Rarity system updated to add 4 new categories!

[UnfathomableDreams]

Anyone know how I can make my groups in order now? Dx
10 and 11 are supposed to be at the end

You can add a * to the normal numbers

For example,

Keep: *1
Keep: *2
...
Keep: 10

Special characters always come first.

[Shaileya]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

Personally, my complaint isn't about my view of the value of the pets. It is that at the end of the day, I still have to deal with the communities perceptions of pet value, and that is what worries me. Being completely frank, I have played on many pet sites over the decades, and on absolutely none of them did I have the unpleasant experience that trading on CS already is. Overpay is so commonly demanded, that I have rarely had these experiences of vc and c being 1:1 traded. I have to overpay to get quite a few trades accepted, particularly during fests because it isn't worth the hassle of trying to find people who will take that trade and not have 10, 20 trades rejected or left ignored, so I often end up overpaying to get (what is to me, the absolute least enjoyable part of the game, having to struggle through trades with an overpay happy community) over with. That is why I find the extra under uncommon category pointlessly complicating things. On some other site, with a community that wasn't so overpay minded? That might make sense. Here? I just expect it to make even more tedious trading difficulties.

[foxcloud19]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

Personally, my complaint isn't about my view of the value of the pets. It is that at the end of the day, I still have to deal with the communities perceptions of pet value, and that is what worries me. Being completely frank, I have played on many pet sites over the decades, and on absolutely none of them did I have the unpleasant experience that trading on CS already is. Overpay is so commonly demanded, that I have rarely had these experiences of vc and c being 1:1 traded. I have to overpay to get quite a few trades accepted, particularly during fests because it isn't worth the hassle of trying to find people who will take that trade and not have 10, 20 trades rejected or left ignored, so I often end up overpaying to get (what is to me, the absolute least enjoyable part of the game, having to struggle through trades with an overpay happy community) over with. That is why I find the extra under uncommon category pointlessly complicating things. On some other site, with a community that wasn't so overpay minded? That might make sense. Here? I just expect it to make even more tedious trading difficulties.

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I absolutely love this update but have been disappointed by the community’s response to it. People seem to be trying to keep the same trading system in place, and we just can’t do that. Things HAVE to change. If we’re going to have this kind of freedom to set up the entirety of the CS trading economy, then we can’t be selfish in how we do it. I’m trying to do what I can to change the trading system by changing my rules and such. I’m just hoping that people will, overtime, realize we can’t go by the same rules we used to. It’s only been a few days, so let’s give everybody time to settle in to this big change before we start expecting them to completely revamp their trading rules.

[greatblueikran]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

Personally, my complaint isn't about my view of the value of the pets. It is that at the end of the day, I still have to deal with the communities perceptions of pet value, and that is what worries me. Being completely frank, I have played on many pet sites over the decades, and on absolutely none of them did I have the unpleasant experience that trading on CS already is. Overpay is so commonly demanded, that I have rarely had these experiences of vc and c being 1:1 traded. I have to overpay to get quite a few trades accepted, particularly during fests because it isn't worth the hassle of trying to find people who will take that trade and not have 10, 20 trades rejected or left ignored, so I often end up overpaying to get (what is to me, the absolute least enjoyable part of the game, having to struggle through trades with an overpay happy community) over with. That is why I find the extra under uncommon category pointlessly complicating things. On some other site, with a community that wasn't so overpay minded? That might make sense. Here? I just expect it to make even more tedious trading difficulties.

honestly I agree with this because 1:1 was already harder then most trades trust me I prefer those its easier but even event trading is quite a challenge for some (banner pets particularly) because people just want the most they can get for it but also yes I have gotten some reasonable trades involving those but they were few and far between most just let the other trade just sit there for a long time or they get autoed but that's not my bigger concern here yes I get there's intended to be some middle ground but what happens if there's still not because there basically wasn't before

[Rinketonke]

I personally like this system better for the common to uncommon pet trades.
An older common and a few older very common often get people to accept trades for newer uncommons now a day, but it might be me I guess.
Trading for "low value" omg so rares will probably be easier since extremely rare pets exists

Just my thoughts ^^

[tiredddd]

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I absolutely love this update but have been disappointed by the community’s response to it. People seem to be trying to keep the same trading system in place, and we just can’t do that. Things HAVE to change. If we’re going to have this kind of freedom to set up the entirety of the CS trading economy, then we can’t be selfish in how we do it. I’m trying to do what I can to change the trading system by changing my rules and such. I’m just hoping that people will, overtime, realize we can’t go by the same rules we used to. It’s only been a few days, so let’s give everybody time to settle in to this big change before we start expecting them to completely revamp their trading rules.

THIS. 100% this.

[Tanybrid]

The past few days I actually felt quite comfortable trading on the R/VR/ER tiers. Still feel bad about the OMGSR tier.
We may assume that the pets that just turned OMGSR are worth less than the ones that already were.
But the inactive player status has also been updated and this could also effect the OMGSR pets without us being able to notice it.

All I ask for is that we need to know if the pets in the OMGSR group differ a lot from the less rarest to rarest compared to other groups.
For example:
The rarest pet in the "uncommon group" is 2 times less common than the most common uncommon.
Compared to that - what if in the OMGSR group we have the following:
The rarest pet in the "OMGSR group" is 30 times less common than the most common OMGSR.

For this we woud not even need numbers - staff could just say "compared to each other it's more or less the same".
If it's not I would prefer adding something additionally to clarify the rarity.
I liked infinityfate's idea - it's simple and easy to understand.

Nevertheless I think for the 1:2 rule it would be really helpfull to give us the numbers (1/100 etc) for the 11 groups as it has been asked before and if not please at least why we can't know them.

[tiredddd]

The past few days I actually felt quite comfortable trading on the R/VR/ER tiers. Still feel bad about the OMGSR tier.
We may assume that the pets that just turned OMGSR are worth less than the ones that already were.
But the inactive player status has also been updated and this could also effect the OMGSR pets without us being able to notice it.

All I ask for is that we need to know if the pets in the OMGSR group differ a lot from the less rarest to rarest compared to other groups.
For example:
The rarest pet in the "uncommon group" is 2 times less common than the most common uncommon.
Compared to that - what if in the OMGSR group we have the following:
The rarest pet in the "OMGSR group" is 30 times less common than the most common OMGSR.

For this we woud not even need numbers - staff could just say "compared to each other it's more or less the same".
If it's not I would prefer adding something additionally to clarify the rarity.
I liked infinityfate's idea - it's simple and easy to understand.

Nevertheless I think for the 1:2 rule it would be really helpfull to give us the numbers (1/100 etc) for the 11 groups as it has been asked before and if not please at least why we can't know them.

while I understand this, with the updated rarities they are the same rarity. One isn't 30 times more common than the other because then it would be a different rarity? Two OMGSR should be the same rarity and the rest of the worth is date and demand.

i also think that most of the issues are stemming from the fact that there is no official, cs recommended rarity guide, I think a lot of issues could be solved with that. They have already stated however that they cs doesn't want to force people to trade only one way so there isn't really a solution that's going to be perfect, just thought I should throw that out there.

[Lunarsnow]

while I understand this, with the updated rarities they are the same rarity. One isn't 30 times more common than the other because then it would be a different rarity? Two OMGSR should be the same rarity and the rest of the worth is date and demand.

They're the same rarity, yes, but within a tier some pets are inevitably going to be closer to the edge than others which technically makes them worth more/less than others within the same rarity. Especially as far as the community is concerned. You're going to be hard pressed to find someone who considers a pet that just recently went from ER to OMGSR the same value as an OMGSR that's been that way for years once pets start moving through the new tiers.

The unique issue with OMGSR is that it's the highest tier so, hypothetically, there could be an OMGSR pet that is many many times more rare than other OMGSR pets simply because there isn't any higher tier for it to be in. If, say, the minimum threshold for a pet being OMGSR is 1 pet for every 500 users that means a pet that's 1 for every 5000 is also OMGSR but significantly rarer than the other OMGSRs that are closer to the 1 in 500 threshold (this is just random numbers of course). I have no idea if there's any OMGSRs that are actually like tens of times rarer than the others, but there are certainly some that simply are less numerous than others and therefore rarer by a certain degree.

Like, I'm thinking most people are assuming most if not all of the newly OMGSR pets are closer to ER (less rare) than all the ones that were already OMGSR before the update when that may or may not actually be the case with the new inactive account qualifications in the mix.

[Poserpanda]

I thought with the new rarity system, trades would become something like this-

Them:
My pet is two stars, please add a two star pet.

You:
I have added a two star pet, our trade is now equal. Thanks for trading.

Not like this-

Them:
My pet is four stars which is basically five stars, so you pay with three store pets. Mine used to be a five star so it counts.

You: Cancelled trade.


------------- end scene ----------


I thought the new rarities were supposed to make things as simple as possible, not make things more vague; based on could, probably, be Very Rare.