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

[lil rascal]

I was just reading the big debate regarding what could be done to make the rares list & trading for higher rarity pets easier to understand and it occurred to me that perhaps part of the problem is the vast difference in how rare a pet that falls in the Very Rare range actually is. I know we've been told actual numbers of pets in circulation on the site won't be released but I wonder if it might be possible to create another rarity between VR & OMGSR (no idea what you'd call it, maybe Super Rare, Extremely Rare, Really Rare or So Rare? I'm sure the admins will have their own idea of a name) so that there wasn't quite so much guess work & uncertainty involved in determining & trading the rarer pets on the site?

Edit - Just thought I'd reply to a common concern that people have mentioned that adding another rarity would cause confusion:

I'm not really sure how much confusion there would really be since all it would be doing was clarifying which of the VRs are closer to Rare & which closer to OMGSR. Basically I envision a line right down the middle of what currently counts as a VR, with the higher VRs becoming the new rarity & the lower ones remaining VR. I personally don't think any of the other rarities should be affected. I think it would help a lot with trading rarer pets & possibly even help stop some of the scamming & ninja trading that goes on - people could see at a glance that, rarity wise at least, their extremely rare/super rare/whatever the new rarity was called pet was worth more than the last month VR store pet being offered

Edit again - With this big rarity update plus the potential retirement of the list throwing higher value trading into chaos I feel now would be the perfect time to add more rarities.

With this new rarity update pushing so many more pets into the rare/VR/OMGSR categories I could honestly see an argument for adding three more rarity groups. One between rare and VR, one between VR and OMGSR, and one higher than OMGSR so that we don't have so many pets grouped in these three rarity categories

[sardine]

This actually is a pretty decent idea. It'd make trading a whole lot easier.

[Nolan]

Can't be ultra rare as that'd overlap with the unreleased acronym of UR.

Besides that, I don't really like this idea. There's an even amount of rarities on each side with uncommon in the middle, so adding a new would disrupt the balance. Also, just take the year of release and the demand into account.

[PikaPerfect]

I actually really like this idea for a number of reasons, most notably the enormous difference in rarity of very rares. You can generally tell the difference between value with omgsc, vc, common, uncommon, rare, and omgsr, but when it comes to very dares the gap is so big compared to other rarities

[*JACKAL*]

Hmmmm Interesting. I like it.

[NocturnalPanda]

As I have a nearly complete collection I find I am usually partaking in trades which involve Rares and VR's, I think something like this would be incredibly useful. However, I do agree with Nolan:

Besides that, I don't really like this idea. There's an even amount of rarities on each side with uncommon in the middle, so adding a new would disrupt the balance. Also, just take the year of release and the demand into account.

There are so many pets on the site that you have the same problem with every single rarity. There is such a vast difference in worth between a common from 2010 and a common from 2016. If you start adding extra categories for the VR pets, what about the Rares, Uncommons, Commons etc.? And then where does it stop? Soon you'll just end up with far too many rarity classifications.

[Lya]

Let me tell you from experience: No.
It was more hassle than it was worth when the rarities "very common" and "omg so common" were introduced. Any more splitting it up would make trading even more complicated than it already is. There's rarities and there's dates that are matters of fact for each pet. Right now, we got 63 different stages of rarity (number of rarities x number of years - of course there's no 2008 common, but it could exist and it would still technically be worth less than a 2016 uncommon). I think that's more than enough.

[nickjr]

Suggested before with no official/final response. Don't know if you want to revive that thread or stay here

[Pyromaniacal]

Going to post this on this thread, let me know if I should move it~

Support from me. While yes, it would disrupt the current balance of rarities, I doubt a change in this particular area would invite changes in the others - while each rarity does have a range, of course, there is a much larger range covered by VR's (for example, 2016 store pet vs a Main List VR) than the other rarities, where the largest gap I can probably think of at the moment is a recent rare vs a 2008 rare. While yes, the latter is certainly a large gap, it's not nearly the size of the VR gap.

Another solution that wouldn't disrupt the current rarities as much could be to expand the OMGSR category to include more of the rarest VRs, but this could also be more trouble than it's worth as users assume the new OMGSR's are worth as much as the old ones. And while we could just stick with date, there is enough hassle between rereleases and the lists and such that it would probably be useful to have some more distinction, especially for users who have less experience with the lists who find themselves with some of the much rarer pets in circulation. I would definitely not want to be a person who, as an example, trades their UR Ice Cat unknowingly for one of the store llamas from 2013.

[Shian]

Going to post this on this thread, let me know if I should move it~

Support from me. While yes, it would disrupt the current balance of rarities, I doubt a change in this particular area would invite changes in the others - while each rarity does have a range, of course, there is a much larger range covered by VR's (for example, 2016 store pet vs a Main List VR) than the other rarities, where the largest gap I can probably think of at the moment is a recent rare vs a 2008 rare. While yes, the latter is certainly a large gap, it's not nearly the size of the VR gap.

You assume this will fix things? I wouldn't be surprised if the number of certain store pets in circulation rivaled the number of certain rares list pets just based on the fact that they need to be bought.
Except they're nowhere near as popular, so for every five that go up for trade, maybe one person wants one and can pay fairly, making people let their pet go for less.
Don't forget that rarity markers work off of raw numbers, not any popularity or demand marker like the rares list does. It's why UR fruit and zebras, technically pretty rare on the site go for much less than other certain VRs.