Big Rarity Update - read for details!

[skyline]

Trying to get an Eat Me BEFORE update. 1 Non.

Trying to get Eat Me AFTER update. 10+ Nons.

Fun...

ify tbh
but i don't think they're going for too much over a non or two
i could be wrong though??

[*Artemis*]

I really like the update but I sorted all my animals by there rarities😢 oofo well I hope this can improve the trading system😊😊

[22tabby]

Trying to get an Eat Me BEFORE update. 1 Non.

Trying to get Eat Me AFTER update. 10+ Nons.

Fun...

This shouldn’t really change at all? The actual rarity never actually changed, just the label given to it. Plus nons went up in the labels too so it should balance out, I believe.
But the list is in for a big update! And if this is what these numbers are from, who knows what’s gonna happen, haha

[DBD]

Oh. On one hand now I have a lot more VR on the other,

This is gonna make collecting anything that is a rare or higher much more difficult.

On the other, My December rat is worth more, but the other two are still the same.

[glustora]

So now collecting 2008+ pets and list pets is practically impossible? Can someone explain why people keep saying it hasn't changed their rarities, because it has, it literally put most 2k8/9 pets to omgsr and very rare, which means they are so much harder to trade for now, especially since the bulk of trade fodder monthlies are now sorted into super lower rarities. I know their actual base rarity hasn't changed, but now they actually have jumped in value because now the rarity is true to their numbers.

Ay not to mention the stupid system that will still stay in trading where people look at the date (which adds no actual tangible value to the pet) and trade unequally based on that. E.g. A true 2010 unc for a true 2015 unc. Isn't it time we get rid of this now? Since the rarity sorting has been fixed, there is now no guesswork needed.

So is paperclip the only way now for people that don't have many rares lol

[shiso]

Lmao I have pages worth of rare hoard pets now thanks a lot CS 👏👏👏

[/trainwreck/]

It makes 0 sense to me.
We know the pets get their rarity due to the amount of pets there are in circulation. Let's say, for example, for a pet to be rare, it needs to hit a total of 25 in population. With this, a 2009 rare will have 25 in circulation and a 2018 rare will have 25 in circulation. How is one more valuable than the other if there is the same amount in circultion? Saying there would be less released of the 2009 rare isn't very accurate as the pets have to hit a threshold for its rarity to be determined. If there were less of it released, it wouldn't hit the rare threshold and would be a very rare instead.

The idea that older pets = worth more has some sense to it, but is far from infallible.

The main thing to note here is that a pet's rarity is an indicator, not an exact number.
Let's go with your example and say a pet is rare if there's 25 of them per 200 users. And to be very rare, there would need to be, say, 10 per 200 users. When looking at a rare pet, you won't know if there's 25 of them, or 11. It could just barely be above an uncommon, but it could also nearly be a very rare.
Now, with actual pets, this number is gonna be much broader than a difference of 15. And we don't know how close to which side of the spectrum any given pet is, unless we know when it last changed rarity.

To go with our numbers again - if a pet turns rare just next month and was previously uncommon, we would know that their total number would be close to 25. Else it'd have turned rare sooner. So we would know that a pet that already turned rare last year, and still is rare, is likely to exist in smaller numbers than our new rare here.
Keeping track of rarities is a hassle, but it's one method we use to figure out pet values.

However, there's plenty of pets who start out as a certain rarity, so we don't really know where on the rarity spectrum they lie, until they finally do change. And this is where it gets tricky.
A newly released pet that started out rare could be a "low value" rare that just barely made the cut. Or it could sit safely in the middle of the 'rare' segment, and thus be rarer than an older pet that just turned rare the same month.
So no, the "older pets are worth more" statement isn't 100% true and never was, even before this update.

So why do people use this "rule"? Because the older a pet is, the further it will move towards the next highest rarity, It's inevitable: old users stop playing and take their pets out of circulation, new users join who don't have those old pets.
So it was deemed that the older a pet is, the more likely it is to be rarer than a new pet of the same rarity.
With our rarity system prior to the update, this was important because the thresholds between certain rarities were so far apart. People just didn't wanna take the risk of trading their old uncommons for new uncommons because it was more likely that the older ones were actually much rarer. If you look at the rarity changes from yesterday, you can actually see that reflected, too - it's largely pets from newer years that dropped, and the older uncommons either dropped less severely, or not at all, or thy even turned rare.

With the update, the value differences between pets from different years will be much less severe, but at the end of the day these rarities still are a spectrum, and an uncommon from 2010 is still more likely to turn rare sooner than an uncommon from 2018.

But again - "older pets are rarer" was never 100% accurate. The only way to say for sure which of two pets is rarer is to see which one changes rarity first.
Though I will say this is something that was easily overlooked in the past. Two pets that turned from uncommon -> rare in the same month really ought to be valued the same. The issue is just that, well, you can hardly expect people to keep track of the rarity changes of every single pet on the site. So people will try to come up with ways to determine values that are easier, even if they're not always as accurate.

Since I last posted I was thinking about this a little bit, how over time pets would slowly grow more and more rare. Eventually, a pet will become rare, but it may be a very long time. What you've said makes complete sense to me.
Once pets become rare, they have a chance of being tossed into the pool of being re-released which is supposed to keep these pets from becoming more rare than what they are and still easily obtainable. I wasn't trying to state that there is an exact number, but rather that there's a threshold that has to be met before a pet becomes rare.

When really looking at the "older pets are rarer" statement, I still don't agree with this in all cases, but would consider them to be still worth more, but not too much more. I'm hoping with this update, however, that the gap between years and value can decrease significantly since this update is based heavily on numbers.

[/trainwreck/]

So now collecting 2008+ pets and list pets is practically impossible? Can someone explain why people keep saying it hasn't changed their rarities, because it has, it literally put most 2k8/9 pets to omgsr and very rare, which means they are so much harder to trade for now, especially since the bulk of trade fodder monthlies are now sorted into super lower rarities. I know their actual base rarity hasn't changed, but now they actually have jumped in value because now the rarity is true to their numbers.

Ay not to mention the stupid system that will still stay in trading where people look at the date (which adds no actual tangible value to the pet) and trade unequally based on that. E.g. A true 2010 unc for a true 2015 unc. Isn't it time we get rid of this now? Since the rarity sorting has been fixed, there is now no guesswork needed.

So is paperclip the only way now for people that don't have many rares lol

The pets were worth what they are now before the update. Instead of paying tons of very rares for another very rare, these very rares would instead be going toward an OMG So Rare. The rarities did change, but their overall value and worth did not. It is still the same, it has just been re-evaluated to update the rarities to be more accurate. A sunback is still worth the same amount it went for before the update, but members are now able to see it's true rarity instead of one that incorrectly portrayed how many there were in existence. The rarity might have jumped but the value didn't.

The system you mention with the dates really is old and needs some fixing. I

[VanyaDuvainel]

So now collecting 2008+ pets and list pets is practically impossible?

I thought it already was :')


Anyway, to address your grievances:

Can someone explain why people keep saying it hasn't changed their rarities?

I know their actual base rarity hasn't changed, but now they actually have jumped in value because now the rarity is true to their numbers.

I get what you were trying to say, however, you answered your own question. The reason people are saying it hasn't changed their rarities is because how rare they are didn't change. Their rarity label changed. So really, their value hasn't changed; their perceived rarity is now closer to their actual rarity (as in, trading four 2018 commons for a 2015 common or something may translate to what is now four 2018 very commons for a 2015 uncommon, etc.)

Ay not to mention the stupid system that will still stay in trading where people look at the date (which adds no actual tangible value to the pet) and trade unequally based on that.

This is why the change was implemented in the first place. If the community stays vigilant and keeps the changes in mind, there should be little need to follow that system anymore. The rarities are more accurate, so trading a common for a common of ANY year should be equal - and if people say otherwise, it just means we all need to say it more so people can get on the same page.

In the case of dates, the longer a pet is on the site, the more likely it is that that particular pet is lower in circulation due to people keeping them for their collections. While this means the rarity of the pet isn't different, it does mean that the pet may be less available, and therefore more valuable. Supply and demand. In that sense it adds just a liiiittttllleee bit more value, but one year certainly shouldn't double the value of a pet.

[DBD]

*is silently disappointed that none of my lists became omg so rare*

Well that’s fine. I guess I just need to wait until they do. Which could happen... eventually? If I’m getting this right, the older they are the more likely they are to increase in rarity.