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

[ShadowKatto]

I think having four new rarities would work best! I’m so happy the admins are finally listening to us and are finally making an effort to make CS a better place!

[nicole]

i think this is dumb, if it's very uncommon then why even call it uncommon in the first place, just turn it into a common? i don't think there would be any benefits to adding a new rarity called "very uncommon" because it'll just change trading as it is and make things worse and then new people would have to come up with how to even try to value them because they're not at the same tier as uncommon but moreso valued as commons..

[Pizzamuffin]

I'm between option 2 and option 3. I think adding 4 new categories would overly complicate things. It would start to get more confusing with all of the different rarities, especially with the distribution of many of the new categories being so close to one another. I think the addition of just the one new category may be a better option in my opinion.

[Panne]

This is super exciting to see!! I'm beyond thrilled that this suggestion is being looked at to be implemented<3

My vote goes for option three. While it would make pets look like their values shifted the most, I think it is a much needed addition, for the sake of seeing true rarities a little more clearly without as much variation within each category. The current in demand pets would still likely be worth the same to the community (see UR Bee never being OMGSR but still fetching more than quite a few OMGs). And even if some perceived rare pets do lose demand, I don't really think that's a bad thing. With the current way demand is pushing pet values, if some of the really popular pets get kicked down a notch, it would help deflate the economy a bit and discourage inflating the pet value to unreasonable levels.
In general, it would also make it clearer for newer users or users who are not trade-savvy to more easily understand values when trading. Right now, offering a VR for a VR can be anything from an completely fair, to extreme underpay/overpay. Adding some new labels will erase a bit of that uncertainty and place pets in brackets that can more accurately be traded among each other.

No matter which one ends up being the community consensus, I look forward to this change!

[Restful Dead]

I honestly can't say I'm a fan of any of these options, and I think more thought is needed to put into this if this really is the direction you guys are intent on going. I'm not saying I don't think that rarity system could use a bit of an update, but I do have problems with these proposed ideas:

My problem with the first option and second options is that that it's making VRs far too common. For the third option, while I do like the rarity distribution much better, for the most part, I'm really confused as to why UC is somehow more common than Common? Also, I really don't think we need that many new categories because that really just muddles things and makes things needlessly confusing. I can't imagine how complicated the trading system would be with that many categories...How many ECs make a VC? A VUC a R? etc, etc.

Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting how these graphs work, and if I am please someone explain them to me because I big dumb brain lol

[Loelya]

thank you thank you thank you so much staff for addressing and working on this!! This is absolutely incredible and deeply appreciated!! I’m also voting for four new rarity categories as I think the somewhat drastic changes that will cause will both be immensely productive and also pour some new life back into the site.

[Oddity-Lad]

I'm also on team four new rarities.

For new players and players coming back after a while, or really anyone it would be a lot easier to look at a pet and just know what rarity it is instead of having to research where it falls within it's rarity based on when it became it's current rarity to figure out how rare it actually is, which from my experience when trying to value older pets is the current norm and it can be intimidating. Especially around say Dec. 18 when newer players may get their first old VR or even an OMGSR pet.

Like when I got the pumpkin I had NO Idea how to value it apart from it being an OMGSR as I'd never had a pet that rare before. Looking in the rarity guides however it was just a tier that fell somewhere in a list of OMGSR pets because other pets have been OMGSR for longer and were therefore considered rarer and I left still having no idea. Splitting things up further would help to simplify that and honestly I just LOVE those rarity bars with the notches.

[Lacuna]

I honestly can't say I'm a fan of any of these options, and I think more thought is needed to put into this if this really is the direction you guys are intent on going. I'm not saying I don't think that rarity system could use a bit of an update, but I do have problems with these proposed ideas:

My problem with the first option and second options is that that it's making VRs far too common. For the third option, while I do like the rarity distribution much better, for the most part, I'm really confused as to why UC is somehow more common than Common? Also, I really don't think we need that many new categories because that really just muddles things and makes things needlessly confusing. I can't imagine how complicated the trading system would be with that many categories...How many ECs make a VC? A VUC a R? etc, etc.

Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting how these graphs work, and if I am please someone explain them to me because I big dumb brain lol

From a math perspective, there will be a lot more common pets in circulation, even if there are more designs of pets labeled uncommon, because there are more of each common pet. The distribution is kind of similar to an extended bell curve/normal distribution. Adding a rarity on the lower end as well pushed the "middle" to uncommon rather than common as it is now, or one of the higher rarities as it would be if we didn't add a lower rarity.

[conarcoin]

I would love more rarity labels, but I worry adding more vague labels will not fix the underlying issues - we don't actually know what the labels mean and we have to fall back on things like "older = more Rare" even when it makes no sense (a 2011 uncommon is not rarer than a 2023 rare) due to having no way of properly gauging the differences within these tags.

While I voted to add four new tags, I still stand by my opinion that rarity should be more of a sliding scale than a set of fixed labels, because right now the system fails to provide actual information on how common a pet is.

I'm going to add a link to this discussion to my suggestions thread, though I still think my suggestion thread is valid as it mainly aims to address the date issues within trading within the same rarity label.

[Jacob]

As someone who has been heavily apart of the trade scene ever since I joined back in 2017. I wholehearted agree with the decision to better spread out the rarities in anyway that we can. Especially with adding 4 new rarities, I think we would finally better understand a lot of certain pets and where they REALLY stand up against other very rares and omgsrs. With that being said I think it'd be a fun process to learn a brand new system of rarity and see what comes of it!