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

[Thinking.Kiwi]

I’m all for the rarity overhaul and am very glad for it honestly but. Staring at my 100+ groups all organized by species and rarity. Staring at the fact I’m almost definitely going to need to reorganize everything, create several new groups, and rename almost every existing one when the new category/categories drop. The part of me that loves organizing my pets bc hehe sorting things go brrrr is shaking with excitement but I’m also dreading it just because of how long it’s going to take

I've already went ahead and started reorganizing rofl

[heepheep]

on one hand, more distinction in pet rarity would be awesome. but on the other hand, 4 new categories sounds incredibly daunting. i wouldn't mind the "very uncommon" and "extremely rare" tiers. as someone pointed out adding an extra tier for commons would be overkill. i'm not entirely averse to the 4 categories if this will ultimately help the trading community but i worry trading will only become more complex/hostile. i guess that's ultimately up to how the community decides to adapt to 4 tiers though so idk

regardless of what comes of this update thank you guys for listening !

[forevermine]

i wish keep the same was an option

[corvasaurus]

I've wanted added rarities for years now, so I'm very happy to see a lot of people agreeing with that option! I've never been good at trading, due to the whole rarity AND time system, so much so that I've avoided trading at all costs. As a returning player from years ago, this is quite exciting.
I've always been against the time system... if a pet is labelled as "common," then in my eyes, it is the same value regardless if it comes from 2010 or 2020. I really hope this could alleviate that issue, or at least help to some degree.

[raindrop,]

I support the 4 new rarities movement! I'd also like to see more pets in the omgsc-common categories, because as it stands right now, common and uncommon pets are higher in quantity than very common and omgsc, which doesn't make much sense to me personally.

and thank you thank you thank you for listening to community feedback!!

[Katsumi-Luna]

Just keep it the way it is, will be so damn messy with new categories...

[Lex.]

on one hand, more distinction in pet rarity would be awesome. but on the other hand, 4 new categories sounds incredibly daunting. i wouldn't mind the "very uncommon" and "extremely rare" tiers. as someone pointed out adding an extra tier for commons would be overkill. i'm not entirely averse to the 4 categories if this will ultimately help the trading community but i worry trading will only become more complex/hostile. i guess that's ultimately up to how the community decides to adapt to 4 tiers though so idk

regardless of what comes of this update thank you guys for listening !

To be honest this [in a way] is better than 4 new whole categories, but I'd rather have 11 and not need them all than 7-8 and need more tiers of rarity to assist with trading.

[cchipk]

i chose very uncommon bc it would make sense but i am also open to 4 new rarity categories since i particularly am fond of super organization/specifics and such! so i think as long as At Least One new category is added ill be happy

[VivviQ]

re-distribution or adding 4 tiers are both good options. i think have a simple, 7-tier system is great but there is such a large gap between rares (ex: 2023 rare and 2008 rare). its the same thing that happened with uc’s before the 2019 rarity change.

i will be honest, the 4 extra tiers sound a little clunky though so i, personally, am super torn. it seems at the moment a lot of users like the idea of the extra tiers.

perhaps another suggestion could be redistribution and adding the “extremely rare” tier. im sure there are a lot better suggestions in this thread than mine. regardless i am excited for the outcome

I feel similar in just expanding the rarer side honestly.

[Lacuna]

Hello everyone! Just wanted to say I've read through up to this point and I wanted to just clarify some things I've seen come up a few times:

- I appreciate that I'm seeing users articulate what they would like "next" in a way, whether that is moving pets around in groups, a new sorting system/tool, or rarities for items. I cannot say any of those are possible, but I will definitely communicate those desires to admins. Here are some site suggestion threads that already exist where you can discuss these or similar changes so they don't get lost in this thread: Locking, naming, and deleting multiple groups, re-arrange pets in their groups, Sort-Pets by Mode. There may be other good ones as well, I just grabbed a few.

- Some people were confused about the math and asked a question similar to "Why are there fewer OMGSC pets than Common?" The answer in the simplest terms is that these graphs show the number of unique pets assigned to each rarity, not how many total instances of an OMGSC or other rarity pet are on the site. If you graphed it to show all duplicate pets, it would look more like a descending diagonal line: \ so really there are more OMGSC pets in existence and fewer of higher rarities.

- I do see people's worry that the added rarity categories won't help because of the way users on CS trade. Unfortunately, there is only so much we can do to change people's attitudes, and this is what we have power over. I encourage you all to be open-minded and consider how you might change up the way you trade now; several users have discussed this and I thought Thinking.Kiwi's charts about how they might value C$ was a really good example!

- For people who see a need for more "rare" labels without adding "common" ones, the extra common label is more to provide balance and symmetry and keep the "middle" a real middle. If there were fewer common labels, the "uncommon" pets would really just be common with a different name. Adding all 4 new rarities makes everything balanced since each rarity has 3 levels plus the OMG extremes on the outside.

- There was some discussion about a more gradual change, but my personal opinion is that it's best to rip the band-aid off, so to speak; the change in 2019 was just a redistribution and it didn't truly help in the long run the way I feel adding 4 new categories will. Personally, I don't think that more categories will or really could be added after this point based on the current symmetry and complexity achieved by them, so I don't really think I would propose another expansion in the future. I saw several posts from users who (like myself) went through the bigger change over 10 years ago and I'd like to echo that it was not as hard as expected to adapt.

- I saw some discussion about the use of the word "extremely" but if there was another suggestion to use instead I didn't see one that got support. If this is something people are concerned about, please propose what you'd prefer! Personally, I went with very > extremely because I think that it's pretty intuitive as to which one is worth "more." even if the word extremely is a bit clunky. I'm definitely open to hearing a better option!

Now, on to things y'all have suggested that I really like and you gave some support!

- First, I absolutely hear the request to consider users who are colorblind. I saw a few suggestions about different textures on the rarity bar, but that might be harder for users with other visual impairments, too. So, here are the suggestions I liked the best and that seemed to have the most support, so we can continue discussing them.

- Have an extra toggle option between the bar image with notches and a "star rating" system, and potentially other graphic options if they are popular enough (such as bar with no notches, bar with stars instead of the shapes I'll propose in a minute).

- For star ratings, this is SunnyJustice's idea and I honestly have no notes. I think this would be a great option to have and it does fit 0-5 stars perfectly with 11 rarities.

- On the bar with notches, use different symbols within each rarity category. This is based on frogfan's post but I am offering some tweaks using ideas I proposed that weren't included in the original post for simplicity:

There are 3 categories and the colors I suggested are like so: common (blue/green), uncommon (yellow/orange) and rare (red/purple) that take up approximately 1/3 of the bar each. While it can be hard to determine an exact color for people with visual impairment/colorblindness, a section of an approximate color and a symbol is more noticeable. So, if you determine which third you're in a symbol would be used instead of just stars:
- Stars - stay for the OMG rarities
- Square - for the Extremely rarities (a square and an E are a similar shape)
- Triangle (upside down) - for the Very rarities (upside down triangle and V are similar shape)
- Circle - for the plain common, uncommon, and rare labels, which also acts as a divider between rarities
I'm not an artist so if someone wants to visually demonstrate that I'd love to see that!