Keep in mind this is a vast oversimplification lol. I'm not huge on trading or the CS economy myself, so there's definitely more nuance, disparity per year, big gaps in amount of pet, etc.
Also I wanted an excuse to draw some little guys.
![Image](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/859683207196442645/1141537155978641499/canvas_1.png)
UnfathomableDreams wrote:In my opinion, the ideal way to "fix" CS trading is the following:
-More rarities!
-Shift to calculating rarities based on population of a species directly, not translated into a secondary vs users formula. Have an official, easily accessible explanation on how the formula works. There's no reason to extrapolate / obscure it, just don't relate the number to user count.
-Re-calculate rarities quarterly. Ideally, this would be done on "off" months, and would only count users who have been active within the quarter. Honestly, I would almost say monthly, but I realize this would be a huge resource strain, especially as the site continues to grow. Once a year is just not often enough, especially for species that waffle in and out of favor or who have users with large hoards of the same species that go inactive frequently. Another benefit to this is that it can give players more incentive to trade. Part of the reason that trading is so hard right now, specifically for older pets, is that people are not willing to let even pets they don't like that much go if they're rare because they want that rarity to grow. Making it so that rarities are slightly more flexible, adding a slight pressure to trade off pets you might not really want to keep because rarities fluctuate would actually put really good pressure on the trading "economy," in my opinion. Keeping pets you don't want just in the hopes they'll be rare someday could be disincentivized by that rarity being slightly more fluid more often.
Arlecchino ♡ wrote:Adding more rarities is likely to cause people (myself included) to quit, as someone who is autistic, it's already had to keep track of the ones that exist.
Gionori wrote:I've seen some people be confused about the graph distribution, so this is about how I understand it:
Keep in mind this is a vast oversimplification lol. I'm not huge on trading or the CS economy myself, so there's definitely more nuance, disparity per year, big gaps in amount of pet, etc.
Also I wanted an excuse to draw some little guys.
Gionori wrote:I've seen some people be confused about the graph distribution, so this is about how I understand it:
Keep in mind this is a vast oversimplification lol. I'm not huge on trading or the CS economy myself, so there's definitely more nuance, disparity per year, big gaps in amount of pet, etc.
Also I wanted an excuse to draw some little guys.
conarcoin wrote:Arlecchino ♡ wrote:Adding more rarities is likely to cause people (myself included) to quit, as someone who is autistic, it's already had to keep track of the ones that exist.
I disagree as an autistic person myself. I'm actually more confused by how vague and unhelpful the current categories are.
SunnyJustice wrote:For an alternative to the ticks, what about stars that fill up depending on the rarity?
OMG so common - 0 stars
Extremely common - 1/2
Very common - 1
Common - 1 1/2
Uncommon - 2
Very uncommon - 2 1/2
Extremely uncommon - 3
Rare - 3 1/2
Very rare - 4
Extremely rare - 4 1/2
OMG so rare - the full 5 stars!
Forgive me for my lack of artistic skill, but here's a very rough mockup!
Lex. wrote:Zeroness wrote:Pyromaniacal wrote:I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)
This looks very good, but I use the CSDark board theme and there are two problems:
- the black names are very hard to read,
- the half-stars in "common" and "very common" rarities are also rather hard to see, even with other, lighter themes.
So I tried to edit it and the edited version looks like this:
OO, this is great! I also use CS dark mode and noticed these things. Your edited version is definitely easier to see!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest