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

[Lacuna]

I would like to know why my post was deleted? I was on topic and did not receive a notice of why? Does my opinion not matter or are you filtering our suggestions and opinions?


Sam

Your post was likely not deleted, there is just a quirk where posts that are on Global Announcement topics can't be searched, unfortunately. That's why when I made a wrapup post I included links to other posts and put it in the first post because otherwise you wouldn't be able to find it.

[ButterflyChaser]

I thought I commented on this. I don't see why not have 4 extra categories. It may make it easier for me to match rarities in trading. It may be confusing though at first.

I see numbers mentioned as a value system. This was a thought I had too. Maybe that would make things easier?

[peachy!]

I think the current rarity system is fine, especially with rare+ and list pets, which are already confusing enough to trade for. I don't see why this would be needed. /nm

[onion]

as much as i love the feel of the whimsical terms i also feel like theyd be harder for non english folks to understand. i already have to jump thru hoops on google translate with simple words sometimes, so finding an accurate definition might be hard! :0

[LittleMaple]

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 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!

this whole post is just... perfect!! the whimsical names sound a lot better and i think could be especially palatable for newere players who dont want to risk missing out or losing something big and important (basically those with fomo)

the whimsical unique sound... just a little silly if im honest! im sure we as a community can figure out unique labels based on the whimsical names BUT i can understand how they would be helpful.

i also want to just say (and forgive me if this is off topic) that the creation of this thread was because of users wanting a change and pushing for one and that is amazing to me. when i saw the updated home page my first thought was "theyre listening. i cant believe theyre listening!!!!!!!!" and i leaped to the suggestion forum!!! im so proud that the community is finally having an impact after all we have put out there!!! thank you to the staff for hearing us out (especially Lacuna <3) and providing feedback. this means a lot to me, and im sure other users!!!

[Lex.]

I think the current rarity system is fine, especially with rare+ and list pets, which are already confusing enough to trade for. I don't see why this would be needed. /nm

Nothing would change, really. The only thing different after the fact would be that pets will be represented more accurately when trading. There may be more terms to memorize and get used to, but it's technically just an "oversimplification" of the rarity system which helps a lot because of the outrageous demand for some pets. It helps clear up some misconceptions, because some VR pets might actually be more widespread and common than some may try to make it out to be. [/nbh!]
For example, some regular rare [just regular rares] pets have list value. Even after the discontinuation of the list and the addition of horrors list, I still see no reason for these rares to be worth more than they actually are. It would help keep people from trying to upsell their pets while also keeping rarity accurate and less vague/broad. Rarities will shift, but the number of pets actively in the game will not change.
This update is probably the best way to start making changes on CS, to give people time to adjust before anything more "drastic" can be added.

@onion
I agree! The whimsical terms would make things even MORE difficult than others are trying to suggest. Everything as is [and everything already named in the first post] are fine, as there is already a pre-existing structure. There is no reason to remove from that, as this rarity update is really meant to add [& to clarify, rather than to take away and convolute]. And I agree, it could make things too complex for non-native speakers. I learned spanish [native] and english in tandem, and from a non english perspective I feel like the consistency of the current names is the most ideal. There is no way to gauge where a pet is in a more thorough manner with the whimsical names.
OMGSC v Common/ UC v Very Rare is much easier to distinguish on a sight level than "pervasive v ordinary" or "scarce v elusive".

[kiyoomi]

I wish there would have been an option to vote for adding just 2 new rarities- extremely rare and either very/extremely uncommon. With the large value disparity between different uncommon and very rare pets I think the addition of one extra categorization for these rarities is beneficial.

However I don’t necessarily see the benefit in adding two new rarities pertaining to uncommon pets, as well as an extremely common tier. From my perspective that seems a little too excessive and might cause more confusion or frustration than benefit.

Having to choose between voting none, one, and then four new options doesn’t really allow for an option of something in the middle- which might be more pleasing to people.

[kivr & fireflii]

As far as naturally flowing words/phrases go for increments, "super" and "super duper" come to mind.

OMG so common
Super duper common
Super common
Common
Uncommon
Super Uncommon
Super duper uncommon
Rare
Super rare
Super duper rare
OMG so rare

To me, that's more clear than trying to think of essentially other synonyms for rare. Like elusive? Prevalent? Legendary? Mega? Ulta? Without context, put together, it's impossible to know what the natural order is. So while cute and unique, I think it would make things more confusing. But I think it's easier to see if something is "super" X, then the "super duper" is like extra emphasis.
-fireflii

[Lunarsnow]

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.

Yeah unfortunately with the existing word choice of very, it's hard to think of other words that are more immediately quantifiable as greater without being long adverbs like incredibly, extremely, immensely, etc. Very is very (ha) generic and technically all these words are synonyms of each other so what might seem higher to some is less to others. Personally I see super rare as more rare than very rare but I figured others might not which is why I mentioned it in the post

Let's see what else is there that's shorter... Mega? Mega Common/Uncommon/Rare?

[da,]

I absolutely adore the whimsical name idea but i think for two reasons it shouldnt be implemented. First being a lot of other pet sites, namely eldemore, already use things like “legendary” or “ultra rare” etc, some may see it as copying and such. I feel like staff would want to avoid that situation.

Second reason being the rarity system has been the same since ~2008, so changing it after 15 years would cause a lot of confusion to returning players and existing players that are used to the current labels. Adding 4 new ones instead of completely revamping would avoid a lot of issues and confusion and would make the process of adding new rarities a lot easier that changing everything!