We need your feedback on an update to the rarity system!

[Nexius]

Very exciting to see some of the suggestions taken seriously!

[Thovatos]

I like the idea of adding four new rarities. But why not call one of them scarce?

I've seen these suggested before, and my only thought on the matter is 'how does one define scarce within the defining boundaries we have now?"

Even with all the new labels, every labels as least has 1 thing in common in naming with one or more labels. Doing this, I find it's easier to value each tier with each other given they all use the same verbiage... if this... makes sense. They have a more tangible value with each other or defining words in their names (rare, common, etc) than have completely different prefixes, or no prefixes at all in their names like 'scarce'.
These prefixes include:
-very
-omg
-extremely

[Restful Dead]

I was initially against the idea of adding new categories altogether, but having given it more thought and having read through most people's responses and reasonings here, I can agree that adding new categories for rarer pets would be the most beneficial thing to do, whereas adding more common labels would just be confusing and redundant. I agree that most people don't put that much value into the difference between OMGSC to VC to C, certainly not to the levels they value R, VR, and OMGSR, unless the dates between them are more than 3 years apart.

I also think that adding the single very uncommon as a category to the UC labels is a good idea to help differentiate those slightly less valuable Rares that aren't quite uncommon but aren't quite rare as well. And I think redistributing some UC into the C category would also be beneficial, for those that were concerned upon seeing how this past event produced so many UC, because I can guarantee you a good number of them aren't that valuable. (I have a guess as to why they've been labeled as such, but it would be going off topic)

To go back to the different R categories, I think we only need to add 1 new label in there, probably between VR and OMGSR. My worry about adding too many labels is that it will just add to the disparity between and OMGSR and a R. People will look at an OMGSR, see how many tiers there are between it and a R and think "Oh, well people are going to need to offer at least 100+ rares to be even close in value", and as other people have pointed out, demand is a huge problem on here and this would only make things significantly worse imo.

Someone mentioned adding a poll for how many new rarity labels we would like to see, and I think this is an excellent idea. I think we should also have a poll for which rarities we think need new categories the most. For both, including options for those that would rather not see any changes made to the current rarity system at all would really nice, because when people don't see an option they like, all this leads to is them voting for something they really don't care for or just straight up not voting at all (which is what I did for this current poll). Because, yes, while having a thread for further discussion is good and can help you get a better idea for what people want, having a poll that doesn't include options for all ranges of opinions is kinda like saying their opinions don't matter at all.

[Collardile]

I LOVE the idea of adding 4 new rarities, seems a lot better for spreading the pets out! I’m definitely onboard for adding 4 new rarity labels

[Heavyn]

Omg putting rarities and dates on items would be a God tier move. I’ve traded away so many items that I later found out was worth sooo much

[Roth]

I'd say new labels. We had rarity redistribution in the past, and it apparently didn't solve the problem if we're discussing the topic again now, right?
Speaking further, I'd lean into more new labels, since people already divide pets into "high" and "low" rarities (personally I've mostly seen this happen with rares and uncommons) when trading.

[NocturnalPanda]

While I love the idea of four extra levels for that extra amount of clarity, I feel like 11 rarity levels is a little bit overkill. It might all be shiny and new and exciting to start with, and conceptually a great idea, but I worry that in practice it will overcomplicate the system. Especially as even with the notches on the bars, if a rainbow gradient/colour scheme is stuck to, I don't think the colours will be differentiated enough and the distinctions could become confusing.

I voted for adding 1 new category, and would be up for adding more than one tbh, but 4 seems too much. (I also don't know how it hadn't properly registered with me yet that there was no Very Uncommon category but please I need this added now for my brain )

If more than one new category is added, I don't see the need for 2 of the 3 extra ones to be for UC/R categories - with the redistribution on top of new categories, far more pet types will have a classification of UC+ than C or below. Surely by very nature of being some form of Common, there should be more types of pets in those categories than in the UC+ ones?
For people saying more categories would help the distinction - the modelled redistribution on top of it would just push more pets into those groups and surely we'd be left with the same problem?

I'd rather see a VUC rarity with two more that would fit in below the UC rarity. (As opposed to VUC, 2 that fit above, and 1 that fits below re. the current suggestion.)
Something like 'Abundant' and 'Very Abundant' to go below C/VC (would need to change OMGSC to OMGSA in that case). We could even maybe come up with our own term that relates to CS for that extra rarity level instead of 'Abundant'!
With an *appropriate* redistribution, it should automatically create more differentiation between the 'higher' rarities regardless.

Or on a completely different tack, perhaps as well as VUC, we add two extra levels above and below OMGSR and OMGSC (was going to say just above OMGSR but my brain needed the balance ) - like 'Epic' or 'Legendary' (or even 'Rainbow Smoothie' ) that deviates from the current rainbow scheme and is just a full bar with a rainbow inside it, for the few rarest pets on the site. And if there was one below OMGSC too that had a completely different colour scheme (star at the very bottom of the bar, but maybe a more translucent filling of the rest of the bar, maybe full of leaves like the site wallpaper - could maybe be cracking the bar a little to show it's completely empty kinda thing?) then that would signify the few most common pets on the site, but also would maybe still make them desirable as they would have a completely different styling for their rarity that would look super cool!
(And also wouldn't require adding loads of new colours to the scheme, so all the categories would still be distinct.)

[kamado.]

Omg putting rarities and dates on items would be a God tier move. I’ve traded away so many items that I later found out was worth sooo much

this idea is perfect, just thought i’d chime in my agreement to this!

[sapphipop]

personally, i feel like eleven rarities would only further complicate things and as many people aforementioned, the problem isn't necessarily the rarity tags, but rather the way people value pets which is something that's individual to each player and can't really be swayed as easily as one may think. i already don't trade super often anymore other than c$ trades and such, so i think implementing a wider scale rarity system would make me definitely not want to trade as much if at all. there was already an attempt at adjusting rarities years ago and that didn't seem to do much, so adding more might not even work. and if not, will we be back at the same topic again in a few more years, looking to add even more rarities, which will continue to further complicate things? that's just my opinion at least, i think the current rarity tag system is fine, just people should be a little more laid-back with rarities than they are now.

however, i do completely agree with rarity tags on items! they wouldn't have to be wide-ranged either, just common, uncommon, rare, or something similar. often times you have to scour the archives to find the item's release date and you decide its rarity from there, which isn't even properly a set thing anyways considering the obscurity of item trading. i think that would be a good system, though i still don't agree with how a potential new rarity system for pets would work.

[Thovatos]

While Im sure most of us agree on a rarity between VR and OMGSR, one upside I do see with more tiers in the lower rarities like OMGSC and Very Uncommon, is the fact it's way to measure how and at what rate some pets are moving up in their rarities~ Just something to consider!