Update Rarity Scale

[EmberzTale]

I recently seen a suggestion about how there should be more rarity tags; this is somewhat similar.

I think there should be more rarity tags for rare pets as rare pets are what runs the community. As for common pets, they are almost always in adoption centers and very easy to get. It doesn't matter if the pet is omg so common, very common, or common; they are just that, common.

I propose that we should update the rarity system to merge together omg so common, very common, and common into one rarity called "common". I think things would seem a lot more balanced as the difference between all the common pets isn't that significant and usually looked over.

I think along with this, the rare, very rare, and omg so rare should have some more rarities to split them apart. By that I mean the rarities like this:

Common - Omg so common, very common, & common pets
Uncommon - Uncommon pets
Rare - Rare pets
Super Rare - Rarity between rare & very rare for the pets on borderline
Very Rare - Very rare pets
Omg So Rare - Omg so rare pets
Legendary Rare - Pets that are rarer than omg so rare

I believe that with more pets getting added and pets becoming more rare, these extra rare tags are needed and the commons need to get merged together. As it is, there aren't very many omg so common and very common pets anyways and there's almost always treated the same as any ol' common.

Let me know what you think

[KrillTakoyaki]

It has potential! 'Super Rare' sounds like it would be of a higher rarity than "Very Rare' though

[Scaled and Icy]

It does make sense. But it would make some pets even more harder to get and it would probably encourage people asking for even more for them like what's already happening.

[marmoris]

I see what you are getting at, but I don't agree with merging common rarities. I think adding one new rarity, between VR and OMGSR, would be much more fitting.(And I believe it has been suggested in the past?)
If you merged all common rarities just because valued pets are a bigger part of trading it'd be unfair to collectors or those who prefer to stay on the lower valued end of trading. I say this as more of a rare+ collector myself; I don't enjoy trading less valuable stuff near as much as higher valued stuff but skewing the site just for trading alone is crappy. Not everyone even likes to trade to begin with. The current common rarity system is simple and works; if you erased the differing rarities you'd have to go by dates alone which can be a little complicated..

[axelandria]

I see what you are getting at, but I don't agree with merging common rarities. I think adding one new rarity, between VR and OMGSR, would be much more fitting.(And I believe it has been suggested in the past?)
If you merged all common rarities just because valued pets are a bigger part of trading it'd be unfair to collectors or those who prefer to stay on the lower valued end of trading. I say this as more of a rare+ collector myself; I don't enjoy trading less valuable stuff near as much as higher valued stuff but skewing the site just for trading alone is crappy. Not everyone even likes to trade to begin with. The current common rarity system is simple and works; if you erased the differing rarities you'd have to go by dates alone which can be a little complicated..

no support for this reason!

[NocturnalPanda]

I agree with above - I'd support adding another rarity bracket or two, but I don't think we should be combining lower rarities.

[☠puppy gutz!☠]

getting rid of 2 rarities and messing the trade economy up more by adding even higher rarities seems like a pretty bad idea, especially when people already expect overpay for higher demand VR-OMGSR pets. one bracket between R and VR might be nice since the value of plain old rares can differ a LOT but i feel like adding more is too much

[The Last Raven]

I agree with adding higher rarity bracket (but only like one more between very rare and rare because too many is overkill) but not with combining everything common and below. That’s how it used to be and it didn’t work so they were split for that reason. They aren’t all just “common”. There are significantly more OMGScommons than commons so why raise their value just because there are many of a pet. I’m not going to trade a common pet for an OMGScommon because that would be unfair based on how many pets there are out there. To me it almost sounds like the belief that all commons and below are trash pets and should just be traded for whatever and lumped together because they don’t matter.

Something I just thought of that does not make sense in your thought process is why you believe certain pets should be separated more and others should be just lumped together. With that thought then rares don’t need to have a better separation because wide ranges are ok right? Because a wide range of “commons” is fine according to this suggestion.

[ElementalInsanity]

No support for reasons above that other users have said.
It doesn’t make sense to put together lower rarities and then add more at the top. I would be for having more rarities in between rare and very rare and omgsr, and there’s a suggestion for that which I’ve followed and bumped a lot because I would be interested in that.

The lower rarities did use to be combined, and they were separated for a reason.

Also you say that the free adoptions always have a lot of all of the common pets, it’s always been that way. Because they’re common, very common, and omg so common. Ever since the beginning of this site any of the lower rarities have been in free adoptions because there’s more of them.

[Cygnetta]

Support, in general.
I personally think the tags should be skewed; when a VC is closer to an UC than VRs are to each other you know you've got a problem.
A system like:
EC extreme common- 1/2 users
SC super common- 1/5 users
VC very common- 1/10 users
C common- 1/25 users
UC uncommon- 1/50 users
R rare- 1/100 users
VR very rare- 1/250 users
SR super rare- 1/500 users
ER extreme rare- 1/1000 users
It would change the definition of common, but right now the lower rarities just aren't hard enough to get to make a big deal out of differentiating them.