Rarity system updated to add 4 new categories!

[everestwhite]

i said this in the last thread, but imo the values for uncommon and under were needed because the value of uncommons could be so vast and unclear. an older uncommon is not really regarded to have the same value as a new uncommon, and in general i feel that new uncommons are much more plentiful than older uncommons. so i think the fine tuning there would make it easier to understand the pets actual worth

in general...i think some clarification from the admins on some stuff would be nice, because i think a lot of people are confused about what exactly is going on here with this new update

[lil rascal]

Just throwing my opinion out there, the extra tiers for uncommon and below were not needed
Like many other people have voiced, trading those will now become more complicated for basically no reason.

I love the colors/new style(s) though XD

Completely agree with that. Said as much before it happened as well. Considering every post from people happy with this change is pretty much just going on about the new higher tiers, yes. Needless complication to add below uncommon. None of those people after this new system seem fussed with adding more low end categories. When I brought it up on the last thread, I didn't see anyone jump in and say no I really need to be able to fine grain sort the value of pets under Uncommon. This is just making less valuable pets more of a pain to trade for no real gain at all.

Can't agree with the loving the colors part though. I find that Uncommon green shade really unfortunate. Wish that was a less harsh shade going on.

I agree about the lower rarities being unnecessary. I also feel that it is going to actually make trading harder for newer players. The new lower rarities means that there is now a much smaller gap between rarity tiers so in theory trading between rarities should be easier. However I have seen many people say that they will still require at least 2 of the rarity below to move up a rarity. This means that for someone to move from an uncommon to a rare now they will need to trade 8 uncommons to get 4 very uncommons which they can then trade for 2 extremely uncommons which they can then trade for a rare.
So by this logic
1 Rare = 2 Extremely Uncommons = 4 Very Uncommons = 8 Uncommons.
Therefore instead of the old system of a Rare = 2-4 Uncommons, this new system people are planning to use will mean people will be paying at least 8 Uncommons per rare. This is not talking a high demand rare, this is just the suggestion for a standard rare.
I personally don’t see how this is logical and pity those starting out trading if this becomes the new accepted norm.

I also agree with the comment about the Uncommons shade of green. I found it difficult going through my groups on my phone with the common and uncommon shades of green. I caught myself almost putting uncommons in with commons quite a few times and wouldn’t be surprised if I missed some.

[littleredstrings]

I'm not sure about this tbh I already found the old system really difficult to understand (and, yes, I read guides and still struggled to fully understand) so I'm nervous about this.

[liiontai]

Just throwing my opinion out there, the extra tiers for uncommon and below were not needed
Like many other people have voiced, trading those will now become more complicated for basically no reason.

I love the colors/new style(s) though XD

Completely agree with that. Said as much before it happened as well. Considering every post from people happy with this change is pretty much just going on about the new higher tiers, yes. Needless complication to add below uncommon. None of those people after this new system seem fussed with adding more low end categories. When I brought it up on the last thread, I didn't see anyone jump in and say no I really need to be able to fine grain sort the value of pets under Uncommon. This is just making less valuable pets more of a pain to trade for no real gain at all.

Can't agree with the loving the colors part though. I find that Uncommon green shade really unfortunate. Wish that was a less harsh shade going on.

I agree about the lower rarities being unnecessary. I also feel that it is going to actually make trading harder for newer players. The new lower rarities means that there is now a much smaller gap between rarity tiers so in theory trading between rarities should be easier. However I have seen many people say that they will still require at least 2 of the rarity below to move up a rarity. This means that for someone to move from an uncommon to a rare now they will need to trade 8 uncommons to get 4 very uncommons which they can they trade for 2 extremely uncommons which they can then trade for a rare.
So by this logic
1 Rare = 2 Extremely Uncommons = 4 Very Uncommons = 8 Uncommons.
Therefore instead of the old system of a Rare = 2-4 Uncommons this new system people are planning to use Will mean people will be paying at least 8 Uncommons per rare. This is not taking a high demand rare, this is just the suggestion for a standard rare.
I personally don’t see how this is logical and pity those starting out trading if this becomes the new accepted norm.

I also agree with the comment about the Uncommon shade of green. I found it difficult going through my groups on my phone with the common and uncommon shades of green. I caught myself almost putting uncommons in with commons in my common and under group quite a few times and wouldn’t be surprised if I missed some.

This doesn't need to be the new norm now though - I saw a lot of people saying they were dropping the 2:1 system as well as adopting a 3 or 5 year rule so dates do not matter as much. It's entirely up to personal preference how someone trades. There's been lots of discussion about how we adapt or retire those old systems, now is a great time to make some new community norms.

[All Might]

Pet's name: Sangre
Adopt virtual pets at Chicken Smoothie!

Oh my gosh ; somehow it feels weird that the purple bat's gone OMGSR.
But it's even weirder for me to see that back in 2010 I traded a red cerb for this dude!

[NocturnalPanda]

Most of the criticisms I'm seeing here are the exact reasons I didn't vote for this change - the combo of more rarities as well as a redistribution is such a large change that it's become an entirely new system/structure. It was never going to be able to shed light onto an old structure when it was too busy becoming its own thing.
If there hadn't been the redistribution too then I think there would have been more of that clarity everyone was looking for, but after seeing the changes in action, I honestly don't think that a completely new system is a bad thing. I hope it will prompt a big (and positive) shake up of trading!!



I get that the OMGSR's now seem more oversaturated, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that so many of the '08 pets are now in that category, in fact I'm just surprised there aren't more!
To put it in perspective (with some quick fun maths ) - we can’t forget that ’08 pets make up somewhere in the region of 1.2-1.4% of all CS pet designs. Including designs available for multiple months. Considering the obvious (no. of users at the time, no. of pets that over *15 years* have gone out of circulation, etc.), and even with Dec 18th, they’re already their own kind of ‘top 1%’.
About half of them are now OMGSR. So <0.6-0.7% of all pets. A similar number across *all other pets* are also now OMGSR. (I believe – if I counted right haha) So the total number of pet designs that are now OMGSR can’t be more than approx. *1.5%* (of all *near 15,000* designs!)
I don’t know what everyone else’s ideas of how big that top percentage of pets being OMGSR would be, but tbh I almost expected it to be a little more than that!? I don’t think the OMGSR category was ever going to get smaller, so at least now we have a better idea of the value of some of the other high demand pets!

While the lack of clarity for the pre-existing OMGSR’s is undoubtedly frustrating, I feel like there is a real silver lining in this situation with having more pets in this category – obtaining a pet with the OMGSR tag might now become something that actually feels possible for the average player. And they’re still an exclusive less than 1.5% of all designs!



Something like the list seems pretty much inevitable, but isn’t that part of the fun?
I’m much more of a forum lurker than poster (because when I do post I usually end up with monsters like this, whoops!), but I’m finding all this change really engaging. It feels like I could actually be involved with, and directly contribute to forming a structure that seemingly has only ever *been able to be* dictated by a few.
Even though a lot of the issues raised here are saying the lower rarity categories are almost obsolete, they’re also the categories most frequently traded, and coming up with standards for those is something everyone can be involved with, and will be able to stay involved with as time goes on. More 'lower' rarity categories gives more opportunities for participation in discussions at all levels of rarities, not just at the top. Perhaps that will even feed up to eventually more people able to help keep the higher rarities up to date too!
Because wasn’t that the reason the original List was stopped? That it was just too much work to keep up to date? Hopefully with more people getting involved, keeping rarity guides up to date will be much less of a mammoth task, and something the community can actually feasibly maintain.

I think that knowing the upper and lower limits of each rarity now would be really helpful for this purpose, especially for stopping inflation spiralling out of control. With so many categories the 2:1 rule already feels ridiculous, but without some hard stats I do still worry about the long-term future of trading between categories.
As well as there being much potential for a better system and trading standard, with more components, there’s just as much opportunity for it to become more complicated and messier.

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic or even just missing some angles, but this is the system we have now, and I feel like it’s a great opportunity to try and make something great – and it’s definitely a structure that gives plenty of chances to do so! I’m cautiously optimistic that this will open more doors for trading, not close them!

[Lacuna]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

I think a big issue (and I expressed this in a post in CS discussion as well) is that the word “rare” means a lot to people even when the system has been updated to more evenly distribute rarity and the gap between uncommon and rare has been diminished. If you look at the graphs you can clearly see that there’s less of a steep cliff into the rare label. We need to reevaluate the mindset that if it’s not rare it’s worthless, because that’s factually untrue. If we use the new categories (especially very and extremely uncommon) there’s no need for common to uncommon to be 2:1 while extremely uncommon to rare is 4:1.

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

As for wanting granularity in the OMGSRs, the problem is there is no upper ceiling and I don’t think there’s really a way to fix that, and I’m sure it’s not by effectively adding a whole new set of rarities giving us at least 16. We have users who have worked hard on the data to catalog the previous rarity changes, so for those who are trading at that level, guides are available. Obviously OMGSRs that have never been that rarity before are less rare than those that were already at that level, and we have enough info already on that for users who want to participate in those trades. It’s also okay too if the new OMGSRs are valued pretty 1:1 in my opinion unless there’s strong data about them becoming VR much later than others or going OMGSR and dropping back down before. Just because the new OMGSRs (store pets excepted and other similar caveats in place) are the highest rarity doesn’t mean they can’t be treated similarly to lower rarities for same rarity swaps.

[foxcloud19]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

I think a big issue (and I expressed this in a post in CS discussion as well) is that the word “rare” means a lot to people even when the system has been updated to more evenly distribute rarity and the gap between uncommon and rare has been diminished. If you look at the graphs you can clearly see that there’s less of a steep cliff into the rare label. We need to reevaluate the mindset that if it’s not rare it’s worthless, because that’s factually untrue. If we use the new categories (especially very and extremely uncommon) there’s no need for common to uncommon to be 2:1 while extremely uncommon to rare is 4:1.

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

As for wanting granularity in the OMGSRs, the problem is there is no upper ceiling and I don’t think there’s really a way to fix that, and I’m sure it’s not by effectively adding a whole new set of rarities giving us at least 16. We have users who have worked hard on the data to catalog the previous rarity changes, so for those who are trading at that level, guides are available. Obviously OMGSRs that have never been that rarity before are less rare than those that were already at that level, and I we have enough info already on that for users who want to participate in those trades. It’s also okay to if the new OMGSRs are valued pretty 1:1 in my opinion unless there’s strong data about them becoming VR much later than others or going OMGSR and dropping back down before. Just because the new OMGSRs (store pets excepted and other similar caveats in place) are the highest rarity doesn’t mean they can’t be treated similarly to lower rarities for same rarity swaps.

Yes! These are exactly my thoughts and I have been trying to figure out how to word this! Beautifully said! We need the lower tiers, they’re not worthless like everyone says. And I think we desperately needed a new system. This allows us to start one. We can’t use the same rules we used before, and we shouldn’t! We need to change and adapt. Those rules may have worked at one point, but there’s so many pets now, we need a different system in place.

[dunmer]

(not a staff opinion disclaimer, just user thoughts)

I think a big issue (and I expressed this in a post in CS discussion as well) is that the word “rare” means a lot to people even when the system has been updated to more evenly distribute rarity and the gap between uncommon and rare has been diminished. If you look at the graphs you can clearly see that there’s less of a steep cliff into the rare label. We need to reevaluate the mindset that if it’s not rare it’s worthless, because that’s factually untrue. If we use the new categories (especially very and extremely uncommon) there’s no need for common to uncommon to be 2:1 while extremely uncommon to rare is 4:1.

People are saying the lower rarities are useless, but without them pets that are currently rare would be in the uncommons and relegated to being useless, too. The gap between a very common and a common is likely similar to that between an extremely uncommon and a rare, but people will often swap the first two 1:1 while hesitating about the latter, and I don’t think either of those is a fair approach, rather something in the middle. 2:1 swaps across the rarities make more sense to me if dates matter a lot less (especially uncommon and below).

As for wanting granularity in the OMGSRs, the problem is there is no upper ceiling and I don’t think there’s really a way to fix that, and I’m sure it’s not by effectively adding a whole new set of rarities giving us at least 16. We have users who have worked hard on the data to catalog the previous rarity changes, so for those who are trading at that level, guides are available. Obviously OMGSRs that have never been that rarity before are less rare than those that were already at that level, and I we have enough info already on that for users who want to participate in those trades. It’s also okay to if the new OMGSRs are valued pretty 1:1 in my opinion unless there’s strong data about them becoming VR much later than others or going OMGSR and dropping back down before. Just because the new OMGSRs (store pets excepted and other similar caveats in place) are the highest rarity doesn’t mean they can’t be treated similarly to lower rarities for same rarity swaps.

Yes! These are exactly my thoughts and I have been trying to figure out how to word this! Beautifully said! We need the lower tiers, they’re not worthless like everyone says. And I think we desperately needed a new system. This allows us to start one. We can’t use the same rules we used before, and we shouldn’t! We need to change and adapt. Those rules may have worked at one point, but there’s so many pets now, we need a different system in place.

Agree with both of these things

[-Phantom-]

This is not currently something we're planning to release (from the poll post:)

please be aware that some things (like sharing the exact number of different pets in circulation) are not a potential part of this update.

Hey though, just a clarification!

I really don’t think anyone here meant “please release the exact number of pets in circulation.” I think a lot of us realize this isn’t a question staff is willing to answer and have been able to accept that.

what I believe we’re hoping to have answered is what the ratio of pets is that determines rarity. like if 1 pet per 1000 active users means omgsr, or 1 pet per 500 active users means extremely rare, etc.

that’s something that would help immensely with understanding new rarity distribution without say exactly how many of these pets are out there. is that something that staff is willing to release?

Yes, this is what I meant. Thank you and others for clearing that up. I for sure don't expect exactly how many of each pet is released / on active accounts; that's too many numbers for me x3

Much like the post in 2009, I was hoping to get the ratio like explained above. While some might fall on the higher end of a ratio, others the lower end, and anywhere in the middle, I think it would help us get a much better idea of what the rarities mean. As in, roughly how common or rare a pet is. I think it would help with figuring out trading with the new rarity system, especially when it seems a lot of people were using the 2:1 system and are talking about abandoning it.