*DISCONTINUED* Rares List Guide (1 March 2019)

[scorps]

@above
could you maybe explain the numbers you listed more im a little confused 😩

[Nettle_Magpie]

Which tiers do people want to merge? (this thread is dead atm and it's frustrating when we're trying to get stuff done)

[Ironic Equation]

Quite frankly, we really are just going around in circles here. We can't move the new OMG so rares because we want to change the tiers, but we can't agree on how/if the tiers should be merged, so nothing is happening with the new OMG so rares, which really is a major issue. I still think we should get a poll up asking if people are in favour of a temporary move up to e.g. non tier, and just leaving those pets highlighted in red to show anyone who looks that these placements are temporary.

[Zetirian]

@above
could you maybe explain the numbers you listed more im a little confused 😩

Okay. So from a nick post in 2009, the only thing we know about rarities is that ONGSR is 1/1000 and BR is 1/80. This means in every 1000 active users on the site, there is one OMGSR. So to believe there is about 500k users, there is 500 approximate pets that are omgsr in circulation on active accounts. That’s 0.001 percent of the site population.

The thing is, that’s only the minimum threshold for a pet number. It only has to be at this minimum to be a OMGSR. A pet could be 1/1234 because of this or even more.

So for pets that hover around the 1/1000 mark, we can safely assume that these pets are either within the lower threshold of the OMGSR ratio (to be realistic, I wouldn’t think to be over 200 max so 1/1200 would be it for me to flesh out a year of accounts going inactive and the pet not being rereleases until the end of the year) this is backed up by the storepets especially the lion tails and how long they took to turn to OMGSR from their initial release. Those pets were released in 09 and hit their OMGSR in early 19, it took them 9 years and 1/3 to get to OMGSR, to go from a minimum of 1/80 to a max of 1/1000.

But how do we know that this pet was 1/80?
This post here: Forum/viewtopic.php?t=485908#p11028586

This pet was rare in 2010 and changed to VR in May

So this pet specifically has a growth of going from 1/80-1/1000 in 8 and 3/4 years.

Granted the update sped it up, but to make a median guess this pet was just about doubling in rarity every year. What I mean is this, to make a median average on how rare these pets got, this happened:

In May 10 it started at anywhere between 1:80 to 1:100 as a ratio.

By May 11, it could have doubled to 1:160-1:200

By the time May 19 comes around, it would have been 1:720-1:900 ratio wise going by steady projectory.

Because of the recent change, I would have to assume that this sped the process up a bit and got the pet to cross the finish line.

So for storepets, this rate is stagnant because no more are released into the game.

I cannot stress this but this also means for storepets, if they start out as rare can and will double in rarity every year depending on how long they stayed as a rare pet for. (Looking at the elemental store pet cat collection for a skew in the analytics)

For other pets, this is not the case at all. In fact it might be the total opposite where it goes down.

This is why I like Mozzy’s list and the idea of it. Because it shows and takes into consideration when changes to pets occurred. And it helps with expanding on pets to ensure than things work without demand.

And to be bias, it’s been something I’ve been rooting for for a very long time, maybe 4 years.

Quite frankly, we really are just going around in circles here. We can't move the new OMG so rares because we want to change the tiers, but we can't agree on how/if the tiers should be merged, so nothing is happening with the new OMG so rares, which really is a major issue. I still think we should get a poll up asking if people are in favour of a temporary move up to e.g. non tier, and just leaving those pets highlighted in red to show anyone who looks that these placements are temporary.

Going with the way Mozzy has set the list, for the new OMGSR’s they should be a tier of their own on the bottom of the list going by the numbers I just gave above. They at this moment wouldn’t be worth more than the bottom tier of OMGSR (however the storepets by next year or even the year after might be worth more and could go up a tier.)

It’s just about getting people to agree. Specifically the ones who are always here. It’s not impossible, it’s about convincing others that it will work at this point.

As mentioned in the first post, breaking the list into three parts (OMGSR, VR, NEW VR) should be the priority and then going in piece by piece at a time.

It just sucks that the thread went quiet.

[ElementalInsanity]

Ack I’m still super confused by all the numbers myself.
Don’t those ratios and numbers not even apply anymore after two complete rarity change overhauls?

I’m still totally for the list like Mozzy’s since that’s based on what facts we have and do know, and combining/merging the rest of the ones below in a similar fashion, along with moving all the new omgsrs up to one tier together? That seems somewhat like the general consensus so far...?

[Michael's Fan.]

In a nutshell...
we need a whole new "list", and make it official.

[Zetirian]

Ack I’m still super confused by all the numbers myself.
Don’t those ratios and numbers not even apply anymore after two complete rarity change overhauls?

I’m still totally for the list like Mozzy’s since that’s based on what facts we have and do know, and combining/merging the rest of the ones below in a similar fashion, along with moving all the new omgsrs up to one tier together? That seems somewhat like the general consensus so far...?

I wouldn’t think the numbers would change and here is why.

If CS changed the numbers now with the overhauls, they would set themselves up for failure.

It’s common knowledge of the 3 month rule and that 3-4 uncommons = 1 rare.

This is from that ratio. 1/35 is rare and 1/8...? Is uncommon? I forget that one off hand.

The rarity overhaul means that the system is more spread out. The pets are the same, but the computer bot behind it was very selective with the machine. What this means is that when the bot came to be, it would only really push in pets that were at this point into OMGSR if the system deemed a pet to be true 1/1000 due to the users being online and even if they were online once a year those pets would be counted (Dec 18 looking st you buddy)

Now those pets are counted. A user needs to be continuously on for those pets to be active in the number count. We will see the rarities of pets go down again after several months due to this.

So if they changed the ratios, would that mean all trades are no longer fair and all common knowledge of trading is wrong?

I highly doubt they would do that. I highly doubt it. If they did, that would be a bigger problem than what we have now. That would me all the pets of the site are going to go for whatever which is fine, but no trade could then be rated value fairly since there is no justification of what value is worth what.

In a nutshell...
we need a whole new "list", and make it official.

Pretty much what I’ve been saying for years.

[lil rascal]

@above
The "common knowledge of the 3 month rule and that 3-4 uncommons = 1 rare" is not an official number put out by CS, it's simply numbers players have made up to try to work out trades, no one really has any idea how many uncommons is truly fair numbers wise for a rare. Nor is this rarity math something everyone follows and player driven rarity math can change (back in the good old days of CS it was 2-3 uncommons = 1 rare) If that's where you're working your numbers and fairness from then I'm sorry but it's not based on any official numbers.

The numbers from '09 have definitely changed in order to make this new rarity update work, and I'm fairly sure I've read that they changed back during the last rarity overhaul too. They reworked what ratio falls into which rarity category in order to have the pets more distributed over the rarity categories for this overhaul, which means the '09 numbers are well out of date.

CS trading and any rarity math system, including the gaps list, has never been based on anything official.

I like a list like Mozzy's, though I would suggest merging some of the tiers since I really don't think there is much difference in numbers between all the omgsrs. I like the idea of putting all the new omgsrs on their own tier since they all changed at the same time

[Zetirian]

Sigh... I didn’t mean 3-4, I meant 2-3. I typed that while on my break and there are a plethora of mistakes in my posts. But it’s great to point that out since uncommons won’t be on this list any time soon. Apologies for the inconvenience.

@above
The "common knowledge of the 3 month rule and that 3-4 uncommons = 1 rare" is not an official number put out by CS, it's simply numbers players have made up to try to work out trades, no one really has any idea how many uncommons is truly fair numbers wise for a rare. Nor is this rarity math something everyone follows and player driven rarity math can change (back in the good old days of CS it was 2-3 uncommons = 1 rare) If that's where you're working your numbers and fairness from then I'm sorry but it's not based on any official numbers.

The numbers from '09 have definitely changed in order to make this new rarity update work, and I'm fairly sure I've read that they changed back during the last rarity overhaul too. They reworked what ratio falls into which rarity category in order to have the pets more distributed over the rarity categories for this overhaul, which means the '09 numbers are well out of date.

I’ve edited this like 4 times eesh. Just as a starting point to say that if it’s broken I’m sorry. I’m at work and it’s fun multitasking.

I’m using numbers to explain how much better a suggestion to change the list is based of what we know in contrast to what we had and how it’s been a while before I could present these numbers again without being shut down over it. I’ve offered them in ‘14, linked to a post from ‘17 and now it’s ‘19 and I’m offering them again.

The number at least was at one time official.

Forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=47055#p1325298

And it’s the only number we got.

If there was changes, one they would be not too drastic as it would skew everything out and two, even if they were changed they couldn’t effectively be a thing that works. But if those changes were known that would be a bit chaotic. It would keep things in ratio distantly speaking too. Maybe uncommons are 1/8 now instead of 1/5.5 and rates are 1/35 instead of 1/25 etc etc. they would stay similarly within the same ratio though and t wouldn’t hange that much. We just wouldn’t know how much

And we can use this to determine the growth of a pet to OMGSR from rare by this method which will help in the long run determining things. I just did above with median numbers.

I’m not using the given thing to work out uncommons that’s an error on my end. I am using the gap between VR and OMGSR to distinguish where things can go on the list. It is entirely plausible that pets can double in rarity each year if they are storepets.

Going off Mozzy’s listing of how things are placed, or works based of determining fluxing pets and their worth. This is vital to know so the VR stage of the list can come to fruition. Because when that part comes, if it does; it’s going to be a car wreck trying to place things together.

It’s hard to emphasise since people may believe I’m pulling numbers out of my ass which I’m not. The numbers themselves could be out of date, but the gap of them are not. The gap between VR and OMGSR still exists and it might be bigger or smaller; we can still use it with comparing that to CS user traffic data and a plethora of other resources given to us to show the number is there and correct.

Besides, this list ain’t even official. So a non official list being made based off non official numbers by the community to create a guide for users if they do choose to use it (because it ain’t official) sounds pretty good for me. Because without using trades, what else can we use to determine that one pet is rarer than others? Rarity. And rarity works with numbers. I am also not saying this is the only way to go use it you must. I am just hoping that it is taken into consideration even if it is a little bit. That’s all I’m aiming at.

Talking about uncommon ratios probably is off topic even though I’m the one who started it oops. My bad

So the Mozzy list works better? Add a tier below it for the new pets that are OMGSR and then begin the process to reshuffle pets onto the board with the tiers given and then go to the VR’s?

[The Last Raven]

I’d like to point out that it is 2 uncommons = 1 rare if they are from the same year and month. It is not 3-4 and never has. This is not set, but it is what users go by when trading.

Lol if you look anywhere on the FTT and other places many many people go by 3-4 uncommons = rare from same year. You can’t say never happens if it is plastered every where on CS ^^