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

[Falco]

looks like the new rarities is winning by a lot.
would the new rarities mean there would be an updated rarity haul too? :eyes:

[Meoauniaea]

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

I actually like this far more than "extremely". Sure, it's going to lead to some interesting abbreviations, like SUC for Super Uncommon, but I think the community can get over the laughs for the sake of the simplified names.

[da,]

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

I actually like this far more than "extremely". Sure, it's going to lead to some interesting abbreviations, like SUC for Super Uncommon, but I think the community can get over the laughs for the sake of the simplified names.

I like this as well! Alot shorter and nicer to read c:

[Thovatos]

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.

I can understand this; yes pets will always be on the line between one rarity or another. But I don't think this is novelty. Between really popular pets where demand is pretty much the same in the VR category, the sheer range of rarity of things in the VR category is quite large. There's a very real reason why a VR 'low list' is no where near in 'value' to a 'high list' VR pet, and that is because the gap is just too vague and huge in information we currently know about these pets. Even if these pets will sometimes sit on the line for their categories, having some levels in between to even out this gap without the need for guessing based on when something turned VR like 8 years ago I'm sure will be appreciated by many.

[Lacuna]

Super is one of the terms I rejected because If you say "this pet is super rare" versus "this pet is very rare" it is hard to gauge which one might be worth more, whereas "incredibly" is pretty firmly more than "very" in isolation.

[Feather <3]

I'm intrigued by this proposal to add 4 categories - I'm generally just excited for change, but agree with both sides on the benefits and potential drawbacks. Whatever we end up with, I'll look forward to seeing it and trying it out!

All the points I can think of about tradeoffs on # of categories have already been made in this thread. My only suggestion is around the label names we pick.

Reasoning: The biggest argument in favor of more labels seems to be more transparency / easier to trade and know values without needing to do tons of research, etc. The biggest argument in favor of fewer labels seems to be the added stress and over-complication as people try to increase, not decrease their rarity math equations to accommodate all these new tiers.

I believe language can make a huge difference in the emotions and the stress level you feel about something. Nobody wants to feel like there is a chance they're making an objectively wrong decision when making a trade.

If a rating system both (1) gives you enough distinction to make you feel like there is an objectively right/wrong decision, and (2) gives you not enough distinction to make you feel like it's possible to know right from wrong, you get ballooning stress, more uptight traders, lots of people refusing to trade at all. I think most people agree this is happening on CS now.

Perfect information isn't a solution. There is no solution, really. So if we are changing towards a more granular rating system, I advocate for balancing that with a change to make the language we use to describe rarities a little less absolute, and a little less suggestive of an objective value judgement.

Fun labels can help reduce the feeling that you're making a terrible decision, and reduce the feeling that there is a value judgement on the pet - even while giving you equally clear information (esp. with a numbering system or a notched bar/colors) about relative quantities on the site.

An example (still searching for the best words, if anyone has suggestions):

Proposed naming-------------Whimsical naming-----------------------Whimsical unique*
*with unique starting letters for all one-word labels

OMG So Common ------------ Universal -------------------------------- Pervasive
Extremely Common ---------- Abundant -------------------------------- Abundant
Very Common --------------- Very Common ---------------------------- Ordinary
Common -------------------- Common --------------------------------- Common
Uncommon ------------------ Uncommon ------------------------------ Uncommon
Very Uncommon --------------- Scarce ----------------------------------- Scarce
Extremely Uncommon ---------- Elusive ----------------------------------- Elusive
Rare -------------------------- Rare ------------------------------------ Rare
Very Rare -------------------- Very Rare -------------------------------- Fabled
Extremely Rare --------------- Legendary ------------------------------- Legendary
OMG So Rare ---------------- Mythical --------------------------------- Mythical

My heart rate goes up a little looking at the column with all permutations of Very/Extremely/OMG Common/Uncommon/Rare and imagining managing trading that fairly. Some of those labels imply a pet is bad, others imply a pet is unattainable.
Looking at the second column makes me feel more like this is all for the sake of fun, art, & community - it's cool to have a Universal pet, not as immediately stressful thinking how many OMGSC you need to trade away to convince someone to part with the next tier up.

We preserve information for those who want to know, and you can generally sanity-check which labels imply a there are more or fewer instances of a pet on a site (ie., let's not pick random words that don't imply anything about scarcity).

At the same time, I'd feel a lot less stressed out trading a "Scarce" pet for an "Uncommon", or a "Rare" for a "Fabled" because even though you know that they are not equivalent, there isn't so much value judgement built into the names of what you're giving vs. what you're receiving in a trade. After all, a Rare could be closer to a Elusive than it is to another Rare! It's all on a spectrum, so using precise words to describe an imprecise science just makes people more stressed.

People are slightly more encouraged to choose the trading style/strictness that works well for them, without staring at a "Very Uncommon" <-> "Extremely Uncommon" trade as something that seems so objectively wrong.

I really believe making the rarity scale slightly more whimsical, slightly less regimented is a step in the right direction when it comes to reducing rather than increasing the stress people feel around trading these days... without reducing the amount of hard info we're making available to players.

Please let me know what you think!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the meantime, pulling a few quotes to reference from previous responses that I think might be relevant:

i think this is dumb, if it's very uncommon then why even call it uncommon in the first place, just turn it into a common? i don't think there would be any benefits to adding a new rarity called "very uncommon" because it'll just change trading as it is and make things worse and then new people would have to come up with how to even try to value them because they're not at the same tier as uncommon but moreso valued as commons..

I shared my thoughts before, I really implore us to consider a point mentioned earlier:

What makes a very uncommon more special than a common?

Perhaps the fact that very/extremely on commons and uncommons are flipped, this could add confusion that "very uncommon" is something that is less scarce than an uncommon, etc.

if we only add very uncommon, could it be renamed to unusual? very uncommon doesnt roll off the tongue very well

Mmm.. The main question thats been forming at my head is why are we jumping from "one additional label" to "four additional labels"? Having a total of eleven rarity labels kind of makes it feel overwhelming to look at, even as an old player. I feel like the addition of Very uncommon + Extremely uncommon seems unnecessary, unless someone could explain the need for those two extra labels; is the gap between uncommon + rare really that large, even with all the events giving new/old players access to higher rarities?

I really do like the idea of Option 3, but its a little difficult to grasp. A lot of the confusion with the 4 new categories, for me at least, stems from the wording and crowding on the lower end of the spectrum.

With the 4 new additions, there would be 4 rarities all ending in "common", and 3 ending in "uncommon" - which all look very, very similar. Even looking at the abbreviations in the graph at a glance is confusing. I am all for updating the rarity system, however I think it would need a bit of a deeper look with words that are more unique and easily separated from each other.

While I like the idea of adding new rarities, and I think it should be implemented one way or another (I personally would prefer adding a single rarity, but I see that a lot of people would love adding multiple rarities and I’m not much of a trader anyway), I think the name “very uncommon” is too clunky and doesn’t sound natural. I don’t have any other name suggestions, and after all “very uncommon” does follow the pattern of “very common” and “very rare” but I’ve never heard anyone use “very” as an intensifier to “uncommon”.

Uncommon, very uncommon and extremely uncommon, after that going to rare, doesn't seem right. If something is extremely uncommon, it is rare. I realise/am guessing this V-UC is because there is something needed to redistribute the biggest middle categories, but I feel spreading the pets out to have more 'extremes' to the left, would help as much as adding an extra category. Let VC be part of the new middle, so Uncommon can actually stay uncommon-ish.

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

Personally I still don't think the distinction between OMGSC and Extremely Common and Very Common is needed, and I wouldn't mind if the site decided to get rid of at least one of them, especially OMGSC. OMGSC just feels like the site is telling you, "ha ha this is the most worthless pet ever", you know? Lol

^ I think renaming to more whimsical names could help address the concern that some pets will seem devalued when they fall to the more common end of the spectrum. There have been a lot of calls to only add distinguishing categories to the rare side of the track, with the logical response that:

For people who see a need for more "rare" labels without adding "common" ones, the extra common label is more to provide balance and symmetry and keep the "middle" a real middle. If there were fewer common labels, the "uncommon" pets would really just be common with a different name. Adding all 4 new rarities makes everything balanced since each rarity has 3 levels plus the OMG extremes on the outside.

I think the reason people feel there is a difference and don't like the idea of more common labels is because the names inevitably pass a value judgement on the pet. The "uncommon" being a "common" by a different name actually matters a lot to how people view their pets, and view the stress of trading them - IMO!

four new rarities sounds nice in theory in some ways, but i feel like it'd get a bit hard to keep track of? kinda like a title that's too long. it just doesn't easily come to mind.

that being said, it would be very helpful in more accurately depicting rarities for pets that are near the borders of their rarity group. looking at the recent event pets, i honestly couldn't believe how many UCs there were. it seemed like i was trying so hard to get some of those, and people were asking for them constantly, and yet somehow a bunch of them ended up in the same exact rarity group.

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.

[boogster]

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

I'm ultimately not a super active trader because everyone seems to have their own rules/systems for trades and I just haven't put in the effort to learn them all. I think the more new categories we add the more confusing trading systems will get, so I would like it better if we could spend more time exploring options that only add I or 2 new categories. However, I also think it could make things more interesting for those of us who are more casual traders. and make it easier to get some pets. (I'm more likely trade a rare for a couple super uncommon pets vs just "uncommon" pets).

If we add new categories, for me the more important question is what are the names of the new categories and how they will help users quickly get a surface level understanding of a pet's value. I don't love the phrase "Extremely" because to me it doesn't seem that different from "very". Overall, I think "very" is a pretty bad descriptive word to use, but I understand that we'll probably have to keep it since it's used in the current categories. I agree with the above user's suggestion to use the word "super" instead. To me it is more clear where it fits in with the other categories and doesn't seem to similar to "very". I think "incredibly" is better than "extremely" if super is too confusing for most people. I guess when it comes down to it I would replace the word "very" all together if I could.

As a result, I'm open to using a different rarity system all together especially if we move forward with added four more categories. However, I think it would be helpful to have both numbers and words instead of just numbers like some people are suggesting.

If possible it would be helpful if there could be some more transparency as to what qualifies pets into each categories. For instance, how much more common are rare pets than very rare pets. Or uncommon from common? The more clarity the less need for need categories in my opinion. Maybe there is a helpful guide out there that I just haven't seen, but even just looking at the simple bar charts on the 1st page was insightful for me lol.

(Also definitely add the notches to the rarity bars!)

[tiredddd]

Proposed naming-------------Whimsical naming-----------------------Whimsical unique*
*with unique starting letters for all one-word labels

OMG So Common ------------ Universal -------------------------------- Pervasive
Extremely Common ---------- Abundant -------------------------------- Abundant
Very Common --------------- Very Common ---------------------------- Ordinary
Common -------------------- Common --------------------------------- Common
Uncommon ------------------ Uncommon ------------------------------ Uncommon
Very Uncommon --------------- Scarce ----------------------------------- Scarce
Extremely Uncommon ---------- Elusive ----------------------------------- Elusive
Rare -------------------------- Rare ------------------------------------ Rare
Very Rare -------------------- Very Rare -------------------------------- Fabled
Extremely Rare --------------- Legendary ------------------------------- Legendary
OMG So Rare ---------------- Mythical --------------------------------- Mythical

-snip-

I really like the whimsical names you came up with!! I definitely supports those names!

[Lacuna]

@Feather <3 - I totally understand where you're coming from and appreciate the work you've put into your post, but I really am not sure that the whimsical naming would be user-friendly, especially when viewed in isolation (someone just saying "elusive pet for auction" doesn't really tell you much). Personally, I think there is a lot of value in the 11 names only having 3 base categories for better understanding.

With your list adding the 4 new categories and completely renaming everything, I think the upheaval and change would just be too significant. Users would have nothing to go on except the colors being similar (since those are also changing to accommodate more). I'm not sure those you quoted would like the change to whimsical labels more than just keeping the current naming structure, though of course, they are all welcome to chime in. Remember that most of the time you're not going to see them all lined up, but randomly scattered around groups.

Whimsical or not, the names are a reflection of the relative value of a pet compared to others, and I don't think that that's a bad thing. It's what the rarity system is for. If people want to trade solely based on pet design or similar, they are already welcome to do so.

As for the discussion about super vs. incredibly vs. extremely, maybe it is my bias as a native English speaker or something but super just does not differentiate for me.

[Froggieee]

Proposed naming-------------Whimsical naming-----------------------Whimsical unique*
*with unique starting letters for all one-word labels

OMG So Common ------------ Universal -------------------------------- Pervasive
Extremely Common ---------- Abundant -------------------------------- Abundant
Very Common --------------- Very Common ---------------------------- Ordinary
Common -------------------- Common --------------------------------- Common
Uncommon ------------------ Uncommon ------------------------------ Uncommon
Very Uncommon --------------- Scarce ----------------------------------- Scarce
Extremely Uncommon ---------- Elusive ----------------------------------- Elusive
Rare -------------------------- Rare ------------------------------------ Rare
Very Rare -------------------- Very Rare -------------------------------- Fabled
Extremely Rare --------------- Legendary ------------------------------- Legendary
OMG So Rare ---------------- Mythical --------------------------------- Mythical

-snip-

I really like the whimsical names you came up with!! I definitely supports those names!

Ooo I love these!