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

[Ancient Frost]

One thing I'd like to say seeing that adding 4 new categories is winning by a lot, the colors should remain distinctive of each other so people can easily tell them apart at a glance. The graph as shown isn't distinctive enough imo and may cause accessibility issues. I know there would be written labels as well but colors make it easier to look through a trade or your own pets faster

[everestwhite]

i do think 4 new rarities would help things SIGNIFIGANTLY make more sense. thank you for looking into this! no matter what happens, im excited to see how the trading scene changes (hopefully for the better!)

[Spaceinmyhead]

One thing I'd like to say seeing that adding 4 new categories is winning by a lot, the colors should remain distinctive of each other so people can easily tell them apart at a glance. The graph as shown isn't distinctive enough imo and may cause accessibility issues. I know there would be written labels as well but colors make it easier to look through a trade or your own pets faster

I totally agree with this! Though as Nick said on the first post, all colors you see are not at all their final versions, and more of just a mock up to show what he's talking about! The official colors will most likely be different than what you see!

[crowthefrostyfloof]

After discussing w/ a friend I wanted to say something more:

Maybe we could do option 1 but with a more correct redistribution, more like having it go down like a bar graph; Tho Ik it may anger others due to how it would bump a bit back but I feel that would be more reasonable then making omgsc more rarer then common.

it would solve more issues as then the system would be more equaled

though, an extra rarity can be added (like legendary) as well to equal out the rare side of the scale.

[T w i x]

I'm gonna try to word this post in a way that doesn't seem rude, disrespectful or anything of the sort. I do struggle with how to word things, if you think I should revise it, please pm me about it.


I am still quite new to Chickensmoothie as I joined June of this year and therefore don't know the Rarities all too well, but I have gotten some grip on the rarity system. I struggle with trading a lot, I'm trying to collect lions and big cats, which I understand have "demand" and I saw someone trading a UR Lion for off-site currency that is worth over $300, and I read someone say that there are pets going for $600+ which is absolutely ridiculous and considering these are just pixel pets, pixel pets in my opinion shouldn't be worth any more than $5 which is 80 C$. I understand the older pets are "high demand", and I don't understand this very well. But like, I feel like the rarity system is the biggest issue along with the users who seek extreme "overpay" for pets. I have been doing fair trades, or at least trying to and I still get messages saying: "this isn't fair to me" which makes absolutely no sense.

Aside from my struggle with trading, how will this effect COPPA Users? They cannot send their own trading message, which I completely understand because of the COPPA Act law, but I was told even COPPA Users have a difficult time trading because they are COPPA. Is there a way to help COPPA Users with these things or are we just going to pretend COPPA Users do not exist? I didn't see anyone mention COPPA users in any suggestions or in any topic really. They are members of the community too and I would really love to have the Coppa's input on this discussion as well as all other community-related discussions. How can we get them involved without breaking the COPPA Act law?

I'm still reading everyone's posts but I wanted to bring up the COPPA issues as I think it's important as well.

[viperflame]

they're already overpaying for unknown pets that ends up being at least uncommon and other people price it on based on their EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to the pet. tell me WHY will it be better to add new rarities, if not make people want the new rares instead of trading them?

I voted on spread out the pets across the rarities with the hope that ppl will be less annoying with it when I actually want this staff actually tells me what does it means to be a rare or what's not a rare or put an actual equivalent instead of letting a bunch of people decide how many things are worth. if you put more rarities, people will want more of these rarities and they'll pay more for it, leaving the people who don't have these rares or c$ to pay for them be without them and the issue still persists. at this point I feel like ppl want more the C$ than actually trading. but idk. 'cuz it honestly feels like everywhere u look there's selling pets or wanting c$.

[Lex.]

After discussing w/ a friend I wanted to say something more:

Maybe we could do option 1 but with a more correct redistribution, more like having it go down like a bar graph; Tho Ik it may anger others due to how it would bump a bit back but I feel that would be more reasonable then making omgsc more rarer then common.

it would solve more issues as then the system would be more equaled

though, an extra rarity can be added (like legendary) as well to equal out the rare side of the scale.

But omgsc's aren't rarer than commons, assuming they are distributed correctly [which this idea aims to fix!]

they're already overpaying for unknown pets that ends up being at least uncommon and other people price it on based on their EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to the pet. tell me WHY will it be better to add new rarities, if not make people want the new rares instead of trading them?

I voted on spread out the pets across the rarities with the hope that ppl will be less annoying with it when I actually want this staff actually tells me what does it means to be a rare or what's not a rare or put an actual equivalent instead of letting a bunch of people decide how many things are worth. if you put more rarities, people will want more of these rarities and they'll pay more for it, leaving the people who don't have these rares or c$ to pay for them be without them and the issue still persists. at this point I feel like ppl want more the C$ than actually trading. but idk. 'cuz it honestly feels like everywhere u look there's selling pets or wanting c$.

It evens out because pets will be better represented. That way you won't have to overpay or for some pets, or you will actually have to start trading the true value for things. [Rats for example. MANY omgsr rats if not all of them often only trade for very rares depending on the value.]

[crowthefrostyfloof]

After discussing w/ a friend I wanted to say something more:

Maybe we could do option 1 but with a more correct redistribution, more like having it go down like a bar graph; Tho Ik it may anger others due to how it would bump a bit back but I feel that would be more reasonable then making omgsc more rarer then common.

it would solve more issues as then the system would be more equaled

though, an extra rarity can be added (like legendary) as well to equal out the rare side of the scale.

But omgsc's aren't rarer than commons, assuming they are distributed correctly [which this idea aims to fix!]

they're already overpaying for unknown pets that ends up being at least uncommon and other people price it on based on their EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to the pet. tell me WHY will it be better to add new rarities, if not make people want the new rares instead of trading them?

I voted on spread out the pets across the rarities with the hope that ppl will be less annoying with it when I actually want this staff actually tells me what does it means to be a rare or what's not a rare or put an actual equivalent instead of letting a bunch of people decide how many things are worth. if you put more rarities, people will want more of these rarities and they'll pay more for it, leaving the people who don't have these rares or c$ to pay for them be without them and the issue still persists. at this point I feel like ppl want more the C$ than actually trading. but idk. 'cuz it honestly feels like everywhere u look there's selling pets or wanting c$.

It evens out because pets will be better represented. That way you won't have to overpay or for some pets, or you will actually have to start trading the true value for things. [Rats for example. MANY omgsr rats if not all of them often only trade for very rares depending on the value.]

I was more pointing out how small amount there is of omgsc vs the larger amount of common which makes common way more likely then omgsc which... doesn't make too much sense./lh

[sxtxrn]

accidentally voted for the wrong one lol
while i didnt support the idea of having only one rarity added but im in strong support of adding four new ones
i hope with the addition of these new rarities we see a greater variety of rarity in monthly adopts!
i wouldnt mind seeing more rare (maybe 1-2 a month? just to stimulate the economy) or the occasional very rare out comes maybe ~3-5 every year randomly?
these would probably have to be slowly increased throughout a couple of months as to not drastically throw off 2023 rares compared to other years but definitely would be worth it imo
it’d also help newer users get rare pets more easily !

i think once this is implemented you should add a reminder to the “are you sure you want to accept this trade” message that the rarities have been updated & the pets arent worth what they used to, just as one last reminder.

thank you for listening

[candee1501]

Personally I think adding one new rarity group would be the best way. If four were added it would make trading a total nightmare for anything because people would become extra picky. Like event pets that are in the same litter but one is an EC while another is a regular common seems like it would be more difficult than trading already can be. People will expect 4 EC pets for 1 common from the same exact litter.