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

[BlueEyedKite]

-snip-

Raaaaaaah!!! This is amazing! Yes yes yes! I want that!

Edit: dying at the omg so common getting 0 stars
"Mama, how many stars am I?" "You are 0 stars, my lamb."

Edit 2: 5 star pets only for this homegirl

[foxcloud19]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

As many people have already said, this is fantastic!

[hontid]

Just in my opinion, I think that “very” and “super” are too similar and “super” shouldn’t be used. I like extremely which is an apparently controversial take on this thread. As others have said, maybe they should hold a poll for the wording.

[Alina]

Just in my opinion, I think that “very” and “super” are too similar and “super” shouldn’t be used. I like extremely which is an apparently controversial take on this thread. As others have said, maybe they should hold a poll for the wording.

I would also prefer extremely over super. Super and very are just way too similar

[Blaubär]

This is amazing! And I feel like it would make trading so much easier and it would be easier to calculate how much of a lower rarity a rarity is worth :>

Can you give an example of that?

[Froggieee]

Ah nevermind I just realized I make no sense

[Feather <3]

I'm a bit bummed (but totally understand) that more people aren't in favor of using more lighthearted rarity descriptors to help lighten the mood of the game/trading to help address trading stress (ie., Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4833465).

That said, if we're going for simplicity above all else, I want to +1 to the various opinions mentioned that super/very/extremely is quite confusing for a few reasons:

1. People can't fully agree on how much strength adjectives like super or very or extremely add to a word
2. It's confusing that the flipping of "very/super" etc. happens at the common/uncommon breakpoint
3. "OMG" as a descriptor is a bit uncomfortable

For the same reasons people are saying no to whimsical names, perhaps we should also say no to tons of adjectives?
What about a naming system like:

Very Common
Common --
Common
Common ++
Uncommon --
Uncommon
Uncommon ++
Rare --
Rare
Rare ++
Very Rare

Perhaps this would help reduce confusion even further, accomplishing a bunch of goals at once:

1. Making it crystal clear at a glance that there are three base "categories" for describing rarity.

2. More friendly to ESL speakers.

3. For everyone, at a glance makes adding more rarities look like a simplification of the old system, not a complication, because fewer words and categories are involved.

4. For the casual user who isn't reading the explanations on the forums, reduce the worry that their pets on the surface look like they're losing value with a big site change (a common point of stress even in the comments on this thread).

5. No misunderstanding about what "very" or "extremely" means. Nobody feeling like "extremely" is such an intense descriptor that the gap between "extremely uncommon" and "very uncommon" must be a big deal, while others don't think so... overall increasing the worry and scrutiny surrounding trades and the fear/confusion of unfairness. Uncommon vs. Uncommon ++ seems quite objective and not loaded with individual interpretation.

6. A nice plus is that it makes "Uncommon" the dead center of the rarity scale, not "Very Uncommon".


Thoughts?

[Blaubär]

Ah nevermind I just realized I make no sense

No, I mean you did make sense. It's pretty much what we have now, too, no? (EDIT: 2:1 rule, as in 2C for 1UC)

I really wanna see how it will make things easier. I think the only way it really will, is if it breaks up that very rule, though. Because while it's easy to calculate around two to three successive levels, I am still afraid that bridging larger gaps in rarity levels with the current rule will be tedious and hard to successfully do, especially when trading up (because many people don't trade down). If four new levels can break this rule up and make everyone trade in a more lenient way, then I guess it might make for smoother trading! I'm sceptical about that, but since it looks like that change is coming, here's to hoping the best.

I liked the whimsical names idea very much. The idea behind it was good. I just think that it would only complicate things in a way. Because I think that a big part of the community will still want to figure out rarity and value and would then have to constantly translate those names into old rarities. And if a significant part of the community trades that way, the rest will have to follow, if they wanna trade at all. These are of course just my thoughts about these things.

[Lex.]

This is amazing! And I feel like it would make trading so much easier and it would be easier to calculate how much of a lower rarity a rarity is worth :>

Can you give an example of that?

Very Common + Super/Extremely Common = Common

[Alina]

This is amazing! And I feel like it would make trading so much easier and it would be easier to calculate how much of a lower rarity a rarity is worth :>

Very Common + Super/Extremely Common = Common

This doesn’t make sense. That would mean 5 very commons would equal one omg so rare