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

[Thovatos]

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!

For these reasons, I also agree. Keeping something that's been in place for a long time is just the best choice imo.

[tirocat]

looks like 4 new rarities is winning. gosh that will be hard to adapt to. it's good that there is more flexibility since the UC --> RR --> VR --> OMGSR gap is pretty exponential. but 4 new rarities might make it a little convoluted haha. wish it could be 2-3. either way, i am excited for a new CS era :)

[Splashii]

An Extremely Common pet being more common than a Very Common pet but an Extremely Uncommon pet being more rare than a Very Uncommon pet seems way too confusing, especially to new or young players. I feel like if you have to add more rarities, using new words like “unusual”, “legendary”, “scarce”, “endangered”, “usual”, or “frequent” would work better than tacking on more adjectives.

[Sophyre]

I absolutely love Feather <3‘s whimsical unique names! Sometimes I mix up common and uncommon and I feel I would do even worse with multiple similar names. If the whimsical system would be hard for some to understand could we combine them with the numbering system suggested by odi?

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.

[aphextwins]

i just dont think we need a new common label, but the rest i like… i Think the very common and omgsc are already enough extra and that they should all have 3 each :<

[Squecca]

I’m leaning towards 4 new rarities but I’d feel more confident making a decision if we knew the exact math, numbers, and equations for each option. And where’s the Y axes for the graphs?
A pros and cons list for each option would also be useful.

Oh also, whatever happened to that security update we were supposed to get? :333

[musicgurl333]

I've wanted added rarities for years now, so I'm very happy to see a lot of people agreeing with that option! I've never been good at trading, due to the whole rarity AND time system, so much so that I've avoided trading at all costs. As a returning player from years ago, this is quite exciting.
I've always been against the time system... if a pet is labelled as "common," then in my eyes, it is the same value regardless if it comes from 2010 or 2020. I really hope this could alleviate that issue, or at least help to some degree.

I am also hoping that new rarites will take away some of the power of dates. However, I DO think there's a difference between a '10 and '20 uncommon. The former tends to be harder to find, and is more likely to go rare first. BUT I don't agree that a rare should equal to a single common or below, no matter the difference between years. (I can sometimes see trading a rare for an uncommon, depending on the circumstances.)

[InsidiousFlair]

I feel like 4 additional rarities will make this feel like too much. I'd be down with 2 more to help break up the rares/list situation, but I don't feel like we really need to break up the commons the same way.

[Tybalt]

When the rarities changed before, people had trouble adjusting but it didn't take long before they became standard and easy to understand. I definitely stick with the idea of 4 new rarity settings, there are so many new users and so many new pets that it seems like the only logical way to separate them.

[Lex.]

I’m leaning towards 4 new rarities but I’d feel more confident making a decision if we knew the exact math, numbers, and equations for each option. And where’s the Y axes for the graphs?
A pros and cons list for each option would also be useful.

THIS!
I'd love to know the math. I think 4 new rarities is the most balanced option possible [3 tiers for each main rarity {common, uncommon & rare} and the 2 extremities], but I would still love to know the numbers behind it.
@Tybalt - I agree!