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

[ElementalInsanity]

@Shian. I don't understand why we'd have to add another rarity below. We don't have problems with lower rarities, we have problems with very rares suddenly turning into omgsr and taking us by surprise.

[Shian]

Why is it a surprise? The more pets that get released on CS, the rarer all of the rest of them get and the more of each rarity we have. Been that way since the dawn of time the site. I'm just a little wary of the site catering to the rares list when the rares list is currently under discussion on how to be less broken because it's aware of how broken it is.
It's still a community made resource with only a handful of people contributing.

Also, as a side note,
You don't GET rare pets without uncommons. You don't get VR pets without commons. Then it's not a rare at all, isn't it? If all people are care about is chasing rarity tags, we might as well just label all the pets "rare" so everyone can be artificially happy regardless of how rare a pet actually is.
If you really want to add another rare category, there needs to be a counterpointed common underneath.
IF this is done, it would mean that rare pets get rarer and not rare pets would get more common. I'm not sure if I like the idea of hundreds of users coming to this forum because suddenly all their uncommon are commons.

[ElementalInsanity]

Perhaps I'm not understanding you then because I really don't get what you're saying. This rarity addition wouldn't be catering to the rares list at all. It's completely separate from that whole thing, and it's just about adding an additional rarity. I'm aware that when things get rarer they go omgsr...? That isn't what I said.
However, it's obviously it took many by surprise because they weren't under the impression that the skelebun was THAT close to being omgsr because of how wide the very rare spectrum is.

And it's a community made resource that anyone can contribute in if they wanted to.

We aren't talking about bumping uncommons down to commons, I think you might have missed something? ^^ Or I'm just not understanding you. We're talking about lessening the gap of very rare to omgsr, not bumping anything around. Just adding another rarity because as it stands I believe this is what the system is:
Very Rares = less than 1 pet per 80 users.
OMGSR = less than one pet per 1000 users.

That's a big gap, to me personally and obviously a few others, so we could benefit from another rarity in between those.

I still don't agree with removing omgsc as I don't see the point in that, however.

[musicgurl333]

@Shian Like the person above said, adding a rarity between VR and OMGSR would have no effect on the lower rarities. It's just helping people have a better idea of what their pets are worth. To give you an idea, here are the numbers that Nick released in 2009. They've almost certainly changed since then (especially since OMGSC was added later), but they'll give you an idea.

OMG so rare! (less than 1 pet per 1000 users)
Very rare (less than 1 pet per 80 users)
Rare (less than 1 pet per 25 users)
Uncommon (less than 1 pet per 5.5 users)
Common (less than 1 pet per 3 users)
Very common (more than 1 pet per 3 users)

You can see that there is a HUGE difference between VR and OMGSR. This makes trading tricky, because it allows for a TON of variation in how much VR pets are worth. That can make it hard to trade fairly, and it's a big part of the reason that a rares list is even necessary to begin with. There's no way to tell the regular VR pets from the extremely rare pets until they reach OMGSR. Having a rarity in the middle would ONLY effect VR pets that are on the upper end of the range, Everything else would be unchanged. And yes, it might make trading for some of those extremely rare pets slightly harder, but I don't think it would be a huge difference. Pets that rare are already quite hard to find and trade for. It would just help people avoid trading away extremely rare pets for much less than they are worth.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the rares list BUT if you don't like the list, then this is actually a very good change. This would let people have a better idea of what pets are the most rare without needing to use the rares list. It would make things more objective rather than relying on a small group of users to assess the value of pets.

['Possum]

I would be very happy to see a tag between very rare and OMG So Rare.

Jist so we have a few more shades of rarity.

Just like the OMG So Common tag was added a few years back to give the Commons and very commons another shade of rarity.

[kee;]

I also support the adding of a rarity in between very rare and OMGSO. The gap between the two highest rareirites is way too large at the moment. Yes, at first it would be an adjustment for the community, but that happens with any change that's made, not only on this site but in life in general. It takes awhile for people to adjust to something new, but they do eventually. It wouldn't be any different in this situation.

I also noticed in a few posts that some people were worried about a new rarity changing the worth of pets. A new rarity wouldn't change the worth of any pets. They would have the same worth as there would still be the same number of pets available in the game, it would only more accurately what pets are worth. In my opinion, this is more important for the pets of a higher rarity than the ones of a lower rarity simply because why're so rare. Users have more invested in higher rarity pets, so they would be more likely to want a better idea of what their pet is worth in relation to other. Right now, this can be a bit of a challenge because so many pets can qualify as very rare because of large range in the numbers.

-kee

[nickjr]

Yeah, at the risk of making a post that's technically spam, I'm gonna casually quote myself from the top of page 3 in this very thread:

if the simplest possible implementation is used:
Nick has already told us that how rarities are calculated is based on the ratio of pets on active accounts to active accounts (for brevity, I'll just say "pets" and "accounts"). So for illustration purposes (my numbers are pulled out of thin air!), let's say that right now, these are the divides:
a pet is OMGSR if there is fewer than 1 pet per 1000 users
a pet is VR if there is 1 pet per 500-1000 users
a pet is R is there is 1 pet per 250-499 users

The simplest implementation:
a pet is OMGSR if there is fewer than 1 pet per 1000 users
a pet is VR(high) if there is 1 pet per 750-1000 users
a pet is VR(low) if there is 1 pet per 500-750 users
a pet is R is there is 1 pet per 250-499 users

Look at it carefully to understand, since that should be faster than if I just type out what I did. If you're still confused, feel free to ask! I'll type it out if you need me to. But you should see that a pet will travel to OMGSR at the same rate and leave R at the same rate

[Obius]

Last entry by Nick stated that Very Rares start at 80 and go all the way up to 999. Rares are less than one in 25 to 79. Not 250. Unless you are suggesting adjusting of rarities??

I think 1/3rd of Very Rares should be separated to a new "So Rare" tag. That means only mainslists or high septembers would see the new tags. As you get progressively more rare, the rarity pool should be progressively smaller. It makes little sense that Very Rares are so broad just to make the numbers of rares within those pools "more balanced" when stacked against others. If anything, rares should be slightly more broad in the fix and VRs narrower alongside the new rarity increment. But not sure if that would be done.

[ElementalInsanity]

@WASSAP Nickjr's numbers are just for illustration purposes and made up. They just put those there to make a point of what the system "is" and what it could be. Not any adjusting of ratios, I don't think. ^^

[nickjr]

Yeah, sorry, those numbers were made up xD at the time I didn't want to look for the original ratios