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

[piepinkpony]

just for that, i'm going to say the more groups, the better... but i don't know how i like the titles. they make sense so far, don't get me wrong, it's just.. very long. maybe beside their titles could be a number?

OMGSC = 1
EC = 2
VC = 3
and so on...
so the rarity of a common pet would be listed as COMMON | 4 for example.

because i really don't feel like typing out all these acronyms every time i talk about trading. numbers would simplify it to be more palatable.

I really like this idea! Also a nice easy way to visualise.

Also like to add as some with ADHD and dyslexia a symbol for the verys (eg. triangle for both very common and very rare) would be incredibly difficult for me because to me the same symbol means the same (so I'd confuse very common and very rare pets as they would have the same symbol). Symbols are good but I think there needs to be a focus on differentiating between high and low, especially when you can already choose to display the text with the colour for rarity.

(I am about to go to bed sorry for poor grammer)

[Lacuna]

just for that, i'm going to say the more groups, the better... but i don't know how i like the titles. they make sense so far, don't get me wrong, it's just.. very long. maybe beside their titles could be a number?

OMGSC = 1
EC = 2
VC = 3
and so on...
so the rarity of a common pet would be listed as COMMON | 4 for example.

because i really don't feel like typing out all these acronyms every time i talk about trading. numbers would simplify it to be more palatable.

I really like this idea! Also a nice easy way to visualise.

Also like to add as some with ADHD and dyslexia a symbol for the verys (eg. triangle for both very common and very rare) would be incredibly difficult for me because to me the same symbol means the same (so I'd confuse very common and very rare pets as they would have the same symbol). Symbols are good but I think there needs to be a focus on differentiating between high and low, especially when you can already choose to display the text with the colour for rarity.

(I am about to go to bed sorry for poor grammer)

I also quite like having an option where they're just numbered like a number line! If you don't think having different symbols would work for you at all, that's okay too! That's why I'm suggesting that there be more options to toggle through. Each one will have its strengths and weaknesses for different people.

Relinking my big explanation/consolidation post because it got stuck on the bottom of a page: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4889138&start=370#p142705828

[Sardonyx]

i wish keep the same was an option

Agreed because without the option it's kind of forced
But also if new categories must be added I think 4 is too many, 2 would be more palatable
I really dislike the idea of one being called Very Uncommon that's just so long but this is just my personal preference and opinion

Edit: But actually looking back the tag of Extremely is alright somehow- with Very my brain skips over it entirely so I retract the statement of it being too long- It's just not different enough I guess

I'm not following this closely but like Lacuna said toggles would be good too to customize the experience for different groups of people who perceive things differently so it's easier to process and understand
Sort of like how you can just display the name of a rarity or both the name and the tag

Also what ranfren said
If you're really going to do it omg do we need sorting options
Like auto organising pets by rarity for groups or something because a lot of people already do this manually and when pets change they get stuck and hidden in the wrong group

[WishUponACzar]

I think I found my words finally, hopefully it's clear what I mean. In theory, adding +4 rarities would be quite helpful because it's more clear how common or uncommon/rare certain pets really were this whole time, but at the same time there's a chance this doesn't change how people trade too much, considering how demand plays into the economy also. People will still drop tons of technically higher-value pets on a technically slightly lesser-value one just because they really want it, disregarding the displayed rarity (example being the UR bee, which right now is a very rare yet is going for like 3 nons- basically, three nontags, again just as an example, which is an OMGSR pet- THREE of them). Now that's just using big valuable pets as an example, but I've noticed a ton of people also tend to like the designs of older UC and below pets more than recent ones and even though they're not that rare, people still have trouble trading for their fave UC-below pets because of the date issue. I would hope that maybe people will start considering dates less when trading smaller pets like regular current UCs when it's clear they really are worth about the same, but who knows. Only one way to find out, I'm interested in seeing this +4 rarity thing happen. (but my small brain would digest 2 new options better for reason other users who agree already listed, that's not an option tho so 4 it is)

[Kysska]

4 is too many, and the names of them are too confusing.

The poll seems to disagree with my first point but I beg of you to use a different naming convention for the rarities. I'm not going to be able to tell with like 10 similarly named rarities what everything means.

[Lunarsnow]

As far as naming goes, if the +4 rarity tiers gets implemented would "super" be less clunky than "extremely"? Not sure if it would instinctively read as higher than "very" though.

• OMG so common
• Super common
• Very common
• Common
• Uncommon
• Very uncommon
• Super uncommon
• Rare
• Very rare
• Super rare
• OMG so rare

"Incredibly" is another option but it's a bit long too

[boodles]

Haven’t been super active lately but just popping in to vote - I personally would prefer to add just one category and redistribute however- I noticed as I was reading through that there’s a bit of a chance for semantic confusion?

*leaving out some of the scale for simplicity sake
Very Common < Common < Uncommon < Very Uncommon

intuitively, very uncommon would mean “more” uncommon which makes sense with the placing, but my brain went straight to putting them in the opposite order when abbreviated.

VC < C < VU < U

…. Because patterns? I personally would suggest a different name if possible? Like maybe Less Common (LC) and divide the gap between common and Uncommon that way?

VC < C < LC < U

Again, I haven’t been on much to follow rarity changes to see where the biggest gaps are, but just my 2 cents. I would definitely not like 4 more rarities, it’s going to make it way too complicated and way harder for newer users to trade “up” to rarer pets.

Edit to clarify: maybe current summer event pets are uncommon 2023 and a user wants to trade for an Uncommon released in April 2023, this usually is deemed fair by the 3 month rule. After we add 4 categories and shuffle around, maybe that April 2023 pet is now ”Super Uncommon” while the event pet is just Uncommon- what do you have to add to an uncommon to make it fair for a (2 tier higher) Super Uncommon that was previously fair by the 3 month rule? Using rarity math 2 uncommons would equal a very uncommon, and 2 very uncommons would equal a super uncommon? So now 4 2023 summer event uncommons equals one super uncommon from April of 2023? 2 uncommons didn’t usually equal one rare previously, so how many super uncommons do? Like, I think it’s just too wild of a change all at once.

[spideypool]

i'll vote for 4 new rarities if they get the pretty pastel rainbow colors that are shown in the mock-up here (i'm obsessed frankly)

Yes to this

[bigwig.]

I recently came back to the site after a very long hiatus (long enough that I don't even have the email that my old account was created on anymore) which is why I, a relatively new account feel like I can weigh in on this. It seems the problem with the current rarity system is that it's viewed as too confusing for a casual user and makes trading more difficult. Adding more rarities may help in the short term but there will always be pets that sit on the edge of one category and another. That won't fix the long term usability of the system. Adding more categories doesn't make for more clarity. It may seem more organized on the surface but once internal values (such as dogs and cats being more valued than ponies) start coming into play it makes the system even more complicated than before. As a collectible site, it's impossible to do away with rarity entirely and it's also impossible to make every pet of the same category equally valuable. We also need to take into consideration that for lack of better words casual and serious users of this site experience it differently and have different goals when it comes to collecting pets.

I think that in order to make the system more user friendly, more transparency about what gives each pet its rarity is needed. Maybe not a whole breakdown but a general guide.
-snip-

hmm, I have a lot of the same thoughts. basically, the rarity system is never going to be perfect; there will always be pets sitting on the edge of one category and the distribution will never be perfectly balanced, no matter how many new categories you add - those issues are simply inherent to any tiered system like this. also, it isn't going to change demand for certain pets or users' attitudes towards trading in any major way, so many of the issues in the trading system will remain. essentially, I'm just skeptical as to how helpful this is actually going to be in the long run.

I feel like a lot of people are really into the idea because of the novelty of it, but once the novelty wears off, the cracks will start to show again. But, it looks like i'm in the minority there and a lot of people are very happy to see a change, so maybe I'm just a washed-up old coot. It's good that staff are consulting the community and looking for user feedback as I think many people have been giving some good insights on this thread.

I know that we are never going to get exact numbers for how many of a given pet are in circulation (and I understand that, I can see how much of a massive issue that would create), so my proposal would be this: do away with the current system (4 new rarities is going to confound things anyway) and switch to the 5-star system. no labels. then you not only have something that is inherently easy to understand for new users and casual users, but also room to divide up additional rarities without needing to worry about what they're called. plus, the bar scale we have now is going to get less user-friendly the more rarities you add. imo a 5-star system with whole and half stars would just be better visually even if you keep the labelling system.

the numbers behind the scenes aren't going to change, it's just a matter of how the site conveys the rarity of pets to players, which is a more complex issue than one might assume.

[Pizzamuffin]

just for that, i'm going to say the more groups, the better... but i don't know how i like the titles. they make sense so far, don't get me wrong, it's just.. very long. maybe beside their titles could be a number?

OMGSC = 1
EC = 2
VC = 3
and so on...
so the rarity of a common pet would be listed as COMMON | 4 for example.

because i really don't feel like typing out all these acronyms every time i talk about trading. numbers would simplify it to be more palatable.

I really like this idea! Also a nice easy way to visualise.

Also like to add as some with ADHD and dyslexia a symbol for the verys (eg. triangle for both very common and very rare) would be incredibly difficult for me because to me the same symbol means the same (so I'd confuse very common and very rare pets as they would have the same symbol). Symbols are good but I think there needs to be a focus on differentiating between high and low, especially when you can already choose to display the text with the colour for rarity.

(I am about to go to bed sorry for poor grammer)

I also quite like having an option where they're just numbered like a number line! If you don't think having different symbols would work for you at all, that's okay too! That's why I'm suggesting that there be more options to toggle through. Each one will have its strengths and weaknesses for different people.

Relinking my big explanation/consolidation post because it got stuck on the bottom of a page: Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4889138&start=370#p142705828

I really like the number idea! The words can get a bit confusing when there is so many categories, but the numbers would make it easier to intemperate. If a number system is incorporated and the 4 new categories are added, I feel like the categories should be 1-10 instead of 1-11, since 10 is just a more even number and having 1-11 seems kinda odd, idk.