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

[nems]

after reading through the original post, i am first off really happy to see that user input is being heard!! i was skeptical at first of adding 4 more 'rarities', but I really like the idea of the notches being higher/lower so we still keep a relatively unchanging color scheme (green for common, yellow uncommon, etc) with just a bit more detail without having to adjust too too much to a whole new format. i understand that it is a rough draft so obviously it might look different but I do really like that idea and think it may help a lot of players!!

(it would definitely be an adjustment, but one that I think would overall benefit the community)

[Zeref Dragneel]

I personally feel like pet rarity tags are not the issue but rarities and values themselves are.

Being an older user (I don't see myself as "old" but I'm also not new), people with certain pets basically run the entire trades system. When I came back from a 2 year break, it took like a year to find basic, monthly pets (most of which were uncommon and under). I had to offer pets from 2011 and I'd still get denied for no reason. I literally overpaid so badly for a few 2019 pets, and the reason I got denied was "sorry." I had to sell 2010 Malk foxes to afford 2019 Fae event Malk foxes. I coughed up so many old store pets because I needed the $$$ to afford pets from 2021. Older users are not exempt from these rates; if anything, we still have to cough up stuff for things that, a few years ago, would cost next to nothing. I don't want to sound like I'm picking a fight 'cause I'm not, but it seems true that if you have certain pets, you literally run the trades system (on site and offsite).

I remember the patchwork was barely valued at like a non and then literally within less than a week it suddenly jumped to 2 non value. You cannot tell people how to value pets, yes, but frankly everything is becoming valued by nons. Nons from a list that doesn't exist anymore but also still exists behind closed doors. I know of one user selling an orange cerb for $700 worth of USD bought currency. Others have ravens worth $600 of USD based currency. I say this as nicely as I can, but let that sink in more than a rarity tag. You have to pay $700 for a pixel that, otherwise, is a ghost in the pet market. You cannot change store pets, but new or not, no one can pay that much for a freaking pixel.

The rarity tags updating can help because people seem to value certain uncommons like they're rare (when they aren't) and etc. But at the same time, rarity tags are the surface problem and I think the real problem is not being addressed: pet rarities and circulation.

If you've ever seen pets in the pound, some of them are from accounts several years ago. Like last month I saw a Cheshire Cat from an account that was banned 7 years ago. It took 7 years to finally be put into the pound circulation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm really not, but maybe change the going rates of some pets or at least focus more on that than adding a few more rarity tags.

Long term, adding rarity tags can help distinguish pets with one label that are going for a full other label. But also address the issue behind this issue: CS (and users on it) have unintentionally made the pet market a living nightmare. And what market we do have is being run by people with IRL $$$. I buy pets with USD bought currency, I'm not alone, but adding rarity tags isn't doing a long term fix.

I argue that it'll always boil down to that regardless, sadly, however, refinig the system by adding more labels can help put more power back into the hands of those who dont shell out alot of irl money on virtual currency. The odds will never be even but it'll be a more refined system where the users can't skew things as much. Demand will still exist, mind you. However, possibly may not need the rareslist nearly as much anymore- new or old, given the users just made two new ones instead. ^^;

[conarcoin]

I’m not super active here anymore though I’m interested to see where this goes, more rarity labels would definitely help with things like rares and very rares ranging so much in value. However I think this only solves part of the problem users are facing as even if rarities are clearer, you need pets to trade pets and if you want a 2013 uncommon let’s say, most traders won’t take even multiple 2023 rares. When I tried trading again a year or so ago after a long break it was hard just getting pets I used to hoard because there are now 15 years worth of pets, and dates mean a lot to most active traders. People wanted my more recent uncommons and rares for their 2011 very common pets. And while I know this part probably can’t be helped, I had to greatly overpay for most of my dream pets because it seems like a few active traders buy them all at low prices and then turn around and sell them for twice as much. I got the rest of my dreamies and got out because trading wasn’t fun, it was super stressful.

I agree with this, under no circumstances should an uncommon ever be worth multiple rares (or even one, for that matter). That makes absolutely no sense and I'm honestly baffled the community has just accepted it for so long?

Like, I don't care that a 2013 uncommon is ten years older, there's still more of it in existence than my 2023 rare and it's not a fair trade to me whatsoever, let alone for multiple.

[rey skywalker]

I shared my thoughts before, I really implore us to consider a point mentioned earlier:

What makes a very uncommon more special than a common?

I think there have been some really beautiful designed animals on the site, but I have only seen them across 10 users of 100's. I don't understand why these uncommon pets only appear across a few users, and I believe, totally, that very uncommon, would be immediately hoarded, subjecting these pets to higher demand among users, making trading for them so hard.

I also think we already have established on this site, the value of certain species, which already make it so difficult to trade. Rats, horses, ponies, they're really not valuable to most users, and I really don't see an updated rarity system changing that. Not that it really matters.

I genuinely feel that introducing more distinctions to values will only increase difficulty in trading, increase in hoard and demand, forcing trades that are so confusing and anxiety inducing, and only achieved for people with CS and access to physical money to circulate those pets amongst themselves in this cs economy.

There is no discussion for trading anymore. It's "No suggestion, or cancel." An updated and more distinct rarity, lol, no affect at all. I think it will become so much harsher to trade, not easier.

I really believe, this event, created so many uncommons. The appearance of rares, was so sparse, and so odd....Personally. I think there should have been more consideration for this event, especially since the trading extended into CS and items (which wasn't allowed, and rarely reported). Since its been mentioned for there to be spread more current rarities, YES. DO THAT.

I think the origin of the site created 300+ rares for average animals, that over the years, the rarities finally spread across into vc, c, un, rare. But the first 2 years, no one can easily trade for earlier pets without overpaying, and this is when most list pets were created. I think those 2 years were really the origin of trading issues, especially for the growth of users, who would never have any chance at those pets, or those rarities.

I see a lot of staff here in support of these ideas, but I wonder if it's because they experience a different side of trading that we don't.

Because trading, is not easy. And won't be easy.

Not that I have a solution, but I think this will only amplify current issues. Introducing bias from pet creators and site creators, into what pets should be valued at, and not everyone can uphold, or keep track of, all the different standards that everyone has at trading.

[musicgurl333]

I like the idea of adding 4 new rarity categories. Like other people, I did have the thought "What about my pets I have that might lose rarity and value?" but that's going to be something that happens to EVERYONE. I'm sure there will also be pets I have that will end up being MORE rare than they are now, so it will all sort of balance out. I also think it will make trading easier. Maybe it will also lead to the decline of the "2:1" rule which makes absolutely zero sense when trading between big year gaps. (WHO is going to pay 16 '23 rares for a '19 rare?? Not the vast majority of people! That's crazy!) I think having a more detailed rarity breakdown will reduce the importance of different years in general.

[Raire]

Most of what I think about this has already been said, so I'll only leave a comment about the actual design here: if something like notches is added, I hope it'll come with a toggle on/off button (just like how we can now decide between having the bars or text). :>

[musicgurl333]

I’m not super active here anymore though I’m interested to see where this goes, more rarity labels would definitely help with things like rares and very rares ranging so much in value. However I think this only solves part of the problem users are facing as even if rarities are clearer, you need pets to trade pets and if you want a 2013 uncommon let’s say, most traders won’t take even multiple 2023 rares. When I tried trading again a year or so ago after a long break it was hard just getting pets I used to hoard because there are now 15 years worth of pets, and dates mean a lot to most active traders. People wanted my more recent uncommons and rares for their 2011 very common pets. And while I know this part probably can’t be helped, I had to greatly overpay for most of my dream pets because it seems like a few active traders buy them all at low prices and then turn around and sell them for twice as much. I got the rest of my dreamies and got out because trading wasn’t fun, it was super stressful.

I agree with this, under no circumstances should an uncommon ever be worth multiple rares. That makes absolutely no sense and I'm honestly baffled the community has just accepted it for so long?

Yes!! This goes along with what I was saying about the "2:1 rule" and how silly it is. Honestly, most people don't even trade like that, so I'm not sure why it's a "trading rule." I haven't been active in the FTT for a long time, but when I was I would always say whether or not the trade was fair by the "2:1 rule", and then tell them whether or not I think it ACTUALLY seems reasonable.

[ShadowHunteress]

This is exactly what I mean. The way rarities have changed around the last few months have been really confusing to me, especially with uncommons becoming rares and then back again the next month or so (even after trading them as rare for rare, etc). If they weren't rare in the first place, why were they labeled as such?

Pets rarities will also fluctuate by the amount of users, and if I remember correctly, only pets on 'active' accounts are counted, so, if someone comes back from a long hiatus, it could change things a little (drop rarities) or if more users join, but not lots stick around, that can also cause a fluctuation.

My only qualm is that adding more rarity categories might cause more confusing rare pricing than there already is, or rather cause rare pets to lose the rarity they have (or have had for years)

It should actually clarify it more, if a pet is fluctuating often, it means it is super close to that line, and adding more will tighten that, and should make rarities less volatile, honestly, I don't think the trading will ever be 'straightforward' because outside factors like demand, hoarding, and the like will always affect the true availabilty of a pet.

I know where you are coming from, concern for a pet 'losing' value, it was a HUGE thing when the rarity system was first put in place and it really was a change, because before then it strongly leaned on demand. With ever rarity change, there will be some pets that 'drop' but, it shouldn't be anything major enough to affect trades sans slight overpayment. But pets who have been rares for years shouldn't change rarity with this, it'll mostly be those, 'cusp' ones, who have been fluctuating already

[Loelya]

My only qualm is that adding more rarity categories might cause more confusing rare pricing than there already is, or rather cause rare pets to lose the rarity they have (or have had for years)

I think adding more rarity categories would add clarity rather than take it away. And it's true that it's likely that rarity tags would then change across pets, but that would also be a good thing.

If, say, pet A is considered rare because there are 2000 of it in circulation, but pet B is also considered rare with 1000 in circulation. that's a very vague range, but then say an update in rarity tags indicates that pet A is "extremely uncommon" while pet B is "rare," that will technically make pet A "lose" it's "rare" tag, but will make trades concerning these two pets more fair overall and easier to determine/place along that value scale. we'll have better information and a better reflection of how the values of these two pets compare. I think it's more important to be more informed/have a better understanding of pet rarities than it might be to necessarily preserve the current rarity tags, because almost any sort of site fluctuation can change most rarity tags at any time.

[Resplendent]

Yea, I think it's about time for another rarity update, since I've been seeing pets get squished into the common and uncommon labels again.

Adding 4 new categories seems to be the way to go, and the notches in the rarity bar does help, but the design presented looks a little cluttered given the amount of categories we'd have, especially since the rarity bar is already pretty small. I'm hoping this will be refined, but I'm afraid that the size of the rarity bar will be too small to accomodate 4 new categories and the design change from 1 rarity to the next will be too subtle. If 4 new rarities are introduced the new rarity bars will have to be carefully designed. Perhaps making them slightly large might help, but there's a chance that might clutter up the page too much. I'm not sure, but I really implore staff to experiment with these designs if this proposition wins.

Also, as someone who has been through the 2019 update, as the years go by will the pets get squished into C and UC again or will the rarities have to get regularly updated to keep things more evenly distributed? I'm just wondering if there's gonna be continuous maintenance on rarities or if we're just gonna get "overhauls" every several years when the distribution gets squished again.