Rarity Labels

[mad30]

i know this has been brought up in the past, however I would love to bring it up again

currently pwo has 4 rarities: Common, rare, very rare, and horribly rare

however this has a history of confusing players and the names themselves are misleading

common pokemon are indeed common, however starting with rare, very rare, and horribly rare these terms are ambigous

usually this type of ranking would have 3 typical terms: common, uncommon, and rare with a 4th being different from place to place.

I am not sure if this is the route i want to go to, but the current naming system i think should be changed, lets face it rare pokemon.. are not rare at all.

common, scarce, rare, and mythic/mythical is my suggestion.

discuss, include possible ideas.

 

[Orean]

The only problem I can see with "Rare" being renamed to 'Uncommon' is that both 'Uncommon' and 'Uncatchable' would be colloquially abbreviated as 'UC', thereby causing more confusion in its new right.

I do find it a worthwhile discussion on how to rename tiers on the rarity scale, however. If a Pokemon is labeled as 'Rare', the newbies may too easily assume that the Pokemon merits value, when in actuality it is merely one marginal step above common on the rarity scale.

 

[Naero]

The only problem I can see with "Rare" being renamed to 'Uncommon' is that both 'Uncommon' and 'Uncatchable' would be colloquially abbreviated as 'UC', thereby causing more confusion in its new right.

What about renaming the Uncatchable rarity then? I'm personally fond of using uncommon to replace rare, as it would be the most recognizable rarity tier above common -- as it has been a popular trend for many MMOs to name it as such.

Albeit, apart from "non-catchable" (abbreviated as NC), I'm uncertain as to what it could be renamed to, since "uncatchable" is likely more officially accepted as a real word.

Yes, it's hard to find a suitable label to rename "Uncatchable" to, but I'd much prefer to rename that, as many can agree to "Uncommon" replacing "Rare".

 

[mad30]

The only problem I can see with "Rare" being renamed to 'Uncommon' is that both 'Uncommon' and 'Uncatchable' would be colloquially abbreviated as 'UC', thereby causing more confusion in its new right.

What about renaming the Uncatchable rarity then? I'm personally fond of using uncommon to replace rare, as it would be the most recognizable rarity tier above common -- as it has been a popular trend for many MMOs to name it as such.

Albeit, apart from "non-catchable" (abbreviated as NC), I'm uncertain as to what it could be renamed to, since "uncatchable" is likely more officially accepted as a real word.

Yes, it's hard to find a suitable label to rename "Uncatchable" to, but I'd much prefer to rename that, as many can agree to "Uncommon" replacing "Rare".

extinct

 

[HitmonFonty]

I've always thought 'Uncommon' a better label than Rare for those spawns. I personally would add Uncommon but keep all the rest, with slight adjustments to allow for the addition. So:

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Very Rare
Horribly Rare

I think everything else works personally, I would just take some of the easier to find VRs and put them in the Rare basket.

 

[Iuri]

Hello:

In my opinion the label "commom" can be maintained. Others I think, it would be much better to have the number corresponding to the average probability of being found. For instance, a label currently "very rare" be substituted with a
"ap 5 %" average probability of 5%.
Some of the current labels lead to confusion. For example Pikachu in power plant is classified as VR, but must have a average probability that puts almost like HR. If you were placed the probability of finding, perhaps at the beginning we all knew that Pikachu is very difficult to get maybe "ap 0.5% " , while others VR have "ap 1%".
This would allow to have many levels of rarity.
Attention the numbers that I put are only for exemple not the true values

 

[Merse]

The problem with this is that "ap 5%" is about the spawn rate of a rare Pokemon. The rate of a VR is somewhere around 0,05%
I like the current rarity system, but maybe a multi-tier system would worth some thought. The problem is that I don't think that there would be any significance on the value side. Currently a common has no value, a rare worth a few k, a VR a few hundred k tops, and HRs could get into millions (being not insane-epic, non-shiny). Even if we would have 20 different rarity level, it wouldn't change much the perception of the Pokemons, because there wouldn't be a significant difference between the current and the new system.

 

[Orean]

From what I understand, a Pokemon's rarity label corresponds to the range that its percentage lies in. It is commonly known that its definite odds widely vary between different rarity tiers in different areas; this is inherently affected by the surrounding encounter spawns as well. For an area with a bigger density of commons, an HR's probability may need to be reduced to fit into the 100% sum of all encounter percentages in the area—whereas areas with less subordinate rarities (commons) may allow the HR's encounter percentage to be bigger.

Due to all of the commons compounded in Viridian Forest, it can be argued that Pikachu is on the more improbable end of the VR range, bordered on HR; whereas it's much more probable to encounter in the Power Plant.

Regarding your suggestion, it sounds as if you're suggesting a sub-tier label, for different ranges of values between one rarity. This would give players a more definite estimate on what they are hunting for, without improving their chances. However, depending on whether players would prefer more rough estimations (for more mystery and uncertainty to the rarity of the pokemon they're hunting) or more definite feels on what they're up against is a point worth discussing.

 

[Grivin]

mythical sounded real cool to me ( as it would be more befitting for the dragon type and almost extinct creature like kabuto and omanyte.. ), common-uncommon-rare-mythical.. we can expect something while looking for uncommon, knowing that we have to grind a lot for rare pokemon, and finally hoping to meet the mythical creature..

 

[ModolJangan]

I think the rarity name have been thinking before by all staff, maybe staff will think player get confuse if name between uncommon with uncatchable will be the same, UC ahahaha
sorry for my bad english

 

[CheckeredZebra]

*slightly Necros topic*
Simple solution.

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Horribly Rare/Endangered
Exclusive (instead of Uncatchable)

 

[LanceDM]

A quick way to modif this would be simply changing the names to the current names on the rarities:

Common -
Uncommon - Rare
Rare - Very rare
Very Rare - H rare

Someone here said something about Uncommon and Uncatchable making confusion on the community because of the abreviation of each word. But here is where I agree with Naero, Non-catchable sounds kinda good and you don't have to worry about noobs or expert players for it, noobs will start knowing this thing and the experienced players will adapt to that change as everything in this game when an update comes.

 

[Iuri]

Regarding your suggestion, it sounds as if you're suggesting a sub-tier label, for different ranges of values between one rarity. This would give players a more definite estimate on what they are hunting for, without improving their chances.

Hello

You define exactily what I think.

When I'm hunting i count the pokes to estimate the probabilities ,albeit I know that a Hr can appear in first encounter or almost never appear.