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

[Eaglespirit]

The colors on my screen are set to bright so those really burn my eyes xD

I get the original suggestion, since there does seem to be a wide range of VR to OMGSR. But dividing OMGSC/VC/C into 2 just seems unnecessary (OMGSCs are already about as valuable as dirt, don't need a lesser value x'D)

Maybe 2 extras, the one between VR and OMGSR, and another either between R and VR or just plainly a 'Store Pet Rarity'(?)

[ElementalInsanity]

The colors on my screen are set to bright so those really burn my eyes xD

I get the original suggestion, since there does seem to be a wide range of VR to OMGSR. But dividing OMGSC/VC/C into 2 just seems unnecessary (OMGSCs are already about as valuable as dirt, don't need a lesser value x'D)

Maybe 2 extras, the one between VR and OMGSR, and another either between R and VR or just plainly a 'Store Pet Rarity'(?)

We definitely don’t need a store pet rarity. People freak out about them being ‘so super rare and special’ already even if they aren’t that rare. We do need a store pet label, however, which is also a suggestion here.

And personally I’m against 14 rarities, lol, I don’t truly think we need THAT many.

[Shy]

I don't really support this, but I can see where you're coming from...



Right now the rarities are:

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)



While the gap between 1 in 80 and 1 in 1000 is pretty large, I don't think adding an extra rarity between VR and OMGSR is necessary--especially because you'd have to be particularly careful of what it would be called (it might end up being more confusing for newer users).

Additionally, I think the current rarity system is very well-established, and most people are going to trade based on demand anyways, regardless of what the rarity tag says.

[nickjr]

For some reason I forgot that the threshold differences aren't linear until I saw Shian's illustration (which is accurate except for scale because we don't know the current scaling lol we only have the numbers from 2009)

So maybe no divide for OMGSC, VC, and C are needed, I guess. And not for OMGSR lol

But UC, R, and VR... I'd like a divide in all of those. So just going up to 10 rarities from 7.

Wonder if people would be thrown off by the asymmetry though.

Should we discuss this in a separate topic or here? I feel like the discourse for this suggestion is different from the discourse for the original suggestion even though the suggestions themselves are the exact same except for which rarities they apply to.

On my phone sorry for ineloquence OTL

[Shy]

@nickjr

I think this is a fine place to discuss this topic, but maybe the suggestion could be changed to read something more broad, such as "Idea to change rarity system" or something along those lines. This topic has gone off-track enough where it's too different to match the original topic, but it's still close enough to not need a separate thread.

Going off of what you were saying, I would be more on board with this idea if there was a divide between UC/R/VR, instead of just between VR/OMGSR.

Or maybe the whole system could be reworked instead of changed? Maybe we don't need different rarities, and we just need the thresholds of what we define as UC, R, etc. to be changed? I'm a little too lazy to work the statistics on this, but just a thought.

[musicgurl333]

@nickjr

I think this is a fine place to discuss this topic, but maybe the suggestion could be changed to read something more broad, such as "Idea to change rarity system" or something along those lines. This topic has gone off-track enough where it's too different to match the original topic, but it's still close enough to not need a separate thread.

Going off of what you were saying, I would be more on board with this idea if there was a divide between UC/R/VR, instead of just between VR/OMGSR.

Or maybe the whole system could be reworked instead of changed? Maybe we don't need different rarities, and we just need the thresholds of what we define as UC, R, etc. to be changed? I'm a little too lazy to work the statistics on this, but just a thought.

I personally don't think the topic should be changed to something more broad. I support a new rarity tag between VR and OMGSR. I don't support 14 rarity tags. I think it would make trading unnecessarily complicated. To me, they're totally different suggestions, even though they both deal with rarity tags.

[Aliria]

I think "14 rarity tags" only sounds scary because we're used to having only seven. It would make trading a bit confusing for a little while, but I imagine we would get used to it pretty quickly. I think this is a good idea, though it might be good to only add a few rarities at a time to avoid messing with trading too much?

The only other issue I see is naming the new rarities so that people can tell what order they go in. Right now it's pretty easy to figure out that a rare is worth more than an uncommon and a very rare is worth more than a rare, but if we had something like "rare," "extra rare," "very rare," "super rare," it could get more than a bit confusing.

[musicgurl333]

I think "14 rarity tags" only sounds scary because we're used to having only seven. It would make trading a bit confusing for a little while, but I imagine we would get used to it pretty quickly. I think this is a good idea, though it might be good to only add a few rarities at a time to avoid messing with trading too much?

The only other issue I see is naming the new rarities so that people can tell what order they go in. Right now it's pretty easy to figure out that a rare is worth more than an uncommon and a very rare is worth more than a rare, but if we had something like "rare," "extra rare," "very rare," "super rare," it could get more than a bit confusing.

The problem with adding so many new rarities (well, one of them) is that it would really tie down trading. Take two pets that are both common. Assuming they're around the same age, they're considered a fair swap. But now imagine that a bunch of new rarities are added and these two commons end up being different rarities. Now no one is going to want to swap the less common one for the more common one. It's going to make trading a lot harder, more complicated, and less fun.

And yes, it would be sort of the same thing if you added another rarity between VR and OMGSR. But it's already well known that some VR pets are worth a lot more than other VR pets. That's why there's a rares list. Dividing the rarity would make it easier to see which of the VR pets are rarest, which would be good for a couple of reasons. 1, It would make it easier to see which pets are most valuable, which would help keep newer or less experienced traders from getting scammed. And 2. It would help with the creation of a new rares list based only on rarity, which would hopefully help with the inflated demand of some pets.

There are probably more reasons, but those are the two that I think are the big ones.

[ElementalInsanity]

I don't really support this, but I can see where you're coming from...



Right now the rarities are:

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)



While the gap between 1 in 80 and 1 in 1000 is pretty large, I don't think adding an extra rarity between VR and OMGSR is necessary--especially because you'd have to be particularly careful of what it would be called (it might end up being more confusing for newer users).

Additionally, I think the current rarity system is very well-established, and most people are going to trade based on demand anyways, regardless of what the rarity tag says.

Honestly I think you argued just why we need a rarity between VR and OMGSR lol, because of that vast different of 1 in 80 to 1 in 1000.
The others aren’t THAT vast, and don’t but exactly need to be split up more. But an 80 to 1000 difference does.

[lil rascal]

@nickjr

I think this is a fine place to discuss this topic, but maybe the suggestion could be changed to read something more broad, such as "Idea to change rarity system" or something along those lines. This topic has gone off-track enough where it's too different to match the original topic, but it's still close enough to not need a separate thread.

Going off of what you were saying, I would be more on board with this idea if there was a divide between UC/R/VR, instead of just between VR/OMGSR.

Or maybe the whole system could be reworked instead of changed? Maybe we don't need different rarities, and we just need the thresholds of what we define as UC, R, etc. to be changed? I'm a little too lazy to work the statistics on this, but just a thought.

You're welcome to discuss it here but I'm not going to change the tread title & suggestion sorry as I personally don't think the lower rarities should be split for exactly the reasons mentioned by musicgurl333 and ElementalInsanity. The idea of splitting VR into two rarities is that the range of VR is so large, which makes it hard for players to work out which are the more valuable VRs to make a fair trade, no other rarity has quite the same issue.

Currently everyone falls to the rares list to try to work out a fair trade for valuable VRs because the range of VR is so vast but the rares list is a user made list which took a lot of demand into account when made - for instance did you know the Rares list tells us the Red Rose Dog is worth 5 mid-advents but it actually turned VR 2 months after most of the tier 7 advents so rarity wise is worth less than one? The Bumblebee spider is right down on tier 1 of the advents list but turned VR along with the scarf PPS, more than a year before the tier 7 advents? The List says the Light Leopard is worth 2 mid-advents + an '09 rare but it didn't turn VR until 6 months after the tier 7s? The Grown White Scarf Dog & Blue Snowflake Dog were rare for years (finally went VR in '13), long after lots of other non-list VRs turned VR? There are a lot of similar list pets that are a lot higher or lower on the list than their rarity should be simply because that was the demand at the time they were placed on the list. Not to mention that a large amount of pets which turned VR at the same time as list pets are not on the list. Most people don't know about this though and blindly follow the list, even the staff use it to work out if a trade was fair in a dispute, despite the official CS line that the list is simply a user made guide, simply because it is currently the only thing we have to try to differentiate between VRs. The rarity only list being created will deal with some of these issues but it would be nice if people could tell just by looking at the rarity of their pet that this New Rarity is worth more than a Very Rare but less than an OMGSR without even needing to look at a list, after all isn't that meant to be the whole point of having rarities, to tell at a glance which pets are rarer?

Splitting VR into two rarities would help people make informed trading choices based on rarity, if they then wanted to overpay based on demand it would be their choice.

Anyone's welcome to start their own suggestion thread to suggest more rarities but no other rarity has the trading problems that VR has so in my opinion it's VR that needs to be split. Honestly if the range currently is VR is 1 pet per 80 - 1000 users that's such a huge range compared to the other rarities that I could see an argument for it being split into more than just two rarities but I'd be happy with one extra.