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

[Shian]

The members section, clicking on the forum, but scroll all the way to the bottom and not entering any board subsection, typing random names in the trade section... There's tons of ways to find trade partners without reading a single forum ever.

"common sense" to whom? Rare for a rare is a very common sentiment and is also in many people's trading rules.

[Eaglespirit]

'Rare for rare' usually goes along with the rule '16 rare does not equal 08 rare' or '16 for 16 rare only'
or similar things
That and players tell you reeeeeaaally quickly when you try and send them the trade

[ElementalInsanity]

'Rare for rare' usually goes along with the rule '16 rare does not equal 08 rare' or '16 for 16 rare only'
or similar things
That and players tell you reeeeeaaally quickly when you try and send them the trade

Actually no, I’ve had many experiences where people just think a rare for a rare is fine. Not all new users or even older users think dates matter. Perhaps you think differently, but I and others have experienced differently. Not all users have the same knowledge base of rarity.
And anyways this is off topic discussion.

I would really hope we can get more votes and notice. I’m sure another rarity addition could throw some loops for the rarity list, wouldn’t it? Or would it if they’re doing pet counts?

[zamatsenga]

I think yes, there should be another rarity because of store pets.
Ah. Store pets.
I remember someone else mentioning in another post that a newbie could unknowingly trade, let's say, their UR Flower Pot they got from Dec 18 for a 2017 store dragon. Both are 'very rare'. I think that store pets should have a rarity to themselves so anyone can realise, oh that is a store pet, it isn't worth as much as my pet. I agree with some people, the whole 'store pets are very rare' is rather confusing, you have to check the archives etc. etc.

edit#1:
What if we subtracted OMGSC and replaced is with a new store pet rarity, because c'mon people do we really need OMGSC when we already have very common? Isn't that enough? Addressing another issue on that topic, why are there more commons than OMG so commons? Aren't OMG so commons meant to be more recurrent than commons or very commons? I don't really get the idea of OMGSC if they aren't frequently seen and are less redundant than commons.

Also, should we have an 'uncommons list'? This list WILL NOT include rares or commons etc. I have noticed its is extremely hard to obtain a list pet of any kind (unless you are lucky). I find this a bit irritating, and some people demand a ridiculous overpay for their Advent Teir 7 pet, but I guess that is the whole fun of trading on CS. Anyway, there are some uncommons that I have noticed a lot of people are rather attached too and/or have a really nice design and everybody wants one.That dog litter from 2014...oh never mind It would be nice to classify all these pets.

Just pitching an idea!

[lil rascal]

You get that with brand new rares and old rares all the time, if someone get upset over a well known fact of the game that's their problem. If they keep insisting theres always the foe option

Highlighted part is only true for active forum posters and active lurkers in the CS-specific boards

Its in a lot of rules to
And some common sense can tell you that

How do you even find people ti trade without going to some forum or another? you're bound to find some mention of old and new pets being unequal

I get the feeling this reads as aggressive, its not. For some reason my neutral writing tends to read angry?

Actually since CS rarities work by calculating how many of that pet are on active accounts common sense would tell you that a rare equals a rare. CS trading where a 2009 rare is supposedly worth 64 2015 rares is not my idea of common sense, even if it is seen as accepted trading. It's very unlikely to change but the reality is trading is still stuck in the dark ages of CS before the rarity system was changed to make rarities be more accurate.

[Eaglespirit]

I can understand why 14 rarities might come in handy, but that just seems like way to many.
Maybe an addition to the lettering in the tag instead? Like it actually says the rarity by years
'2016 Uncommon'
'2010 Very Rare'

That would also make it much easier to identify Dec 18th pets as well
Not sure how it would work with OMGSRs though? I don't know if their year affects their value alot or just demand

[Shian]

The years are already stated on pets so I'm not sure why adding it again would help. Also, year can sometimes not matter at all. The RBM, bunnies and wolf PPS are from 2009. Yet they're all worth more than 2008 advents. Zebras and Malk dragons would be tricky since they're available most years. Store pets are all worth vastly different amount even if the year is the same etc.

Why does 14 rarities sound like too many? We have over 8 thousand pets on CS and 7 rarity markers. Meaning if you happened to have a thousand rares in your collection, it's like not having any rarity markers at all for those thousand pets.

What if we subtracted OMGSC and replaced is with a new store pet rarity, because c'mon people do we really need OMGSC when we already have very common? Isn't that enough? Addressing another issue on that topic, why are there more commons than OMG so commons? Aren't OMG so commons meant to be more recurrent than commons or very commons? I don't really get the idea of OMGSC if they aren't frequently seen and are less redundant than commons.

Rarity is based on how many pets per person. So, let's make up some numbers here for a minute, OMSC is everyone has at least two of this pet and Common is 1 pet for every three people. So until the pet hits that threshold, that's what it's rarity is. Of course there's more commons because it's easier to hit "1 pet for every three people" than there is to hit the other number.

Also, should we have an 'uncommons list'? This list WILL NOT include rares or commons etc. I have noticed its is extremely hard to obtain a list pet of any kind (unless you are lucky). I find this a bit irritating, and some people demand a ridiculous overpay for their Advent Teir 7 pet, but I guess that is the whole fun of trading on CS. Anyway, there are some uncommons that I have noticed a lot of people are rather attached too and/or have a really nice design and everybody wants one.That dog litter from 2014...oh never mind It would be nice to classify all these pets.

Would you really want a list of "here's the uncommons that are in the highest demand"? Not rare, but here's the pets most likely to be asked for in a trade? I think that would turn into the rares list really quickly where people use it as a bible: "my pet is totally worth this much and you're cheating me! You owe me 7 more uncommons for mine!"

Actually now that i think about it that might actually help the problem of, we have over a thousand pets per rarity now. If nothing changes, we may have to start drawing up lists for each rarity marker since that's the whole point of the rares list. (These pets are worth way more than other Very Rares)

[nickjr]

Adding the years wouldn't help.

A 2013 rare that was uncommon until 2017 is not worth more than a 2015 rare that was rare upon release. Probably.

We already have this issue but at least it's not "officially" supported.

Identifying rereleases can be dealt with separately; there have been several suggestions for that over the years (my personal favorite is having a link to the archive page on every pet's page; I would link to other suggestions, but I... can't remember them OTL)

[Eaglespirit]

Wouldnt twice as many just cut the value of pets in half? Like most newer rares become "uncommon"
Popular store pets become less rare because so many are bought, its bad enough when one becomes rare instead of VR

Ive always seen you two (Nickjr and Shian) as the wise old people on here, this is like the only thing Ive ever dissagreed with your opinion on :I Its almost scary

[Shian]

It's literally what the original suggestion is, but for all rarities. Rares won't become uncommon. (If they do it's because they weren't rare to begin with but jumping two rarities seems impossible to me) They'll just be cut in half with rare and new rare. It's so you can see more of a difference on the scale.

Current:


14 rarities:

Jeeze do I hate common and VC colors...