ZΕL wrote:nickjr wrote:✿ Sasha ✿ wrote:The adult tiger store pets were VR on release though. Does this mean the whole rarity spectrum got adjusted? Because if they were VR to begin with inactive acounts can't be the answer.
Could also be that a lot of accounts that were active when the tiger store pets were released but did not have them are now inactive
Ick, that's a mouthful. Description of the accounts I'm talking about:
> active when tiger store pets were released
> inactive now
> no tiger store petsThat was my best guess as well; that there were just a lot of non-tiger owners among the last bunch of accounts to be marked inactive, so the average tiger per user ratio is higher now?
But it seems like a really unlikely scenario especially after the 18th... but it's not like I have a better idea aha.
I think if adjustments had been made to the rarity calculations, we'd be seeing a lot more changes.
Literally all the other changes make sense to me or were even expected, the tigers are the only thing that puzzled me.
Maybe they were on the edge all along? The other two tigers were already rare, so I wouldn't find it too surprising, but then again I don't really know whether there are really that many people buying the pets separately as opposed to buying the entire set. But I would think that the majority of store pets are bought as sets by the users who are paying the real money?
Edit: The tigers were available in December 2016. I could definitely see a lot of dishonest new "users" and honest but disappointed new users going inactive/quitting after December... If these tigers were really on the edge all along, then that push may have been big enough to have them cross the line into Rare territory
Also I'm pretty sure the inactivity line is at 12ish months. One sec and I'll find a post
Edit: viewtopic.php?p=76235466#p76235466