samiam52900 wrote:I guess I kinda just see it as black and white… I couldn’t care less if a pet is one number shy of being a rare or not. It is still not a rare. Why not get rid of the rarities all together then? I have never played based on the amount of pets there are, simply the demand. So it doesn’t matter that the ops bear is a rare, the demand for it is high not because there are only a few of them, but because it is PPS and a bear and cute. The specifics of the pet wont go away. It could be a very common, and it would still be more valuable than an uncommon even possibly rare pony.
It is “printing more money” and worsens inflation because it decreases the value of pets even more. It might be fine if we didn’t already have inflation especially with C$. C$ has no real value because sure you can buy 380 C$ for 20 $, but I can just as easily sell a token for 5C$ on the first day of an event, and make that super fast. And then store pets are worth 80-100 C$, but a 2023 rare is worth next to nothing while a list pet is worth 2k C$, but somehow 20 omgscommons will now be worth 1 omgsr? The whole currency system is chaos, and that matters because the pets are also a primary form of currency. The simple example of decreasing physica Rarity is proven to not help with the store pets. They are next to never VR anymore. But it hasn’t changed how much people still want them
My point is we are already trying to build a house on sand, adding 4 more rarities will simply turn it into quick sand
Demand and rarity are two totally different things. Just because you don’t care about rarity as much as demand/don’t care how close to rare the uncommon pet is doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. Pets are only going to
seemingly decrease in value. Demand will always be a factor with or without this change, but it’s important for numbers to be a factor as well.
Imagine this; someone has gems that they are selling. One of the gemstones is plastic, one of them is Quartz, and one of them is diamond. Quartz is significantly more sought after and hard to come by than plastic, but significantly less sought after and hard to come by as diamonds, so it is considered a middle tier between the two. Each of them are of a different category or “rarity “, so to speak. Let’s say every type of gemstone gets grouped into one of these three categories.
Here’s the problem… white sapphire is much less valuable than diamond, but much more valuable than quartz. However, under current conditions, it can only be grouped into one of those groups as there is no category that accurately reflects its value. It can either be under the Diamond category which is too high, or the quartz category which is too low. As a result, it’s supported into whichever group its closest to… however, that is still not accurate at all. This is kind of what is happening with pets here. We are grouping pets in with rarities that don’t accurately match the value.
If you are simply unhappy that this change is happening/ you just simply have an opinion that overlooks the logic used in this discussion of adding the rarities, than there really isn’t much more to it. Because this is, in fact, a discussion, there is going to be varying opinions; It is commonly for there to be a majority vote in these types of things that we may or may not agree with. Based on the reasoning and facts presented, you can either agree or disagree, and that’s absolutely fine! The point of the discussion is not to change anybody’s mind, it’s to express opinions and reason for those opinions. If it sticks, great! If not, oh well. At the end of the day, the change that the majority of users + the staff thinks is the best option will be implemented. This is for the better of the site as a whole, not too cater to everyone.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
