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

[Dawulf]

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

[far]

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

I like this idea, but I think the bar should be based on how many people have that pet on their Wishlist!

[ButterflyChaser]

At first this seemed amusing, but then I figure why not have the 4 categories?

I like to match rarity when trading, so this may be helpful.

[TheOakWoods]

i support adding more categories, as long as we get general numbers (ex. “an extremely common pet is one per five players)
otherwise 2:1 trades are going to be messed up as the gaps between rarities are smaller and people don’t know what they really are, letting the players know rough numbers lets them know a general trading ratio

[LavenderRain]

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

The problem with demand is that it's extremely personal, it can vastly change with each and ever person. And tracking trades wouldn't necessarily show demand, between a majority of list related trades ending up cancelled, offsite trading, and auction trading. It might work to some degree, but I feel like adding another thing to be considered atop of year, rarity, species, and line-edits is not a good idea personally ^^'

[Lex.]

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

The problem with demand is that it's extremely personal, it can vastly change with each and ever person. And tracking trades wouldn't necessarily show demand, between a majority of list related trades ending up cancelled, offsite trading, and auction trading. It might work to some degree, but I feel like adding another thing to be considered atop of year, rarity, species, and line-edits is not a good idea personally ^^'

Have to agree, demand is a personal decision made on top of existing values.

i support adding more categories, as long as we get general numbers (ex. “an extremely common pet is one per five players)
otherwise 2:1 trades are going to be messed up as the gaps between rarities are smaller and people don’t know what they really are, letting the players know rough numbers lets them know a general trading ratio

And this! I'd love to have those numbers updated and released every month, just so that those who are curious in the nature of the cs economy can study it. But in general it would help greatly with trading.

[musicgurl333]

i support adding more categories, as long as we get general numbers (ex. “an extremely common pet is one per five players)
otherwise 2:1 trades are going to be messed up as the gaps between rarities are smaller and people don’t know what they really are, letting the players know rough numbers lets them know a general trading ratio

I support the new rarities regardless, but I do think this would be helpful info as people recalibrate how they trade. Ratios could later be adjusted as needed, but it would at least be a good starting point to have an idea of the difference between rarities.

As far as the “2:1 trades” those are already pretty messed up in my opinion, especially when you get into big year gaps, but even between rarities…not many people are going to trade a rare away for 4 commons. I’m reeeeeally hoping that this new system begins the downfall of the “2:1 rule” which is a pet peeve of mine.

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

I’m not sure how that would work. More common pets would be traded more often, because there are simply more of them. The rarest pets would show very little “demand”, because they get traded less often.

I think pets on people’s WL (as someone else suggested) is a BETTER metric, but I still think that having two bars is just too complicated. Honestly, I’m a pretty experienced trader and MY head is spinning just thinking about that! I think it would make trading very inaccessible to new or more casual players.

[racoonie2004]

Would it be possible instead to add a second bar for demand? If the number of pets can be tracked, would there be a way to track how often those pets wind up in a trade?

I love this idea!! Im not sure how it would work trying to make things fair but it sounds interesting!!

but also I wanted to point out that the extremely common and maybe even extremely uncommon feel like a lot at once especially for the uncommon and lower rarities. not sure if others agree with this one but I notice anything common and lower is generally just bunched together and not usually distinguished amongst themselves during trading. I do really like the very uncommon and extremely rare ideas though!!

[cursedpest]

if we end up with 4 new rarities, which ithink most people are really on board with., i think it would be imperative to add a sorting system to pets. It will result in people having to sift through 100+ pages of pets to reorganize if this happens. I also think there should be icons added to represent if it from a event or limited, which one it is separately. i think thatd be cool. or sorting option for that

[Pallastronomy]

I’m all for the rarity overhaul and am very glad for it honestly but. Staring at my 100+ groups all organized by species and rarity. Staring at the fact I’m almost definitely going to need to reorganize everything, create several new groups, and rename almost every existing one when the new category/categories drop. The part of me that loves organizing my pets bc hehe sorting things go brrrr is shaking with excitement but I’m also dreading it just because of how long it’s going to take