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

[Schuyler]

I'm a bit bummed (but totally understand) that more people aren't in favor of using more lighthearted rarity descriptors to help lighten the mood of the game/trading to help address trading stress (ie., Forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4833465).

That said, if we're going for simplicity above all else, I want to +1 to the various opinions mentioned that super/very/extremely is quite confusing for a few reasons:

1. People can't fully agree on how much strength adjectives like super or very or extremely add to a word
2. It's confusing that the flipping of "very/super" etc. happens at the common/uncommon breakpoint
3. "OMG" as a descriptor is a bit uncomfortable

For the same reasons people are saying no to whimsical names, perhaps we should also say no to tons of adjectives?
What about a naming system like:

Very Common
Common --
Common
Common ++
Uncommon --
Uncommon
Uncommon ++
Rare --
Rare
Rare ++
Very Rare

Perhaps this would help reduce confusion even further, accomplishing a bunch of goals at once:

1. Making it crystal clear at a glance that there are three base "categories" for describing rarity.

2. More friendly to ESL speakers.

3. For everyone, at a glance makes adding more rarities look like a simplification of the old system, not a complication, because fewer words and categories are involved.

4. For the casual user who isn't reading the explanations on the forums, reduce the worry that their pets on the surface look like they're losing value with a big site change (a common point of stress even in the comments on this thread).

5. No misunderstanding about what "very" or "extremely" means. Nobody feeling like "extremely" is such an intense descriptor that the gap between "extremely uncommon" and "very uncommon" must be a big deal, while others don't think so... overall increasing the worry and scrutiny surrounding trades and the fear/confusion of unfairness. Uncommon vs. Uncommon ++ seems quite objective and not loaded with individual interpretation.

6. A nice plus is that it makes "Uncommon" the dead center of the rarity scale, not "Very Uncommon".


Thoughts?

I have mixed feelings about a system like this. I agree that it's straightforward and I wouldn't say no to implementing it, but at the same time I see some issues:

1. I already mentioned this in my previous post, but putting the common labels in the same order as uncommon and rare with the same intensifiers simply doesn't make sense. "Common ++" would logically be understood as more common than "common", and "common --" as less, especially as people would be seeing these all mixed together in groups/trades and not neatly lined up like this to visualize the symmetry.

2. "++" and "--" would be quite difficult to distinguish in the small font of the rarity labels even for those with perfect vision. If we were to go with something like this, I would favor using numbers instead, but then that would still raise the issue of point #1^.

3. I have to disagree about your 5th point. The perceived distance between the rarities levels is going to be very subjective regardless of what they're called. Unless the exact rarity thresholds were revealed (I can't speak for or against that point as I would have no part in that decision), different people would still have very different interpretations of how much rarer an "uncommon ++" is from a regular uncommon. Just like it is now, some would perceive the gap as significant while others wouldn't. Adjectives are far from objective in their intensity, but in this context so are pluses and minuses, numbers, or alternative symbols. I don't understand how this would lead to more agreement and/or less stress in that regard.

- Using a naming scheme that makes it appear that there's an equal distance between each level wouldn't change that the actual thresholds are very unlikely to be set at equal intervals. (Disclaimer: I have no involvement in that or access to the numbers. I just feel that that's a safe assumption given how incredibly high the quantity of the most common pets must be compared to the rarest.)

4. I also strongly dislike this scheme for aesthetic reasons, but that could just be me and alone isn't a reason to veto it.


I personally wouldn't be opposed to changing the "OMG" wording to something else for religious consideration, though. I'd like to emphasize that this is entirely just me quickly brainstorming as a user and not a staff representative, but maybe "WOW so common/rare" could be suitable as a replacement without having to completely scrap the familiar names?

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.

As an autistic person myself, I empathize with this. For me, though, I feel the opposite way. The fewer and less precise the rarity labels, the more uncertain I feel about trading because it means more significant variation in quantity between pets within the same category with generally no reliable way to distinguish them besides guessing that older corresponds to scarcer.

[Fellefan]

I really like Panne's edit of my original rarity stars mockup, so I sat down and made a version with the colors proposed by Fellefan! I wasn't liking how the "shiny" bar was looking (it just looked a lot like the SR bar tbh), but thought the rainbow OMGSR was cute and hopefully not too similar to the custom bar...? Who knows.

Light mode ------ Dark mode

I do like the "super duper" name for the new "extremely/super/ultra" tiers, it's rather whimsical in line with tiers like "OMGSC/R". I am in the camp that we should preserve as many existing rarity names as possible - assuming that 4 rarities will be added by the looks of the poll, that's a big enough change already that I would imagine keeping at least some tier names will make the adjustment easier for most people.

eyy I was gonna do this myself later but you saved me the trouble haha! this looks absolutely amazing imo, I really hope we go with this star bar.
the OMGSC becomes greyscale just by being empty which is perfect, but I do think we have to do something different for OMGSR though as it does look too similar to customs. I still think making it shiny is a better option (not the way I did it originally, I'm not good at effects so it was just a quick example) but something like I proposed here with a more pastel diamond look. just simplify/cartoonize it a bit and maybe add some more colour to it and I do think it'll look fantastic!


I wasn't a fan of "super + super duper" at first but I'm honestly warming up to that idea. even though I never was and still am not a fan of the OMG tiers, I can't deny it does fit very well with the theme and feels very child friendly.

[SupernaturalJem]

If the "OMG" categories are going to be renamed, I think "Legendary" would work well for the "OMG so rare" one. I don't think that would be too confusing. I think it would fit. It was the one whimsical name I liked a lot lol. It really jumped out at me. Disney Speedstorm uses that word for very rare items in their game, so it's not unheard of, I guess.

I don't know about the "OMG so common" tag. Maybe it could just be called "Most Common"? I know that's pretty simplistic, but also makes sense I think.


Also, that star rating image looks fantastic, Pyromaniacal. Adding a star system like that to the rarity tags would ease a lot of confusion, I think.

[jutdwae]

i never knew omgsc had nearly the same distribution as omgsr thats crazy

[tiredddd]

I really like Panne's edit of my original rarity stars mockup, so I sat down and made a version with the colors proposed by Fellefan! I wasn't liking how the "shiny" bar was looking (it just looked a lot like the SR bar tbh), but thought the rainbow OMGSR was cute and hopefully not too similar to the custom bar...? Who knows.

Light mode ------ Dark mode

I do like the "super duper" name for the new "extremely/super/ultra" tiers, it's rather whimsical in line with tiers like "OMGSC/R". I am in the camp that we should preserve as many existing rarity names as possible - assuming that 4 rarities will be added by the looks of the poll, that's a big enough change already that I would imagine keeping at least some tier names will make the adjustment easier for most people.

What color/ stars would custom pets be then?

[Unknown]

I voted for the "add one new label" option but I actually like the +4 labels more and I can't change it now. I feel like there's just so many pets that this would help a ton figuring out worth.

Feel free to ignore this but I made a little thingey of possible names. I never really liked OMG so common because it sounded like... "omg XD rawr" text that we left behind in 2010 and it's aged poorly.

Extremely Common
Super Common
Very Common
Common

Uncommon
Very Uncommon
Super Uncommon
Extremely Uncommon

Rare
Very Rare
Super Rare
Extremely Rare

[SabrinaB]

What is wrong with omg so rare of omg so common? I understand that religious people are not thrilled with it, but it only says omg. You can also say "oh my gosh so rare". It doesnt have to stand for.anythjng religious. I acutally like it., because it really points out how rare/common it is.

[CHINARIZING]

I really like Panne's edit of my original rarity stars mockup, so I sat down and made a version with the colors proposed by Fellefan! I wasn't liking how the "shiny" bar was looking (it just looked a lot like the SR bar tbh), but thought the rainbow OMGSR was cute and hopefully not too similar to the custom bar...? Who knows.

Light mode ------ Dark mode

I do like the "super duper" name for the new "extremely/super/ultra" tiers, it's rather whimsical in line with tiers like "OMGSC/R". I am in the camp that we should preserve as many existing rarity names as possible - assuming that 4 rarities will be added by the looks of the poll, that's a big enough change already that I would imagine keeping at least some tier names will make the adjustment easier for most people.

What color/ stars would custom pets be then?

I think it would be neat if it was a shooting star!

[foreverthesickestsam]

I appreciate the graphs because while I was originally against adding ANY new categories, after visualizing the distributions, I am definitely in support of 4 new categories.

[legoless]

Please add more categories. More data is always better, and it makes the most sense if the current division is no longer fit for purpose.