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

[kamado.]

I feel like 4 additional rarities will make this feel like too much. I'd be down with 2 more to help break up the rares/list situation, but I don't feel like we really need to break up the commons the same way.

this post hit the nail on the head. we don’t need to break up the commons as much. there are three categories for common & rare, so maybe we need three categories for uncommon? slightly uncommon, uncommon, & very uncommon? nine categories total? we really don’t need four new categories, that’s just too many.

[Lex.]

I feel like 4 additional rarities will make this feel like too much. I'd be down with 2 more to help break up the rares/list situation, but I don't feel like we really need to break up the commons the same way.

this post hit the nail on the head. we don’t need to break up the commons as much. there are three categories for common & rare, so maybe we need three categories for uncommon? slightly uncommon, uncommon, & very uncommon? nine categories total? we really don’t need four new categories, that’s just too many.

2 of our current are extremities [the OMGs] so technically they don't really count as part of the "normal tiers". A OMGS-UC would just be a common. Adding the 4 new tiers would make it so that each grouping has a [very/-/extremely] tier, and then the 2 outer groups which are the most and least abundant pets on site.

[LunaLate]

After a day, the more I’m excited about the possibility of 4 new categories! I really hope it happens!
Also I think the wording is fine, having each level have a different word would be even more confusing and hard to remember. I think “extremely” is fine but another word could also work if everyone else doesn’t like extremely.
As others have said, this could help get rid of the “high/low” uncommon and rare thing, where pets are the same rarity but valued differently, even if they are from the same year!
Thank you staff for listening to people’s suggestions!!

[Kahvar]

I'd be excited to see new rarity tiers added. I see a lot of people debating how they should be named though.

My personal preference would be one word rarity names simply because they'd be less of a mouthful.

That said, if the main considerations are clarity and accessibly I believe the current naming scheme is best. Not because it is familiar but because the relationship between categories is obvious and the vocabulary easy to understand.

Many of the new names I've seen suggested are higher difficulty - in terms of vocabulary - than the current ones. The whimsical names also feel less obvious to me about where they belong in the rankings.

For example it's pretty unlikely someone would confuse where on the rarity scale uncommon is with rare. However once you get into terminology like "scarce" or "elusive" its not as intuitive. Without seeing a chart first I'd be a little uncertain whether a "scarce" pet is ranked between uncommon and rare or rare and omg so rare.

The new "extremely" rarity names suggested feel clunky to me but I still believe they are clear in their meaning. I don't think the ordering of "very" vs. "extremely" is more likely to be confused than most alternatives I've seen suggested so far.

[beemo]

My personal preference would be one word rarity names simply because they'd be less of a mouthful.

That said, if the main considerations are clarity and accessibly I believe the current naming scheme is best. Not because it is familiar but because the relationship between categories is obvious and the vocabulary easy to understand.

Many of the new names I've seen suggested are higher difficulty - in terms of vocabulary - than the current ones. The whimsical names also feel less obvious to me about where they belong in the rankings.

For example it's pretty unlikely someone would confuse where on the rarity scale uncommon is with rare. However once you get into terminology like "scarce" or "elusive" its not as intuitive. Without seeing a chart first I'd be a little uncertain whether a "scarce" pet is ranked between uncommon and rare or rare and omg so rare.

The new "extremely" rarity names suggested feel clunky to me but I still believe they are clear in their meaning. I don't think the ordering of "very" vs. "extremely" is more likely to be confused than most alternatives I've seen suggested so far.

i felt that way about extremely too. i was going to suggest ultra, but the ultra rare abbreviation would be UR, and that could get confusing.

[Magen]

I'm excited for the concept of four new rarities. The more, the merrier in my opinion. I think having more distinct lines drawn between pets will help with trading; I don't think it would be too much or more confusing. We are already working with seven; four more won't hurt.

Especially if the all the rarities have a clear visual aid to go along with each. And more options for different versions of aids would be great and help people choose what works best for them. I like the idea of the colors, and the range (like the star horizontal placement we have now, really love the filled-in star meter that was suggested earlier on). Honestly the name(s) of the rarities won't matter all that much to me personally, I mostly use the visual aid of the bar.

I see a main argument against more rarities being added is rarer pets 'losing' their value, and folks are afraid to see what will happen to value for pets they paid 'x' amount for. I think this is a fair feeling to have, but also the blurry lines of rarity is a main issue of what causes people to pay so much for their pets. I'd prefer to see more variety of rarity to actually narrow down the values more easily for trading. I see it as a higher truth, and less up for personal opinion. Though the opinion aspect will never go away completely, which is part of the fun of trading. But if you want 'easier' (less stressful) and still-fair trading, more clarity of value is the way to go imo.

I'll be adapting regardless of what is changing, because I love this site and have for a long time. Life is change. A big change is welcome every once in a while, otherwise the site would go stagnant. I see the staff trying to create some balance with this potential update, which is amazing. Thank you guys.

[rengoku.]

throwing my hat in here as a casual old player.

while i feel that new categories would be beneficial, i think that four is too dramatic a change. it's hard enough for casual players to get their hands on Very Rares, let alone OMGSRs (can't remember the last time i traded for either of them); i can't imagine how hard this will be when you add Extremely Rares to the list. i understand that this shouldn't be easy, but in my opinion it is too difficult.

i also think that, given the results of the graphs shown on the first page, it's very clear that the Uncommon category is the most nebulous / needs the most definition and work. perhaps, since there are three categories for pets on the common side of the scale and three categories for the rare side of the scale, uncommon simply needs two categories added to it ... like 'slightly uncommon' and 'very uncommon' added on either side of Uncommon? certainly some pets from the Common category would be shifted to the Slightly Uncommon category and some Rares would be shifted to the Very Uncommon category, which would help balance things out and reduce those two bloated categories as well.

it's clear by the data that what needs work is not the far ends of the spectrum: it's what's in the middle. chickensmoothie needs a lot of extra work to reduce the artificial inflation caused by dates and the List, but i think any update to rarities is a huge step in the right direction.

[LostInTheEcho]

4 new rarities, please.

It’s better to get a big change to better distinguish rarity all at once rather than having this problem again in a year or two. Hopefully it would be able to work for a long time which would let people get used to it. Otherwise changes might need be made more often making people have to ”relearn” rarities multiple times.


I also think the proposed names are the (currently) best option. The whimsical names are a hard no from me, if anything those labels would cofuse everything, not the adding of four categories like some already think. The change of ”extremely” to something else is something I could live with if it’s what the majority wants.

And to build on that, a poll could be made after this one to see which naming is wanted most.


Personally I’d like the sliding bar as it is now, possibly with (or with similiar) colours to what’s shown in the graph. I do however realize that it would be hard to distinguish for many as well and like the idea of the filled star system, the notches and the added numbers as well as using different shapes for the stars in some way. I’d like it if all of these were optional and everyone could decide what works best for them.

[Fellefan]

I would like to toss my thoughts into the ring, but I'm lazy and only glanced over some summaries so I apologize if this have already been brought up!

first off; I LOVE the idea of adding 4 new tiers to even things out, it'll be such a huge boost for trading—which is an essential part of the game.
secondly; I'm also not a fan of using the word extremely, I would suggest using super instead. it is both shorter and easier to spell! (ultra would have been another suggestion but it starts with the letter U which will be problematic with uncommon, as I will explain in a second.) going forth I'm going to use super in my examples instead of extremely.

what I would mainly like to discuss is about letter shortenings, uncommon in particular.
as it is right now we have C for common, R for rare etc. even when you add very or super it still works great! even though the lettering is longer you can just look at the last letter to see which rarity group it belongs to.
let me put up a visual example:
OMGSC
SC
VC
C
UC
VUC
SUC
R
VR
SR
OMGSR
... uh-oh, that's a lot of C action.. now you can probably tell why I wanted to talk about uncommon specifically. its shortening is UC which ends in c, like common. not only does it make the lettering longer than it needs to be but can also confuse people, especially now that we're going to (hopefully) get even more tiers for each group.

my simple solution is to just shorten UC to U, last I checked uncommon is one word after all.
it would make things look like this:
OMGSC
SC
VC
C
U
VU
SU
R
VR
SR
OMGSR
now it's very easy to distinguish them at a glance!
I know the bars and colours will also help, but I'm mainly focusing on it from a purely written perspective. a lot of people will use the letter shortenings in their trade rules with no colour or visuals attached, encouraging people to not use UC for uncommon will help for faster understanding and less miscommunications when trading. at least in my opinion, it will help me for sure!



I would also like to talk about the colours of each rarity group, I feel using a larger spectrum will be very beneficial, but I'm going to need some time to play around with that and see what I think works best. so I'll be back to share my thoughts on that later!

[Ebony Stardust]

As someone who trades based solely on rarities, I'm all for adding four tiers for the sake of accuracy