STAFF CAN LOCK

[conarcoin]

My concern with this idea is that I'm not really sure how it would help with trading. Currently, a lot of people treat common and below pets pretty similarly, usually grouping them together in how they talk, trade, or price things. If these pets are already treated as essentially being a part of the same or a very similar group, how will adding more rarity tiers be helpful to trading? If the difference between tiers is not clearly distinguished, people may lump them back together. There are also some very rare pets that are worth more than some omg so rare pets. A lot of pets also fluctuate in value based on the species it is. More popular species tend to be valued more highly than less popular ones. I think the impact rarity changes have on trading will really depend on the criteria that earns a pet a certain tier. If it's solely based on the number of the pet that most people have (essentially the way rarities are currently done) I don't know if it will make much of a difference, especially considering we don't know the actual pet counts.

One important thing to consider is that making rarity tiers the way they currently work won't factor in the demand side of value, which is what almost everyone on CS trades by. Take the "ex-list" pets for example, there are some of those that fluctuate between very rare and omg so rare but their value doesn't really change.

Essentially what I'm trying to say here is, trading is a supply and demand economy. If what you are altering has no impact on supply and demand, then I believe any impact on trading will be negligible. I'm not against adding more rarity tiers, I just don't think it's actually going to make trading any easier.

This isn't meant to take demand into value the same way the current rarity system isn't, because it's not a value label... It's a rarity label... And currently when you have thousands of pets lumped into 5 categories where one might have 5000 on site and one might have 9999 on site, that's a giant difference that currently not accounted for by those labels. It isn't meant to change value whatsoever, it's meant to make supply more visible without displaying hard numbers which it seems like staff doesn't want.

It's also like, to help mitigate some of the "this is unfair because you offered me a 2023 uncommon for my 2019 uncommon" when it turns out they have like, the same actual rarity under the hood. (Because date based trading, unless involving pets from over a decade ago, is almost always not about actual demand and instead about the assumption that an older pet must have less of itself on site, since we don't know for sure.) Less newbies getting yelled at for things not working like they seem they should in the case of non-valuable pets.

Obviously demand will always fluctuate wildly, this is just because we currently don't actually have a proper way whatsoever to gauge supply beyond the most basic "yeah, this one's 'rare'".

[nom nom!]

this is a really good idea people could hoard a pet with the exact rarity color they like/decimal they like eg. 44.4 or 11.1, i made a chart of how it could work


and decimals right after the rarity like

★★★★★★ Common 60.7

[ShadowKatto]

Support, we definitely need a better way to determine rarity

[Loelya]

support, I don't have a strong opinion on exactly how it's done, whether by color or number or w/e, but I agree the rarity valuation could use a serious update. the categories as they currently stand, especially rare and very rare, are just too broad and nebulous.

[Panne]

Support!
I don't have much more to add that hasn't already been said. The only thing I'd probably steer clear of is numbers (especially decimals), as this site is geared towards children, who would likely see the numbers as more confusing and unappealing. Many users already express their frustration with following the rares list math, for example. Color spectrums or even just adding more rarities would likely be the most attractive option in my opinion.

And for the colorblind problem, there are many different colorblind-friendly color scheme variations. This writeup, while very lengthy and complex, shows that there are many ways to accommodate colorblind people when visualizing data!

[Lanayru]

While this is on paper a good idea (and I would definitely be in support of a better, more accurate way to display rarities) I also wonder how much this'd actually help in the long run? I feel like people would still treat a Rare from 2009 that's valued at 15.3 (using ruptures' star graphic values) as more valuable than a 2019 15.3 rare due to its age just like they do in the current rarity system.

I'm also unsure how this could be effectively visualized. Decimals/numericals would probably be the clearest but it comes with the issues Panne outlined above - any kind of color fade system on the other hand runs the risk of being hard-to-visualize. One idea I was thinking of would be 1-5 star rarities (say, 1* rare as the most common, 5* as the rarest) but I'm worried users would take this too literally as some mark of "quality"/place too much value on higher-star pets opposed to low-star ones...

[conarcoin]

I've been adding quotes with other ideas to the OP btw

While this is on paper a good idea (and I would definitely be in support of a better, more accurate way to display rarities) I also wonder how much this'd actually help in the long run? I feel like people would still treat a Rare from 2009 that's valued at 15.3 (using ruptures' star graphic values) as more valuable than a 2019 15.3 rare due to its age just like they do in the current rarity system.

I'm also unsure how this could be effectively visualized. Decimals/numericals would probably be the clearest but it comes with the issues Panne outlined above - any kind of color fade system on the other hand runs the risk of being hard-to-visualize. One idea I was thinking of would be 1-5 star rarities (say, 1* rare as the most common, 5* as the rarest) but I'm worried users would take this too literally as some mark of "quality"/place too much value on higher-star pets opposed to low-star ones...

I think another thing that can go a long way in reducing the weights on pet age is simply not factoring in pets from locked groups - but that might not be something people want or think is a good idea. It's tricky, but I also do really feel that a lot of the weight on age is rooted in "older = less", so I think more accurate judgements regardless will help in mitigating this.

In regards to the stars, I'm not sure how this would do that any more than people already use year and rarity tag as marks of quality...?

Edit: Just added a bunch of related reading links to the OP

[MinniHowl]

It's also like, to help mitigate some of the "this is unfair because you offered me a 2023 uncommon for my 2019 uncommon" when it turns out they have like, the same actual rarity under the hood. (Because date based trading, unless involving pets from over a decade ago, is almost always not about actual demand and instead about the assumption that an older pet must have less of itself on site, since we don't know for sure.) Less newbies getting yelled at for things not working like they seem they should in the case of non-valuable pets.

This is a part about trading that annoys me. Getting offers of a common/vc for a rare just because the c/vc is a few years older than the rare.. That’s just seems inherently wrong to me.

[LokisTrick]

Support, I think more exact rarities would make trading more intuitive.