cool beans then.
it sort of PO's me to see folks who have a huge number of pets, most of them poor in quality, and no max level pets, and an average pet level 8 or more levels below me, ranked higher.
I routinely and with no hesitation, delete uncommon pets when I find a rare, even if said rare is 10+ levels lower.
"Oh, I was playing then, bought this CE,or was lucky with a TCG buy"; allowing them to rank higher, is a slap in the face of folks who will not, or can not, shell out large sums of cash to get some super-rare pet.
Every pet I have, I either got because I was subscribed, looted from a mob, bought from an AH, or earned through an achieve. I have never spent any real money for a pet, and will never spend any real money for a pet, up to and including CE editions of the game.
Think it is horribly unfair that money = higher scores.
Makes the playing field not skill or dedication based, but wealth based.
And that is from the perspective of an owner of an HVAC/R company with 9 current employees.
What most of the Vanilla and other "buy with money" pets cost, is about what I make in a week, after all expenses.
Personally think if pet requires real money, being subscribed during a certain period, or being subscribed to a certain geographical area, they should be excluded from any ranking.
Where you live, how much money you have, when you started playing; none of them should be a part of what drives your rankings/score.