rarity groups, you can’t tell that.

So would I trade a ‘10 rare for a ‘19 rare after the change? Probably not. All things being equal, I’d rather have the pet that’s much older. But if my ‘10 rare ends up “extremely uncommon” after the change and the ‘19 rare stays rare, then yeah, I’d take that trade.

That’s one of the areas where I think it will help. It will do a better job of revealing the “true” value of newer pets that might be undervalued simply because they’re recent.

[ShadeTheCollector]

I like the sound of 4! You can guess why...Hehe. (please don't look at me suspiciously.)

[Eve Green]

I had a dream last night they implemented the new rarities which has made me even more hyped for them

[Madel]

Any idea if the new rarities will be out before the Halloween event?

[i<3 wolves678]

While I’m completely down for the four extra rarities, and think it will be extremely beneficial to the website, my only criticism is to maybe make the colours between rarities a bit more distinct than the ones in the mock up image. The ones shown end up with a few of the rarities having very similar colours, and I could see this causing potential confusion for users with vision problems.

Otherwise, I’m really glad to see this idea potentially being implemented.

[Tizzii]

I'm in agreement that more rarities in between existing ones would be more helpful and refined. But I would adjust one thing: I think OMG So Common should be retired as a rarity.

Where it stands right now, as shown in the current and even the hypothetical new charts, OMGSC is the second most RARE as far as rarity distribution is concerned, which is the opposite of what it should be implying; a ridiculously incredibly common pet found all over the site. Instead, you rarely see the dinky dark blue bar on a pet- about as often as you see a shiny purple one.
So, either a MASSIVE amount of pets get downgraded into OMGSC to make the rarity make more sense, or the existing teeny tiny amount of OMGSC in existence on the site instead get moved up to Very Common, or sorted into one of the new common rarities that may be added on.

[Concept]

I'm in agreement that more rarities in between existing ones would be more helpful and refined. But I would adjust one thing: I think OMG So Common should be retired as a rarity.

Where it stands right now, as shown in the current and even the hypothetical new charts, OMGSC is the second most RARE as far as rarity distribution is concerned, which is the opposite of what it should be implying; a ridiculously incredibly common pet found all over the site. Instead, you rarely see the dinky dark blue bar on a pet- about as often as you see a shiny purple one.
So, either a MASSIVE amount of pets get downgraded into OMGSC to make the rarity make more sense, or the existing teeny tiny amount of OMGSC in existence on the site instead get moved up to Very Common, or sorted into one of the new common rarities that may be added on.

That one might be more an issue in reading the graph since it's a bit misleading in visual form, I and a few other people have helped with that one, I'll quote:

I've always been confused at why 'common' is such a larger category than 'omg so common'. Shouldn't the most common pet be 'omg so common' instead of common? It's always confused me.

I might be able to help with that! It's just graph stuff.

Basically, the graph is using the numbers of pets that have a certain amount in circulation. So the pets that have an overwhelming amount of those pets, enough to have, say, five or so per user (not the actual numbers, I'm just pulling that as an example) is actually a pretty small amount. If we had a site consisting of mostly pets that had a bunch per active user, we would be FLOODED in those pets and have almost nothing else! It would be an incredible amount!

So the largest category is the middle grounds, where there are things like one or so pet per active user. The graph itself makes the information feel like super common pets are rare, when it's actually just saying that overwhelmingly common pets don't pop up as much as the ones that are more balanced out and even between site members.

I hope that helps a little!

annnd

I've seen some people be confused about the graph distribution, so this is about how I understand it:
Keep in mind this is a vast oversimplification lol. I'm not huge on trading or the CS economy myself, so there's definitely more nuance, disparity per year, big gaps in amount of pet, etc.
Also I wanted an excuse to draw some little guys.

I also don't think we see them as much because OMGSC pets are pretty niche, they don't get traded often other than as add ons and the people who want them usually are collecting them. If you get one, you usually don't pay much mind because EVERYONE seems to have it. It's easy to miss them.

[chantolove]

I've lost the actual post about it, but big big support for whoever suggested giving each rarity tier a name that started with a different letter, to make them easier for the community to use