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

[TeknoNeko]

I really do like the idea of Option 3, but its a little difficult to grasp. A lot of the confusion with the 4 new categories, for me at least, stems from the wording and crowding on the lower end of the spectrum.

With the 4 new additions, there would be 4 rarities all ending in "common", and 3 ending in "uncommon" - which all look very, very similar. Even looking at the abbreviations in the graph at a glance is confusing. I am all for updating the rarity system, however I think it would need a bit of a deeper look with words that are more unique and easily separated from each other.

As a newer player from 2018 trading is insanely difficult, especially with "lists", "MAs", "Nons", etc. I follow a simple ruleset but when a lot of other players follow complex, sometimes insanely high priced guides, it gets disheartening quickly. I'm happy that site staff are looking into making trading more fun and accessible for everyone, and I hope the discussion here is productive ^_^

[Spaceinmyhead]

[
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

Heres what I told another user earlier: "Ah so basically, think of each pet as its own thing. Say you have a deer of one type that has 2k of them currently in circulation with the users. That specific pet would be more uncommon than another deer that has 5k in circulation currently. There just happens that there are more pets that have less of them specifically in circulation. Theres not actually more of those specific pets, just more types of them if that makes sense"

[asterrific]

I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions about certain rarities being more rare than ones that should be rarer. A couple of people have addressed it, but I wanted to put it in my own words in case anybody finds my explanation easier to understand.

This isn't the case. If you're looking at the graphs, it is not in terms of total pets on the site. It is in terms of individual designs. For example, the sunback only counts as one pet on that graph. An OMGSC rat only counts as one pet on that graph. This means that OMGSC pets are still OMGSC, there are just less individual designs that happen to be OMGSC. That's why, on the graph, it appears that common is more common than OMGSC.

Having a common pet is more likely than having an OMGSC pet, but if you have one type of OMGSC pet and one type of common pet, there will be many more of the OMGSC pet.

[plot]

I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions about certain rarities being more rare than ones that should be rarer. A couple of people have addressed it, but I wanted to put it in my own words in case anybody finds my explanation easier to understand.

This isn't the case. If you're looking at the graphs, it is not in terms of total pets on the site. It is in terms of individual designs. For example, the sunback only counts as one pet on that graph. An OMGSC rat only counts as one pet on that graph. This means that OMGSC pets are still OMGSC, there are just less individual designs that happen to be OMGSC. That's why, on the graph, it appears that common is more common than OMGSC.

Having a common pet is more likely than an OMGSC pet, but if you have one type of OMGSC pet and one type of common pet, there will be many more of the OMGSC pet.

Yes. It’s about how frequent that rarity is / has been assigned to a pet. There are more pet designs that have been assigned common rarity than pet designs that have been assigned omgsc. Any specific omgsc pet design itself is still that rarity because there are more of that design in circulation. But there’s just less pet designs assigned that rarity.

[Harbinger.]

I really support the idea of adding 4 new rarities, due to the fact that there are "rarer" commons, and little invisible subdivisions within the current rarities which make it hard for new players, and even old returning players, to know what's a fair trade. Sure, a common could be the same as another common, down to the month, but it's apparently more rare, or more in demand. Making those subdivisions into their own categories would help the problem of well, categories.

As a newer player from 2018 trading is insanely difficult, especially with "lists", "MAs", "Nons", etc. I follow a simple ruleset but when a lot of other players follow complex, sometimes insanely high priced guides, it gets disheartening quickly. I'm happy that site staff are looking into making trading more fun and accessible for everyone, and I hope the discussion here is productive ^_^

I'm not sure how to attach usernames to quotes, but TeknoNeko said this.

I do agree with this, as I also signed up for the site in 2018 and trading has always been hard to grasp. The solution, I would say, would be for these new rarities to maybe take the place of the existence of lists, MAs, and Nons. I'm not entirely sure how that would come about, but the problem is with the trading system is definitely demand vs rarity. Demand is the only reason why such concepts of lists and nons exist anyway. If there could be such a thing as more space within the "rare" category, I feel like this would fix a lot of those issues. 4 new rarities just boost up the lower end of the rarity spectrum, which most people trade with no problem. The real issue is with the higher end, because a rare is super different from a OMGSR. I know in the scenario of 4 new rarities, it will give us Extremely Rare, but it still feels unbalanced. The divide between the rares still feels too huge. I've always seen it as very difficult to trade the high end of the rarities, so I've always stuck with commons as rare trading gets me nervous. I'd really like to see this fixed in some way, maybe by adding even more gradient to the rarities by just improving the higher end more (as the lower end now has more rarities.)

[unickorn]

Im voting 1, just because while option 3 is the more "fun" option, the rarities and demand are hard to get used to. :]

[Aaron✦]

Notches in the bar will definitely be a help, but I want you to imagine the frustration of having to count notches in a bulk trade of 50+ pets because all the colors in the middle rarities look like the same shade of red/green and the font underneath the rarity bar is so small it might as well not be there. It is exhausting, especially on mobile.

This is a genuine question for you for feedback gathering: are you aware of the setting to turn off rarity bars that replaces them with text? Do you use it/has it been useful for you?
I have had them turned off for years for a similar problem so it's just good to hear what others with vision differences are doing!

[Shakespeare]

Linking the last rarity update from 2019 because I don't think it has been, actually? And might be worth reading for context, since it shows that redistribution was tried before

Mmm.. The main question thats been forming at my head is why are we jumping from "one additional label" to "four additional labels"? Having a total of eleven rarity labels kind of makes it feel overwhelming to look at, even as an old player. I feel like the addition of Very uncommon + Extremely uncommon seems unnecessary, unless someone could explain the need for those two extra labels; is the gap between uncommon + rare really that large, even with all the events giving new/old players access to higher rarities?

this is similar to where I'm at--i like the idea of additional labels, but maybe not so many? I like the extremely common/extremely rare tags, perhaps paired with a slight redistribution. A redistribution as drastic as the pictured graph I personally think is a bit much, and would make things like very rare not actually very rare since the percent of pets in it is almost as much as the rare category, but perhaps just adding a couple tags like the EC/ER, shifting pets into those naturally, plus a slight bit of extra spread between the existing categories could be perfect.

The percentage of pets with a label doesn't relate to the rarity of the pets under the label. It's about how many of that specific pet exist. You could have a thousand different pets, but if they all only existed in quantities of 5 each, they would all still be OMGSR lol

I understand that--I still mean that I don't personally like how many pets fall into each category under option 1's example graph. I may of explained myself poorly before, but I guess I think it should be very rare to have a very rare pet, I suppose? So if there is, let's say...1000 pet designs that are rare, and 100 very rare currently, the new breakdown makes it seem like it would be ~650 rares and ~450 very rares. I know that doesn't change how many pets of each design are actually in circulation, just the threshold at which point a pet falls into either category, I just don't personally want a shift that heavy. Maybe more in the ~850 rares ~250 very rares, with the previous number example, if that makes any sense?

[Lex.]

Notches in the bar will definitely be a help, but I want you to imagine the frustration of having to count notches in a bulk trade of 50+ pets because all the colors in the middle rarities look like the same shade of red/green and the font underneath the rarity bar is so small it might as well not be there. It is exhausting, especially on mobile.

This is a genuine question for you for feedback gathering: are you aware of the setting to turn off rarity bars that replaces them with text? Do you use it/has it been useful for you?
I have had them turned off for years for a similar problem so it's just good to hear what others with vision differences are doing!

I feel like along with that option, there should be some toggles to change the colors to be more easily distinguished for those with different types of color blindness. I myself am not colorblind but I am aware that there are LOTS of different kinds of colorblindness, so many the most common ones can be incorporated into the site? Some colorblind friendly palettes for the rarity bars would be cool :)
[On/off toggle somewhere]

[Poserpanda]

I think it is a wonderful thing that there is going to be a change implemented. I'm grateful, I understand a change like this is massive. Thank you.

I personally think this will complicate trading further, and create more issues. I don't have the breathe to explain it, but trading is so hard these days. Adding new categories to refine the groups, seems like it will make trading impossible at some point. I appreciate the effort, but it fills me with so much anxiety, I really reconsider my own interest in trading at all anymore. I barley do it, because I end up overpaying. Going forward, I see so much demand going into the "new rarities" that are being proposed. This just feels like an issue that will never be resolved. I don't wish to sound so critical, but the amount of anxiety I just got, was so thick.

I do want to trade, I want there to be a future for tading, but with the way users feel about rarities, I never see it being resolved. I see the whole list demanding users to obtain certain rarities. I would prefer we just leave pet values alone, as it's already so impossible to trade these days.

I only trade and buy between my friends, because there's some common feeling about worth there. But beyond this, I only see list owners benefitting, and older users from 2013 and older. I see newer users struggling.

I am a little surprised a lot of the event pets were uncommon, as I feel so many other events possessed more rare pets. I don't see this improving much, I really feel a bulk of the issue being in this list value and true date issue. But that's my two sense. I don't expect others to agree, and I don't know how to fix the problem.

But if you believe this will make things better, I really hope you think it through. Not that you aren't, but rarities have caused so many issues.

I just probably won't be trading going further.

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.

---------
Here are my agreements and gripes.

I agree whole-heartedly with this post. It is sometimes ridiculous just trying to get basic, common pets. I've had trades cancelled because I offered (for example)

2011 common dog
For your
2011 common horse

Or some users will have sixteen of one pet, all of which are for trade, but then cancel for no clear reason. What's "fair" and what's on the rarity system is horribly skewed. I've just turned to over-paying so that there's a slightly better chance of my trade being accepted.

My rules for my trades are, 'if you have extra of what I want and you're willing to trade it, take what extra you want from me.'

Also the chart for why a pet falls into which rarity slot would be helpful. Is it because dogs are popular? Do more users pay more C$ for it? Are there a slim amount of them available? Does species actually factor in? It is kind of frustrating to adopt a pet the same month as someone else, only to be cancelled because it 'might turn out to be more rare' or, 'this pet is slightly later than the time I want it to be adopted, no deal.'
The unfortunate part of the latter example, is that I understand the timing one, because all my wormies from summer camp were not on the same page. That's just a categorizing thing.
---‐--

Conclusion :
I am in favor of the idea of rarity labels being shaped different, instead of colored different, for color blind users. I don't know what to vote for, but a change is necessary, so I will vote. Basically I want trading to be easier. In my perfect dream of fantasy, there are no: lists, 'nons' , demand, code words, passwords, dreamies, begging, or species hate.


But in a Chicken Smoothie world, I think everything will eventually turn out fine.