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

[Weepy]

I don’t this is a very great idea as it will DEFINITELY ruin the rarity system 😭

literally what r u talking about lol

[kamado.]

after reviewing lacuna's very helpful post, this would be a rarity line i could get behind and see working very well.

Abundant (A) *possible replacement for OMGSC due to the 'omg' concern
Extremely Common (EC)
Very Common (VC)
Common (C)
Uncommon (UC)
Very Uncommon (VUC)
Extremely Uncommon (EUC)
Rare (R)
Very Rare (VR)
Extremely Rare (ER)
Legendary (L) *possible replacement for OMGSR due to the 'omg' concern

i'm not a fan of the whimsical names at all; i think it's too nebulous/vague, especially in light of those pointing out that this site is geared towards a younger audience who may not understand the words. i understand wanting to have unique shorthand versions for rarities, but i think there's a way to make those work while still sticking to the relatively straightforward naming conventions of our current system (which is why i provided examples of them in my list above). i feel that occam's razor applies here: the simplest option is almost always the best!

personally my favorite of the naming suggestions so far! (not formatting bc mobile.)

[liiontai]

On one hand, I already hate doing rarity math, so I'm not looking forward to calculating between 4 extra ones. BUT

I do honestly think adding 4 new rarities is the best move here. Simply shifting the distribution around won't fix the problem and will just delay the inevitable. Adding one IMO is just trying to ease people into the change. I think 4 will give people a more accurate view of the real rarities of pets. I'm very curious to see which of those pets are teetering very close to the edges. In the end I think this is the best change for the long-term future of trading, but I guess we will see how rarity math adjusts after.


I definitely do not think we should change the OMG rarities on top of adding new ones. That will be extremely confusing. And I quite like having the OMG rarities as bookends, it really adds to the old web feel CS has managed to keep over the years.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the notches, maybe lower the opacity of the in-between lines? or do something to make them less sharp. Like colour them or something. Not sure but I'd like to see some more design passes and narrow it down.

[frogfan]

wanted to add an update with some of the visual change suggestions ive seen. ive almost certaintly missed something so please feel free to quote anything i looked over. link to Lacuna's original compilation

want to start this off by saying that visual accessibility is not a one size fits all, and options are ideal. hopefully any visual changes will be toggleable so that anyone can chose what helps them best :3

-a mockup of the star rarity bar on page 50. made by Pyromaniacal. (a later suggestion was to make custom rarities on this system a shooting star, which is very cute to me. This whole stars concept is just really good)



-a color suggestion and mockup from LostInTheEcho on page 58. ill be using the first option because it works the best in my opinion.



-color suggestions from Zeroness using the mockup by LostInTheEcho on page 62. ill be using the colors marked as option number 1 because they work the best in my opinion



- a suggestion to use a bar with numbers in place of shapes on page 40. mockup of what that might look like (forgive me for my art skills lol)

LostInTheEcho Colors


Zeroness colors


-im just gonna copy Lacunas interpretation of my original post because its worded better then i ever could (im just keeping this here for suggestion catalogue purpose haha. I mainly did the original suggestion to encourage discussion)

-snip-
There are 3 categories and the colors I suggested are like so: common (blue/green), uncommon (yellow/orange) and rare (red/purple) that take up approximately 1/3 of the bar each. While it can be hard to determine an exact color for people with visual impairment/colorblindness, a section of an approximate color and a symbol is more noticeable. So, if you determine which third you're in a symbol would be used instead of just stars:
- Stars - stay for the OMG rarities
- Square - for the Extremely rarities (a square and an E are a similar shape)
- Triangle (upside down) - for the Very rarities (upside down triangle and V are similar shape)
- Circle - for the plain common, uncommon, and rare labels, which also acts as a divider between rarities
-snip-

i think trying to make a visual for this really helped me understand some issues im having with both my suggestion, and the suggested rarity names, and i hope it can help other people as well


LostInTheEcho colors



Zeroness colors

my takeaways:

youll notice that common and uncommon are both similar in color, and right next to each other, so the circle distinction is doing... well probably more confusion then clarification

it could potentially also be hard to understand and remember that VERY common means MORE common. and VERY uncommon means LESS common. theres not a clear pattern in word usage, (shown at the top of the image) which could make it difficult to understand or remember

im not.. necessarily in the best state of mind to write out my thoughts carfeully and completely, so im trusting someone later on in the forum to help haha! hope this is useful to someone!

[Another World]

Really like these stars, though I think the omg so rare would need a different colour (which might need to shift the other colours a bit as well). I prefer the stars with lighter backgrounds over those with dark that someone else proposed.




Just throwing this here as example for bars with dimension of the originals.

First has more muted colours in yellow and cyan as well as a lighter pink that I think distinguishes better (I prefer the first)







In regards to names, I’m partial to ”extremely” being used and all names as on the first page. However, even while being at first against ”super” and ”super duper”, I think that they are fitting in a more ”childlike” way and goes well with the ”OMG so”:s while still being clear on which is worth more than the other.

I just spent ages thinking of colour designs, had a look at this and saw this is basically what I've done haha, 100% agree with this design, I think it's brilliant ! Keeps the rainbow look in there, colours smoothly transition, it's clear what each one is and it takes full use of purples, blues, greens etc. Amazing. Perfection 🤌🏻

I have 3 suggestions for the colors (made with the thought for them to be easily distinguishable):

I also used these colors with the rarity bars suggested by LostInTheEcho on page 58:

I want to throw in my opinions on visuals - I definitely think toggling needs to be an option - so far the stars option seems most sensible to me, maybe with no stars while it's growing (or like a line with night sky vibes? idk) and a shooting star for customs as another user suggested.

In terms of colours, I like LostInTheEcho's options. Meaning no disrespect to Zeroness, Personally I don't think any of those options work. I think #1 is the best one but others have said it's hard to distinguish. For me, #2 is confusing, particularly the pink and dark green - it just doesn't read as a scale to me. #3 makes even less sense for my brain, I genuinely couldn't put those colours in an order. I think with notches the rainbow might work?

I also think having numbers and a name might help people (or maybe a number next to the scale to help visually differentiate). Personally I'd love the option to toggle between stars and our current bar (with and without notches) to help me differentiate but keep some nostalgia while everything changes!

Thank you for the thread!

[Tybalt]

I've seen a lot of people convinced this will ruin the rarity system.
In reality, it will unveil the already established rarity system. The rarities that you see currently are whacked out of order, and this way you will be able to trade fairly for pets that are actually the rarity it says they are, rather than paying more or less for a pet that's actually not worth what it's rarity tag says currently.

[LLHBBB]

I just want the system to be accurate. Just distributing them to more groups only works if they are placed properly. It seems like the last big update didn't do that. Example a pet should only be placed where it belongs not just put there because your trying to re-distribute the uncommons. There should never be a pet in the common category that has less pets then the a pet listed as uncommon.
Sorry for the rambling I often have a hard time expressing myself.

[liiontai]

I just want the system to be accurate. Just distributing them to more groups only works if they are placed properly. It seems like the last big update didn't do that. Example a pet should only be placed where it belongs not just put there because your trying to re-distribute the uncommons. There should never be a pet in the common category that has less pets then the a pet listed as uncommon.
Sorry for the rambling I often have a hard time expressing myself. :oops:

This was never how redistribution worked. It was by changing the numbers required to be in a certain category. They are calculated automatically based on how many pets there are on active accounts.

[Schuyler]

I just want the system to be accurate. Just distributing them to more groups only works if they are placed properly. It seems like the last big update didn't do that. Example a pet should only be placed where it belongs not just put there because your trying to re-distribute the uncommons. There should never be a pet in the common category that has less pets then the a pet listed as uncommon.
Sorry for the rambling I often have a hard time expressing myself.

Rarity is determined automatically based on the actual number of copies of each pet on active accounts. As an example using random numbers, let's say if there are 1000-5000 copies of a pet, it's uncommon, and if there are 5000-10000 copies, it's common. Pets have never been and I believe I can safely say will never be manually set to a certain rarity, so there should never be an instance of a pet in a lower rarity having fewer copies than a pet in a higher rarity. Pets on inactive accounts are not counted as they are not in the trading pool, but otherwise it entirely has to do with the numbers alone.

"Redistribution" doesn't mean that the thresholds for each category would be left as-is and pets simply put into different rarities that don't reflect their actual numbers. It means that the thresholds would be adjusted for a more even spread and the rarities then reassigned (recalculated) for every pet, again automatically.

[LLHBBB]

I just want the system to be accurate. Just distributing them to more groups only works if they are placed properly. It seems like the last big update didn't do that. Example a pet should only be placed where it belongs not just put there because your trying to re-distribute the uncommons. There should never be a pet in the common category that has less pets then the a pet listed as uncommon.
Sorry for the rambling I often have a hard time expressing myself.

Rarity is determined automatically based on the actual number of copies of each pet on active accounts. As an example using random numbers, let's say if there are 1000-5000 copies of a pet, it's uncommon, and if there are 5000-10000 copies, it's common. Pets have never been and I believe I can safely say will never be manually set to a certain rarity, so there should never be an instance of a pet in a lower rarity having fewer copies than a pet in a higher rarity. Pets on inactive accounts are not counted as they are not in the trading pool, but otherwise it entirely has to do with the numbers alone.

"Redistribution" doesn't mean that the thresholds for each category would be left as-is and pets simply put into different rarities that don't reflect their actual numbers. It means that the thresholds would be adjusted for a more even spread and the rarities then reassigned (recalculated) for every pet, again automatically.

Then I'm good with what ever change happens. It would be nice to know the numbers for each group. You listed uncommon & common numbers (I'm aware you used random numbers) but I would like to know every groups values if possible.