A defensible Steal An Egg tier list cannot be published from the current public dataset. Official sources confirm the existence of eggs, pets and several rarity-related badge names, but they do not provide a complete list of comparable income values, hatch outcomes, acquisition costs or odds.
Current Steal An Egg Tier List status
No evidence-backed tier ranking is available.
The page remains noindex. It explains the method required for a future ranking rather than placing three promotional egg names into arbitrary S, A and B tiers.
What a tier list must compare
The ranking target has to be defined first. “Best” might mean highest verified income, easiest useful acquisition, rarest documented outcome or strongest progression value. Those are different questions and should not be collapsed into one score without weights.
A future dataset should include:
- Comparable named records from the current game.
- Verified income or effect values using the same unit.
- Acquisition method and cost.
- Hatch or spawn probability, if genuinely published.
- Version and check date.
- Missing-data flag and confidence level.
Records with missing core values should remain unranked rather than receiving a guessed score.
Rarity is not a complete ranking method
Official badges support the terms Eternal, Secret and Divine. Badge award counts differ, but the number of eligible hatch attempts is unknown. The counts cannot safely become rarity probabilities or overall strength ranks.
Read Steal An Egg Rarities for the exact evidence boundaries. Use the Egg Index and Pets page for source-backed records.
Proposed future method
When sufficient data exists, the site should publish the raw comparison table before the tier graphic. Every score needs a visible formula, and sensitivity notes should explain how the order changes when weights change. The title and page date change only when the underlying data changes.
A future Steal An Egg Tier List also needs a declared audience. A ranking for free beginners may weight accessible acquisition and reliable income, while a collection-focused ranking may weight documented rarity. Publishing those views separately is clearer than hiding conflicting goals inside one score. Every excluded or unranked record should display the missing field that prevented comparison.
Community opinions may appear as a separate, labeled poll after enough real users participate. A community vote must never be presented as the official tier list, and user-generated links need moderation.
The raw table should remain available on small screens as labeled rows, with the same values and confidence notes as the visual ranking. This keeps the method inspectable when a graphic is shared without the surrounding explanation.
Why no ranking is better than a fake ranking
A colorful tier chart may attract clicks, but it fails the search task if the items, values or order are invented. It also creates a maintenance problem when later evidence contradicts the page. An explicit evidence gate protects both users and the rest of the site’s credibility.
Source note
Current first-party data includes official game details, six badges, two passes and selected media. It does not include a complete comparable egg or pet dataset.