Idea to add another rarity between VR & OMGSR? (Poll added)

[gallifrey falls.]

I support this! And if this can't be added, I think just something clarifying the worth of different very rares would be helpful. For instance, a UR Aussie (very rare) is much more rare than a 2016 store pet (very rare).
So anything that could help sort out this confusion to newer and even older players would be great! I think this could be a step in that direction.

[lil rascal]

Just going to reply here rather than the new thread as requested

Here ya go.

There's no point PMing anyone about it - it's already posted here where we can see it fine. ;3

There probably won't be new rarity tags added for quite a while, as we already had one big rarity shift when the OMG so common rarity tag was introduced and currently the system is working reasonably well with the ones we currently have. People will always want more rarity tags to narrow things down further and further - we could have a thousand listed rarity levels and there would still be a wish for more. However, the rarity tags aren't meant to be precise markers of exactly which pet is worth what, especially since demand features so heavily in trading, and are more just for very general assessment of value.

List pets aren't necessarily rarer than non-list pets - they're just valued higher because there are fewer of them in circulation, which makes them functionally rarer even though there may be just as many of them as a less popular pet. The Black Advent and BMD are good examples of this, as they're no rarer than any other Advent but are vastly more popular and harder to find than most of their 'siblings'. The reverse is also true, as there are some pets that by rarity alone should be high on the list and yet aren't even on it due to low demand. Really, any pet that's a VR should probably be a list pet, and the only thing that keeps that from being true is availability, which is partly due to demand and partly due to age, as older pets are more likely to be in permanent homes instead of up for trade. There's no way to measure availability, and so listed rarity and functional rarity will almost always be different no matter how many rarity levels there are visible, and adding more levels might just make it more confusing. For example:

Person 1: "My dog has a rarity level of 80, so it must be equal to your 80-rarity dog, right?"
Person 2: "NO!!!!! My 80-rarity is equal to a 150-rarity because it's got a popular line edit. Yours is only worth a 50-rarity because everyone got tons of that dog during its event, and that was the common one of its litter, too."
Person 1: "But... they're both 80s?"
Person 2: "Rarity number doesn't factor in demand - go look at the rares list."

See my point? Adding more rarity tags when value is so heavily influenced by other factors wouldn't really fix the issue, and might just cause more confusion and irritation because it would look more accurate and yet you still couldn't trade 'VR for VR' or '80 for 80' because rarity isn't the same thing as value.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1804985&p=55932732&hilit=added#p55932732

This quoted post & thread is now 4 years old, CS has changed a lot in 4 years so I would think an additional rarity would not be out of the question now. It also actually points out a few reasons I think this would be good, such as "List pets aren't necessarily rarer than non-list pets" - The list was created by a group of users based on what they thought were the rarest pets rarity, availability & demand wise, with a bias towards older pets. It is a user based list, not an official rarity list. There may be many non-list VRs that are actually worth a lot more rarity wise than some list pets but the only way we'd know would be an additional rarity between VR & OMGSR.

Just going to respond to a few issues people have mentioned here:

Adding another rarity would make trading up harder
I don't see how adding another rarity would affect lower pet trading at all. Currently rare is pretty much the middle ground - people may trade a rare for multiple commons/UC but are unlikely to trade VR+ for below rares. Adding another rarity between VR & OMGSR would still keep rare in the mid-range so trading up & down was possible but would also make clearer the vast range currently in VR, thereby helping people work out trades they feel are fair.

Suggestion to remove OMGSC to add this
Personally I don't think it would be necessary to remove another rarity such as OMGSC to make this work. It wouldn't bother me either way since commons & below are so easily traded but I just don't see how it would matter having 8 rarities rather than 7 and think removing OMGSC would be an unnecessary shake up.

As far as rarity tags, colour wise VC & common are pretty close already so I don't think it would matter if the new one was say pink or another colour not used yet

[Obius]

I too support restructuring rarities to remove the OMGSC and add a step above Very Rare. My other post (soon to be locked) read:

I am posting this in hopes of aiding the Rares List placement of certain pets. I think it would be very helpful if the Very Rare tag was not so broad. Although this may be outdated the last figures quoted by Nick was...

Very Rares = less than 1 pet per 80 users.
OMGSR = less than one pet per 1000 users.


Now seeing as 95% of the rares list is comprised of very rares, those numbers still seem accurate.

That is why I feel it would help pet placement if rarity tags were not so broad and uneven.

Something like this feels more workable. Note that these numbers are just a general idea and are somewhat rooted in Nicks old numbers.

OMGSR = 1 in 1000+ users
Exceptionally Rare = 1 in 600 to 999 users
Very Rare = 1 in 100 to 599 users
Rare = 1 in 25 to 99 users.
Uncommon = 1 in 5 to 24 users.
Common = 1 in 4 to 1 pet per user.
Very Common = more than 2 pets per user.

**Still Growing = Semi Transparent Dark Gray**

Based on active users only.

Omgsc tag removed due to being largely useless. Exceptionally Rare added to make Very Rare less broad and guessy.

Possible color code change.

OMGSR = Rainbow or White
ER = Purple
VR = Red
R = Orange
UC = Yellow
C = Green
VC = Blue


Do you all think this would help us out in combatting list placement problems and possibly demand? Feel free to comment below and add to this!

[ElementalInsanity]

Jumping in here! If that post that Atwood made is four years old, I do think it's time to strike up the discussion again since trading and CS has changed SO drastically, even in four years. ^^
I definitely support another add of a rarity between very rare and omgsr. It would make trading up easier, I believe? And then things like the skelebun won't be such a huge surprise!
However, I don't support the removal of omgsc. I mean...? Why would we need to remove that when we just want to add a rarity? Doesn't really feel like that's necessary. I personally do trade up omgsc to commons and then up further, tbh.

[Obius]

I get what Atwood said with too many rarity increments. We shouldn't need alot. Just enough to better sort what is more or less rare. I do think 7 is fine. Just that the gap from very rare to omgsr is too big. Its not asking the Admins to do much. Just a tweak of the current setup.

I also agree that more rarity increments may hinder trading.

[Aaron✦]

Support for something between VR and OMGSR. Ambivalent on the removal of OMGSC - I also feel it is largely unnecessary but since it's already there removing it might just cause more confusion than it's worth.

[Shian]

Is rare really supposed to be the middle ground?
Also, if you add a rarity at the top, you should also add a rarity below. I know most users treat common and very common as the same, but when you're faced with a trade of "6 commons on you side for 6 VCs on their side, it does make a difference. At least, I think so.

[astrologique.]

i dont support this.

i find the whole "list" stupid enough as it is, if we added yet ANOTHER unachievable pet that i couldnt get because of how bloody "rare" it is, i would be even further back on my goals to get rarer pets.

and now im confused. i thought you guys just wanted to add another rare, not take away a rarity that was already there. that would be plain stupid, and makes absolutely no sense. we already have pets that are omgsc, why would anyone have to change that? even though i dont like the idea of another rarity by itself, its not too bad. but if you want to take a rarity away, thats horrid.

i was a member back in 2013 on a separate account that my sister let me use called maggie84017, and i decided to rejoin this website.

i found that i had absolutely zero clue what i was doing.

i didnt understand the list, i didnt know why it mattered- shouldnt a rare equal a rare? "not if its a "list" pet, astra!" in fact, i dont understand the purpose or how the list works to date. i really dont trade much for this reason. if we were to add yet another rarity, so many more people would be confused, not just me.

keep in mind i am NOT a professional chicken smoothie player. i probably got some of this wrong. dont attack me. this is my opinion, and even if it is false, i will stand by it.

[lil rascal]

@ astrologique. The idea is not to add more extremely rare pets but to simply add a new rarity category that some of the pets which are currently on the rarer side of VR would fall into. In theory it should actually make trading easier as it would take some of the guess work out of how much the current VRs are actually worth.

@ Shian I don't know if rares are supposed to be the middle ground but it seems to me that they are if you want to trade higher rarities, and higher rarity trading is what I'm talking about here. They are the bridging gap between the lower rarities & higher rarities such as VR-OMGSR. It is possible to trade uncommons & under for rares & then trade onto the list with those rares but how often do you see someone (who actually knows the value of their pet) trading a list (or even just a normal VR) for a trade with no rares?

I don't really see why they would remove OMGSC as I think removing it would just confuse & possibly upset too many people. It doesn't really bother me either way but I really don't see why they'd have to remove a lower rarity in order to add a higher rarity between VR & OMGSR.

[musicgurl333]

I agree support adding a rarity between VR and OMGSR, but I don't agree with removing OMGSC.

Is rare really supposed to be the middle ground?
Also, if you add a rarity at the top, you should also add a rarity below. I know most users treat common and very common as the same, but when you're faced with a trade of "6 commons on you side for 6 VCs on their side, it does make a difference. At least, I think so.

This hasn't really been my experience. I personally wouldn't trade a common of my for someone's VC, and I don't think that most people would unless the VC was a pet that they really wanted and they were willing to slightly overpay. But even if that is the case, I'm not sure why adding an additional lower rarity would fix that. I think it would only make things more complicate. Also, a lower rarity was already added before. OMGSC was added without adding a rarity near the top of the list, so there is some precedent for this.