*DISCONTINUED* Rares List Guide (1 March 2019)

[Thovatos]

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 ^^

It depends on the person xD But yeah, some people do 3-4, or 1-2. Again, it just depends on the person!

[nickjr]

I was ninja'd like 10 times so

I think the numbers came from that really old 2009 list of ratios; even if we were to take the averages (linear or logarithmic) instead of the thresholds, 3-5 UC still roughly equals 1 R with those numbers.

Using the threshold ratios of pet:users and with rough numbers-
1 UC was 1:5.5
1 R was 1:25
so 4.5 UC = 1 R

Using the linear averages:
1 UC was from 1:5.5 to 1:25, so the average UC was 1:15
1 R was from 1:25 to 1:80, so the average R was 1:53
so 3.5 UC = 1 R

Using the.... logarithmic averages??? Exponential averages?????? I don't even know if this is a valid thing, but based on the thresholds, I'm inclined to believe that pet rarities are not distributed evenly on a linear number line, so IF that's the case and pets' rarities on a linear number line are more sparse as the rarity increases:
1 UC was from 1:5.5 to 1:25, so the average UC was 1:14
1 R was from 1:25 to 1:80, so the average R was 1:40
so 3 UC = 1 R (more like 2.85 UC = 1 R)
Please see this graph and the notes along the side for how I got those numbers

So 3-5 UC ~ 1 R based on the 2009 numbers

The problem is that while it's realistically possible that the 2012 update didn't change the numbers and only added a new threshold below VC for OMGSC (because they finally started discounting inactive accounts and their pets with that update), I don't think it's realistically possible that this 2019 update didn't change the numbers.

In addition, even back in 2009, Nick stated "Right now the rarities are [...]" (emphasis mine)--and since we had barely gotten the rarity system, I don't think he had any updates in mind, so I'm inclined to think that the boundaries were fluid and subject to non-human changes

From this post and its timing, it's almost clear that the inactive/active account count is refreshed often enough (at worst: maybe like once every 3 months; at best: with every rarity update) and that the inactivity limit is roughly 13 months give or take ~2 months (so the ballpark we're talking is a year, not half a year or 2 years)

So unless Nick forgot to trigger the process of counting inactive accounts and their pets for like 3 years, I don't find it realistic that there was a drastic change in inactivity counting. I find it more plausible that the actual threshold numbers changed, especially since this phrase was in the announcement:

the range of "high" vs "low" within each label is smaller

Regarding what was said about inactivity counting in the announcement, the wording matches what I would expect of an announcer to say about the usual inactivity recounting to the general userbase, many of whom probably don't quite know what is factored into the rarity tag (if the misconceptions we've been seeing everywhere for the last half decade are any indication). Since the announcement also has an explanation of Dec 18's effect on rarity, which many of us in the thread already know about, it's not out of the question that the inactivity recounting blurb is also nothing new.

In the event that there was a change in the inactivity counting... We don't know what it is. Maybe the threshold for activity was lowered. Maybe Nick is counting number of logins now and not just last activity or whatever it used to be. We have no idea.

With so many rarity changes, I find it a lot more plausible that the actual thresholds changed

I was going somewhere with this but I forgot where it's been 30 minutes since I started typing

Thank you for reading my very late post

[ElementalInsanity]

^^^^ while some of those numbers are beyond my head I agree with nick. The numbers had to have changed somewhat for so many very rares to have then become omgsr, the ratio changed.

I still think Mozzy’s rarity based changes are good to start from, and someone mentioned even merging some of those tiers and then the tiers below, along with an entire merged tier of the new omgsrs?

[scorps]

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.

i like this idea. quick and simple at least for an important temporary change
or maybe just a poll asking instead of the non tier (since that will be changed probably) just for a new tier above the spotted tribal for all omgsr to temporarily fill

i agree wth merging of the other tiers as well i just feel like we need to focus on one issue at a time, most importantly the new omgsr changes

[depressedanonymous,]

[removed]

@Scorps
I’m in favor of the idea of creating a new temporary tier for pets that were misplaced, and making a note to say that it’s temporary until we come to a consensus on where to place the pets. It would make it easier for users to find those few pets that are misplaced and let users know where roughly the pets will be placed in the long run.

[lady gaga]

i'd just like to bring up a small thing, im unaware if it has been brought up before, but its been bugging me ever since we added the store pets to the list.

why didn't the pets already on the advent list get moved up before the store pets were placed onto it?

1. they've been there longer and 2. most of them are older/harder to get than those store pets. I think just a who redo of the list could help with both issues of pets not being moved up, pets being misplaced, and it could open up to candidates to be put onto a new list.

just my thoughts

[rotz]

i'd just like to bring up a small thing, im unaware if it has been brought up before, but its been bugging me ever since we added the store pets to the list.

why didn't the pets already on the advent list get moved up before the store pets were placed onto it?

1. they've been there longer and 2. most of them are older/harder to get than those store pets. I think just a who redo of the list could help with both issues of pets not being moved up, pets being misplaced, and it could open up to candidates to be put onto a new list.

just my thoughts

Redoing the list would be counterproductive, as most placements are accurate.

Adding new pets to the list does not automatically increase the worth of the pets above it. While, yes, they’ve been around longer, age does not always determine worth. On top of that, store pets are never rereleased. The rest of the advents are. There’s being more advents added into circulation each year, whilst older store pets are not.

As for the store pets that were already on the list, I could see the argument. However, one “inaccurate” placement does not require an entire revamping of the list.

[guineapigsrock100]

I’m for redoing the list. Truth it’s only becoming more irrelevant and makes trading more difficult.

[softpaw]

I’m for redoing the list. Truth it’s only becoming more irrelevant and makes trading more difficult.

I think redoing the list might also be a good idea. The current situation of placing pets based off of a broken system only leads to more confusion and frustration. its like slapping a bandaid on a heart attack victim, we need to address the root of the problem or else it will just continue to get worse.

[DaDwarf]

As i said before, i personally dont think redoing the list will be any faster then going off what we have. Also, most of the list isnt out of place. Yes, al those new omg so rares are, but are all the very rares? Redoing would, in my opinion, just mean that those pets will be placed in the exact same spots.. they got placed with the same data afterall.


In order to get a poll going, what do we need to discuss? Which tiers to merge orso?