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

[Blaubär]

Very Common + Super/Extremely Common = Common

Ok, if we're just adding stars, that would also mean 2 x Uncommon = 1 Very Rare. I kinda have doubts many people will like that, though. If anything they look even further removed from each other. I guess time will tell!

[Loelya]

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.)

this is absolutely incredible, I think the only thing is that I could see it being valuable visual information if the "unfilled" parts of the stars were outlines rather than colored with light gray, so there's a strong difference other than color for the various rarities (like for me its just a bit hard to see the edge of the half-star in "very uncommon")

[Linsang]

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. English aside, still makes adding more rarities seem 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, not 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. A nice plus is that it makes "Uncommon" the dead center of the rarity scale, not "Very Uncommon".


It may even help people not feel like an Uncommon ++ is all that different than an Uncommon and feel stressed out when making trades. I could see someone interpreting the gap between "Very Uncommon" and "Extremely Uncommon" differently depending on their gut understanding of the English language, and being more stressed about making a bad trade. Uncommon vs. Uncommon ++ seems quite objective.

Thoughts?

I understand what you're saying, but ultimately the main reason I personally oppose this is that, when we've had the existing rarity system for so long, which works off intensifiers like "Very x" and "OMG so x", drastically changing that is ultimately probably going to confuse people a lot more than just memorizing one more new intensifier- especially, for example, in this proposed system which would take pets with a rarity that's currently called "OMG So Rare" and changing that to Very Rare, which is already an existing, and lower, rarity on the scale. I think ultimately adding on to what we have is going to be a lot lower effort for existing players to adjust to than a total overhaul.

It might also be a personal thing, but I don't find the ++ and -- identifiers very easy to read.

Ultimately I think drastically changing the names of rarities is pursuing the wrong thing. It's more important that the system itself makes sense and is compatible with what the community at large is familiar with.

Also, Pyromaniacal's star mockup looks amazing!! I would love to see something like that implemented. It's easy to read, aesthetically appealing, and friendly to those with visual impairments.

[Feather <3]

I understand what you're saying, but ultimately the main reason I personally oppose this is that, when we've had the existing rarity system for so long, which works off intensifiers like "Very x" and "OMG so x", drastically changing that is ultimately probably going to confuse people a lot more than just memorizing one more new intensifier- especially, for example, in this proposed system which would take pets with a rarity that's currently called "OMG So Rare" and changing that to Very Rare, which is already an existing, and lower, rarity on the scale. I think ultimately adding on to what we have is going to be a lot lower effort for existing players to adjust to than a total overhaul.

It might also be a personal thing, but I don't find the ++ and -- identifiers very easy to read.

Ultimately I think drastically changing the names of rarities is pursuing the wrong thing. It's more important that the system itself makes sense and is compatible with what the community at large is familiar with.

Also, Pyromaniacal's star mockup looks amazing!! I would love to see something like that implemented. It's easy to read, aesthetically appealing, and friendly to those with visual impairments.

I would argue that by moving to 11 categories, we are going down the path of drastic change to the existing rarity system either way!

If clarity and simplicity is our biggest concern in this overhaul, let's pick the best system possible that uses the fewest new words that people interpret differently.

That said, maybe ++/-- is not the best shorthand. Any ideas on how to improve this?

Maybe there are better ways to make "Common/Uncommon/Rare" the three base categories, and have modifiers around them that don't mirror and flip in different ways (ie., very is a subtractor on common but an additive to uncommon) and doesn't say something about the pet that can be interpreted different ways by different English readers (ie., how different are very and extremely)?

[Lex.]

Very Common + Super/Extremely Common = Common

Ok, if we're just adding stars, that would also mean 2 x Uncommon = 1 Very Rare. I kinda have doubts many people will like that, though. If anything they look even further removed from each other. I guess time will tell!

That was just an example, the problem is that it doesn't even work like that now, so it never will. For lower rarities sure, but after UC I think that it won't work. I mean you don't see people trading 2 uncommons for 1 rare. It only works for the lower tiers. 👍

[conarcoin]

The question is, how in particular does it solve this problem? The pets would be needed to be recounted. Account activity needs to be acknowledged. Giving out new rarities is only one thing that needs to be done to fix a broken system, a system that is more living from greed and desparation than anything else.

Account activity is already dealt with in the system? Accounts that have been inactive for a year are removed from rarity calculation. Only pets on active accounts are taken into consideration. Old commons aren't common because there's tons of them sitting in the accounts of users that haven't played in years, they're common because they're common among the active playerbase.

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.)

I am. In love with these. I need them immediately. Thank you.

[Zeroness]

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.)

This looks very good, but I use the CSDark board theme and there are two problems:
- the black names are very hard to read,
- the half-stars in "common" and "very common" rarities are also rather hard to see, even with other, lighter themes.
So I tried to edit it and the edited version looks like this:

[Lex.]

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.)

This looks very good, but I use the CSDark board theme and there are two problems:
- the black names are very hard to read,
- the half-stars in "common" and "very common" rarities are also rather hard to see, even with other, lighter themes.
So I tried to edit it and the edited version looks like this:

OO, this is great! I also use CS dark mode and noticed these things. Your edited version is definitely easier to see!

[depressedanonymous,]

j’adore the star idea great mockups you guys

[Deerskin]

I like the idea of more rarities, but 4 seems like a lot. 2 or 3 sounds like a much better option to me.
Partially because I sort pets by rarity and I don't want to make 4 more groups, but also because 4 more groups seems overly complicated.
We've got VC, C, UC, R, VR. At most I think adding groups between C-UC and UC-R is enough.