Lanayru wrote:Sashtato wrote:Kinda going off something you said here:
I wonder if CS would ever consider making a rule about hoarding non-store rare+ pets. Because I do see that as contributing to some of the problems with trading. Maybe not hugely, but a bit. Like, no more than 3 or 4 of the same rare+ or something like that (I don’t know what amount would be reasonable). That would help keep things in circulation.
Edit to add: I don’t necessarily have a strong opinion either way about hoarding rares. It annoys me but I understand and respect that players paid for and sought after them. This is just a theoretical thought about something that I wonder about whether or not would change the trading market at all.
CS will never arbitrarily outrule a valid, harmless playstyle just because some users have a chip on their shoulder about it; they've explicitly said this in the past.
Regardless, I do not think it'd help to solve much. Past monthly rares have been in high demand due to how much scarcer they appear compared to normal monthlies (when everything is common or uncommon a jump up to genuinely rare feels MASSIVE) which feeds into the crazy demand spike, I don't think hoarding has had much (if any) effect on it.
If anything, its the inactive users and the near complete collections that are taking a massive fraction of pets of the site out of rotation. I don't remember if CS has ever said if inactive user pets are still counted toward pet rarities, but that could explain some of the increase in old pet value.
I only agree that hoarding can make a noticeable difference in the case of OMGSR and VR pets(and similar ranges according to the new rarities). Rares, are still common in comparison, and if a fair trade is exchanged, that value is not "lost" no more than if someone adopted a rare and locked it away into their collection. Hoarding is just one play style that isn't for everyone, just the same as going for a full collection isn't everyones play style, and it would be silly to make that against the rules.
mariahwhy wrote:I really think it is too soon from the rarity change to be considering this option, because we still haven't seen the complete effects of the rarity change. Perhaps I am the only one and just got really unlucky this month, but I'm already seeing more harder to achieve pets. This would make sense given the new rarity distribution we were shown.
Before there was much less chance of there being a rare in a litter than a common. Now the chances are almost exactly the same. The new rarity system in and of itself has implemented more harder to achieve outcomes (uncommons and up). I think adding even more rares on top of this will really skew the system towards rare, which 1)takes away the meaning of rare and 2)would drive away a lot of players, because the ease of access of MOST of the outcomes is what keeps people coming back. Yes, it gets boring if it's too easy, but it will just be utterly frustrating to keep missing out on outcomes.
I would bet that completionists make up a lot of the player base, and you would lose a lot of those people once they start being unable to keep up with keeping a completed collection.
While I agree with your point, I want to clarify that the graph doesn't imply that there is a similar chance of getting a rare and a common in a litter, it is simply showing the distribution of all pets, which is heavily skewed (in increasing rarity) by each previous year. I'm considering making a quick graph of monthly distributions of rarities, which could be interesting to see, but also sounds time consuming and not all that useful for this conversation.
What the new system does, mostly, is just making older pet growth in rarity more gradual, as well as adding more nuance to previously broad categories, like "high/low rare". Which I think overall is going to help with trading, and I agree that we should allow for more time to get used to this system.
