WHY PEOPLE ARE QUITTING CS- A Discussion

[gamer]

One of the things that annoys me most about the trading economy on this site is the ever presence of "2:1" and "3 month rule" and rarity math for non-valuable, recent pets. It makes no sense with the post-overhaul rarity system. A 2021 uncommon and 2022 uncommon probably exist in similar numbers, so there's no need for one to be worth two times the other. That's insane.

I try to discourage this by refusing to engage with it, and I say so in my trading rules and I find that trading is a lot more fun and casual this way. Many times I've gotten trades where they offer me a 2021 UC for my 2023 UC, or a 2022 C for my 2020 C, and I accept because it's perfectly fair to both of us. Many people would decline and say it's unfair when it's absolutely not, lol.

I'm a newer player (2021) but I deeply enjoy learning about the site's trading economy and assisting others in FTT when I feel comfortable. I think there are a lot of resources available now to help players learn, so there's no need to be rude about an unfair trade.

I really heavily agree with this. After the rarity overhaul everything in the same rarity bracket should really be similar enough in value they could at least somewhat equally be exchanged. I highly doubt a 2010 uncommon would be worth 8 2012 uncommons or however much it is lol.

[Starlord]

I've always thought people never understood the rarity overhaul.

They LITERALLY took the amount of doubles of one pet to assign that pet a rarity.

The problem is, every category isn't just one number. It's multiple. It's a scale. So there could be 500 of one OMGSR and then 1900 of another, and they'd still both be OMGSR. That's mostly why people go for dates, I think. But overall a common is still a common and it will always be more common than an uncommon, regardless of date.

[Malleus]

I've always thought people never understood the rarity overhaul.

They LITERALLY took the amount of doubles of one pet to assign that pet a rarity.

The problem is, every category isn't just one number. It's multiple. It's a scale. So there could be 500 of one OMGSR and then 1900 of another, and they'd still both be OMGSR. That's mostly why people go for dates, I think. But overall a common is still a common and it will always be more common than an uncommon, regardless of date.

I agree with this.

Uncommon for Uncommon is seen as unfair if the dates differ greatly because one pet IS in fact more rare than the other. It's why no one values token pets from recent events as 'rare' even if the tag says that, because they aren't NEARLY as 'rare' as a pet from an older event, or even just a rare pet adopted back in 2010.

The issue with rarity is the tags are bloated and yeah, it's too much of a sliding scale. I just think it needs expanded and more tags to separate the pets out in. I feel this would really help with trading.

[gamer]

I've always thought people never understood the rarity overhaul.

They LITERALLY took the amount of doubles of one pet to assign that pet a rarity.

The problem is, every category isn't just one number. It's multiple. It's a scale. So there could be 500 of one OMGSR and then 1900 of another, and they'd still both be OMGSR. That's mostly why people go for dates, I think. But overall a common is still a common and it will always be more common than an uncommon, regardless of date.

It is a scale, that's true. But there should be a sort of balance, at least for the rarities towards the middle. The case is different for the OMGSC and OMGSR as they're both at the ends, but it gets kind of odd when you have to trade an absurd amount of recent rares for a rare from 2009 when they're both on the same rarity. For the current guide, in theory you'd have to trade 16384 2023 rares for a 2009 rare, which makes absolutely no sense. The rarity difference should not be that huge when they are both "rare".

[foxcloud19]

snip

regarding trading and the insane values, why don't we work to change those? those values were made by users. it's all in our heads, not set in stone haha. if we refuse to pay the higher values, those with high demand pets will be forced to accept lower in order to trade it off. those owning the high demand pets could also choose to value their pet lower themselves and offer it up for less. i know this may be hard as people don't wanna trade say a raven for less than they paid, but if we keep wanting to upcharge to get our money's worth, how will anyone get anything? and i don't know if just releasing more is the fix to this alone because won't those new copies just be treated the same and valued just as high? just my thoughts, im not a big trader anymore and as i've said before i've been inactive for years.

with engagement and encouraging more interaction, i think that is something we could help with too! im thinking rn of forum games i could post that allow for more interaction beyond posting just a word. if you feel like the roleplay forums are dead, interact with them ! if those who are seeing this push to make it active it is better than just leaving it alone, no? perhaps enough people who are passionate about it posting more in there could make a difference. we could also all try to spread chicken smoothie around ourselves. i'll be seeing about advertising it on other sites i'm on <:

i just think it would be awesome if we are doing some things ourselves rather than giving up because we aren't getting the big change or response from tess and nick that we want. we have all this energy and passion, let's use it !

I would love to do this! I really want the trading values to change as they are a little ridiculous and waaaay too confusing. So, how do we start to go about this? I’ve always been against how the list is and all that but I’m really not sure how to change it. It feels like there are just not enough of us that want to change it to make it possible. I’m definitely down for just not offering (I do that anyways cause I can’t afford stuff 😭), but there always feels like there are so many people paying it anyways that what I do doesn’t matter. It just feels a little hopeless without some sort of intervention from admins. I just don’t know what the answer is.

[conarcoin]

I've always thought people never understood the rarity overhaul.

They LITERALLY took the amount of doubles of one pet to assign that pet a rarity.

The problem is, every category isn't just one number. It's multiple. It's a scale. So there could be 500 of one OMGSR and then 1900 of another, and they'd still both be OMGSR. That's mostly why people go for dates, I think. But overall a common is still a common and it will always be more common than an uncommon, regardless of date.

This is why I say within recent years and with no special value. And even then I still wouldn't feel comfortable with say, swapping a 2016 pet for a 2023 pet, but within a 2-3, even 4 year range when we get into common and below territory I feel like it starts to get unnecessarily semantic.

Especially when we start including months into the equation.

...I really wish we'd just get a "how many of this pet exists" stat. Or a more variable gradient for differences in the same rarity category similar to the way star rating is displayed on osu!.

[Starlord]

I've always thought people never understood the rarity overhaul.

They LITERALLY took the amount of doubles of one pet to assign that pet a rarity.

The problem is, every category isn't just one number. It's multiple. It's a scale. So there could be 500 of one OMGSR and then 1900 of another, and they'd still both be OMGSR. That's mostly why people go for dates, I think. But overall a common is still a common and it will always be more common than an uncommon, regardless of date.

It is a scale, that's true. But there should be a sort of balance, at least for the rarities towards the middle. The case is different for the OMGSC and OMGSR as they're both at the ends, but it gets kind of odd when you have to trade an absurd amount of recent rares for a rare from 2009 when they're both on the same rarity. For the current guide, in theory you'd have to trade 16384 2023 rares for a 2009 rare, which makes absolutely no sense. The rarity difference should not be that huge when they are both "rare".

Agree. Because at the end of the day, they are both in the same category for a reason. There is a limited number of that pet. Of course an older rare will be worth more, because at the end of the day there will always be less of it than a newer rare, but it is still in that same category.

The problem is that the rarity system right now is extremely vague. The jump from rare to vr is, most likely, massive. Same with OMGSR. There isn't a fair middle. It's like if you said "Okay, so the limit on VRS is if it has more than say 10,000 copies made, then it's no longer VR. But then it's like- okay, but if there's less than 2000 of the pet it's OMGSR. That's still an 8,000 copy difference. That is HUGE, you know?

I wish it were as simple as "Just tell users how many of that pet exists"- but I feel as if that'd ruin a lot of the site as a whole. I can't explain it, but knowing the exact amount of a pet existing would ruin this site. But then again there shouldn't be such drastic differences between rarities, and such drastic difference in numbers.

[conarcoin]

...I really wish we'd just get a "how many of this pet exists" stat. Or a more variable gradient for differences in the same rarity category similar to the way star rating is displayed on osu!.

I made a suggestion thread

[Lifora]

...I really wish we'd just get a "how many of this pet exists" stat. Or a more variable gradient for differences in the same rarity category similar to the way star rating is displayed on osu!.

I made a suggestion thread

thanks! its a great idea, ill go support it right now.

[Cygnetta]

I support adding ER and EC to the tags.
OMGSC EC VC C U R VR ER OMGSR
I’m not sure about the exact data because that would make trading even harder with people trying to do math to match exact numbers.