Rarity issues with Very Rare Rarity Tag

[jinx**]

I don't think that would help, the list is user made ^^; rarity is CS determined


@ jinx, I think OMGSR shouln't have more added to it, but i do think there should be a clear step between Vr and OMGSR

I agree about the List tag... That makes not sense at all...

@Blizzardclaw: That was just another solution for our problem I bet there will be a couple more. Let's try to find the one solution, which will be accepted by most of the users AND Nick/Tess...

[Azuri]

Can do~

I still support the one more rarity tag, i would like it at a VR- OMGSR but i could see it at a UC-R

[jinx**]

Can do~

I still support the one more rarity tag, i would like it at a VR- OMGSR but i could see it at a UC-R

100% agree

[Shian]

...and adding more levels might just make it more confusing.
See my point? Adding more rarity tags when value is so heavily influenced by other factors wouldn't really fix the issue, and might just cause more confusion and irritation because it would look more accurate and yet you still couldn't trade 'VR for VR' or '80 for 80' because rarity isn't the same thing as value.

As more and more pets enter CS though, the less meaning a rarity tag has because the more generalized it becomes. Remember when pet cont calculations had to be redone because everything adopted was uncommon and there were only 3 Very Commons and maybe 10 commons on the entire site?

We're at around 3,600 pets now. Eventually, it'll hit a point where simply 6 categories won't cut it anymore because pets are are in too generalized categories. I honestly don't think we're at that point yet, but it will happen.

Here's the bigger question though. How do you add more rarity tags without it becoming confusing?
The current tags we have are pretty self explainitory.
Very Common
Common
Uncommon
Rare
Very Rare
OMGSR

You could add one in like this:
Very Common
Common
Uncommon
Very Uncommon
Rare
Very Rare
OMGSR

But would it make more sense to add it above or below the uncommon? I suppose we could always use the List as an example and use the label of:
OMGSC
Very Common
Common
Lower Uncommon
Uncommon
High Uncommon
Rare
Very Rare
Deluxe Rare
OMGSR

I have to wonder if there really is an OMGSC rarity, just that there's no pets that fit the category, but it really is difficult to come up with a universal label that people could see at a glance and not have to look up on some chart what the rarity marker means.

I think that if we are going to go through with adding a new category, you might as well add a few in instead of just one because of the rate CS grows on a monthly basis.

[Azuri]

I remember veiwing something on Tumbar about the rarities, that a few years back they ended up havinf to fix a lot of the rares to uncommon when more accurate values were relesed, i tink this happened in '09 or '10

the reason i say this is over 300 pets moved down from rare to uncommon, yet the CS we know now came from this

People, incuding me, don't like change, the future scares us, but looking back it did happen once before and the structure that is cs still stands

I would like to site this as a ref. for the fact that rarities do change
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=485908

looking back there was a time when the UR tiger WAS just a plain VR

the Sliphner was an uncommon

These things evolve in rarity slowly,


so the rarity tag should evolve with it, but much slower

[Fuzzeh]

Okay, you guys are really confusing me right now...

1. The big rarity adjustment (the only one I recall ever happening on the site) happened last year. In July or August. They didn't 'fix it so the rares became uncommons', they just adjusted it so pets in 'dead' accounts wouldn't count toward the total number of pets.
2. When it happened, the number of rares stayed exactly the same (600). The number of Uncommons dropped from 1900 to 1000, though. (Taken from here.)
3. There are a good deal of OMGSCommons... Each word in this sentence is an example. And there are many more.

I think that eventually there should be a new tag added. But not so soon after one was just added. There really isn't much point.

[grizzegrijn]

Even if they just renamed the numbers it would make a huge difference. personally i don't make any difference between OMGSC, VC and C. Especially in bigger trades. They could be merged to 1 label to free up 2 labels for the gaps between UC and rare and VR - OMGSR.

[jinx**]

bump - any further comments?

[Skysthelimit]

I have only 1 problem I see. For example, say advent list pets were VR and the September and mainlists are SR. What would happen to the BA,BMD and joker? They technically rarity wise should be on the advent list but because of demand they are not. This would be super confusing to have VRs mixed in with SRs in the lists

[Azuri]

I have only 1 problem I see. For example, say advent list pets were VR and the September and mainlists are SR. What would happen to the BA,BMD and joker? They technically rarity wise should be on the advent list but because of demand they are not. This would be super confusing to have VRs mixed in with SRs in the lists

the BA, BMD, and joker are orrigionally '08 pets i could see every one moving up

remember their are Rares on the rares list (Well one now there was three) so i don't see any new problem considering the same problem already exists

also remember the new '09 list is going to consist of more rares then VR pets