Trader swap issue - EU server

Dont_do_drugs

ah yeh, i replied basically on the wrong part. my question marks are coming from this:

If your guild has moved/traded the duped gold, this is your second chance to put it back so we can remove it in the next sweep.

edit: reminds me of helpless parents which always say "youyouyou" but never take action, while the kid goes on doing what it wants.

Ramber

Please ban them

SammiSakura wrote: »

also, all these replies stating "ban them", what have you been smoking? You do realise a vast majority of GM's didnt touch the gold right? We should be banned for a f-up on zos part? at least bring something constructive to the table

your not listening, we are talking about the people that knowingly abused the glitch not just willie nillie banning ppl

agegarton

reoskit wrote: »

Side note: props for the increased communication, Jess.

“Increased communication” ??? I have just wet myself laughing.

Urigall

SammiSakura wrote: »

Its good to have some answers. even if I find the whole second pass thing weird.

Indeed - the feedback is welcome. And I hope those GMs who were genuinely caught out get their capital reimbursed.

Hard to be sure what the "next sweep" reference means. "this is your second chance to put it back" - second chance...to put it back. Has there been a first sweep that revealed missing gold? Who knows.

Intriguing.

JN_Slevin

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Hey, so I'm a little bit confused. Does every guild that lost their first choice trader this week due to the bug, get those 150%, regardless of how much gold they got?

Or are those 150% rather for those who lost the trader AND the Gold?

Because the Guilds who lost the Trader this week are by no means "just a handful"

reoskit

agegarton wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Side note: props for the increased communication, Jess.

“Increased communication” ??? I have just wet myself laughing.

Three posts on one page, including direct replies to questions on that page? Yes, that's an increase.

Can I offer you a moist towelette?

Dont_do_drugs

somehow i have this awkward feeling that also those guilds, which managed to hire a (or their usual) good trader while having won the bid get reimbursement too...

VaranisArano

Cani wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Hey, so I'm a little bit confused. Does every guild that lost their first choice trader this week due to the bug, get those 150%, regardless of how much gold they got?

Or are those 150% rather for those who lost the trader AND the Gold?

Its those who won their bid, and the gold was deducted, but did not actually get the trader due to all the traders becoming available for 10k.

JN_Slevin

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cani wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Hey, so I'm a little bit confused. Does every guild that lost their first choice trader this week due to the bug, get those 150%, regardless of how much gold they got?

Or are those 150% rather for those who lost the trader AND the Gold?

Its those who won their bid, and the gold was deducted, but did not actually get the trader due to all the traders becoming available for 10k.

So 95% of all trading guilds?

VaranisArano

Cani wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cani wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Hey, so I'm a little bit confused. Does every guild that lost their first choice trader this week due to the bug, get those 150%, regardless of how much gold they got?

Or are those 150% rather for those who lost the trader AND the Gold?

Its those who won their bid, and the gold was deducted, but did not actually get the trader due to all the traders becoming available for 10k.

So 95% of all trading guilds?

Did 95% of all the traders actually win their bid and have the gold deducted?

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

As to your question, this is the context for the quote that confused you. Again, its a "small number" of guilds.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Thanks for the follow-up questions and reports of some duped gold remaining in-game on the PC-EU server. On Monday, August 26, we will be performing additional passes to remove the remaining excess gold from guild banks. If your guild is still in possession of duped gold, we ask that you please work with us by not touching it. If your guild has moved/traded the duped gold, this is your second chance to put it back so we can remove it in the next sweep.

We also have an update for small number of guilds who lost gold on Sunday night due to placing a winning bid but not getting the guild trader they should have won. Our Support team will be refunding the guild leader of any affected guilds 150% of the bid amount. Guild leaders will receive an in-game mail once this is done, letting them know on which of their characters we gold we deposited the gold. Our aim is to have all these complete within 48 hours, before the next guild trader bid cycle is over.

Thank you again for your patience. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Dont_do_drugs

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

reoskit

218 kiosks (give or take, since some kiosks like outlaw refuges may go unbid on) = 218 guilds.

Did any guilds manage to win and keep (not hire) the kiosk they won with their bid?

Dont_do_drugs

reoskit wrote: »

218 kiosks (give or take, since some kiosks like outlaw refuges may go unbid on) = 218 guilds.

Did any guilds manage to win and keep (not hire) the kiosk they won with their bid?

hmmm i only heard of wayrest beeing regular, but i never asked how. so maybe 7 or 8 guilds in stormhaven. the rest was unoccupied. maybe stormhaven was the first zone to be processed and managed to fit into the 08:05:00 time frame. idk how.
then next to that i guess a handfull of guilds managed to hire (tho they most likely will have hired before the history update of having actually won their bid went in). the rest got nothing.

VaranisArano

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

In the context of the conversation...

Jessica Folsom says that the there was "a small number" of guilds who won their trader and were not given ownership, having their bids removed. Those guilds will be reimbursed. In a later comment, she says "it was just a handful", referring to the same situation.

I wasn't there, but presumably, ZOS is in the position to know.

Which is why I said that if you know differently, encourage those guilds to report their situation promptly.

Dont_do_drugs

VaranisArano wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

In the context of the conversation...

Jessica Folsom says that the there was "a small number" of guilds who won their trader and were not given ownership, having their bids removed. Those guilds will be reimbursed. In a later comment, she says "it was just a handful", referring to the same situation.

I wasn't there, but presumably, ZOS is in the position to know.

Which is why I said that if you know differently, encourage those guilds to report their situation promptly.

sry to say so, why would i have to do that. did u already forget the first pages of this thread? its already been reported that nearly all guilds which won their bids werent able to actually hire their trader since the npc traders swapped to empty at 09:05/08:05 while processing the bids took longer than that.

VaranisArano

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

In the context of the conversation...

Jessica Folsom says that the there was "a small number" of guilds who won their trader and were not given ownership, having their bids removed. Those guilds will be reimbursed. In a later comment, she says "it was just a handful", referring to the same situation.

I wasn't there, but presumably, ZOS is in the position to know.

Which is why I said that if you know differently, encourage those guilds to report their situation promptly.

sry to say so, why would i have to do that. did u already forget the first pages of this thread? its already been reported that nearly all guilds which won their bids werent able to actually hire their trader since the npc traders swapped to empty at 09:05/08:05 while processing the bids took longer than that.

Then there seems to be some disconnect between your statement and ZOS' investigation. Because as stated, they regard it as "a small number" of guilds they'll be reimbursing.

In that case, its especially wise to bring that to ZOS' attention, if your guild lost their "winning" bid and hasn't been reimbursed.

Or you can do nothing, and hope ZOS won't overlook you.

SteveCampsOut

Cani wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Hey, so I'm a little bit confused. Does every guild that lost their first choice trader this week due to the bug, get those 150%, regardless of how much gold they got?

Or are those 150% rather for those who lost the trader AND the Gold?

Because the Guilds who lost the Trader this week are by no means "just a handful"

She's probably referring to guilds like mine who didn't place more than 1 bid that won but trader wasn't awarded. Others placed multiple bids and won their trader but also ended up with the glitched refunds from their extra bids. I suspect very few guilds like mine only placed one winning bid.

JN_Slevin

VaranisArano wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

In the context of the conversation...

Jessica Folsom says that the there was "a small number" of guilds who won their trader and were not given ownership, having their bids removed. Those guilds will be reimbursed. In a later comment, she says "it was just a handful", referring to the same situation.

I wasn't there, but presumably, ZOS is in the position to know.

Which is why I said that if you know differently, encourage those guilds to report their situation promptly.

sry to say so, why would i have to do that. did u already forget the first pages of this thread? its already been reported that nearly all guilds which won their bids werent able to actually hire their trader since the npc traders swapped to empty at 09:05/08:05 while processing the bids took longer than that.

Then there seems to be some disconnect between your statement and ZOS' investigation. Because as stated, they regard it as "a small number" of guilds they'll be reimbursing.

In that case, its especially wise to bring that to ZOS' attention, if your guild lost their "winning" bid and hasn't been reimbursed.

Or you can do nothing, and hope ZOS won't overlook you.

Bro, all week we tried to bring that to their attention. This isn't a small number if guilds, this isn't a small number of gold.

What do you think why that interview of Kai got so much attention?

The whole point of this thread is to tell them it's not as small of a problem as they make it out to be...

Dont_do_drugs

thats why we, cani and i, were wondering what this "handfull" was referring to. we were around that night. we know its not a handfull. sure if they start digging in a database full of formed guilds filtering those out with a won bid, then they will most likely be a handfull next to welll thousands. sure. but referred to the npc trader situation it definitely is most guilds which won bid and couldnt occupy a trader.

SteveCampsOut

I'd guess that ZOS isn't mentally connecting that the guilds that received the duped gold also lost their traders so some of that Duped Gold should remain with the guild to cover their lost traders. @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Dont_do_drugs

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

I'd guess that ZOS isn't mentally connecting that the guilds that received the duped gold also lost their traders so some of that Duped Gold should remain with the guild to cover their lost traders. @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

well or they remove the duped gold CORRECTLY and then add the reimbursement for the bid. its actually too chaotic to see through meanwhile. if people lose control and oversight over what truly is their gold and not on monday latest...idk what. but at this point i am having severe doubts that in the zos headquarters anyone has oversight of what they are doing at this point. doesnt wonder me tbh even...bcs i highly doubt anyone there ever took a deeper insight into trade guild business anyways.

muh

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Honestly this blows my mind. Obviously I have no clue what your plans are with gold that has been injected into the economy already, but I doubt you'll actually remove that gold. So some damage is already done.

Now to the part I quoted. Bidding on a guild trader is meant to remove gold from the economy to prevent inflation (I know, good joke). I understand that some guilds actually lost gold because of the issues, but going beyond 100% is introducing more gold into the economy. No ifs and buts.

The lost "profits" you're talking about are a good joke as well. The trader system doesn't generate gold, quite the opposite in fact. When someone lists an item it takes away 1% of the asking price immediately. That gold is gone, never to be seen again. Then there is an additional tax of 7% upon successful sale. 3.5% of which are again for some obscure oblivion realm never to be seen again. The remaining 3.5% are actually contributed to the guild and 92% of the asking price go to the person who listed the item.
And I doubt that guilds distribute the additional 50% to their guild members, so the people that may actually missed out on profits won't benefit from it most likely.

I already wrote that the trader system doesn't generate gold in any way, it only moves gold from one player to another. So all you're accomplishing with this move is inflating and thus damaging the economy further and devaluing gold and buying power of every other person playing on the EU server.

And in my book it doesn't matter if it's just a couple hundred thousand gold or a couple hundred million.

JN_Slevin

muh wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally... given the rage at the excess gold caused by the bug, I probably would have just gone with a 100% refund instead of a 150% refund.

We did discuss that. Given that the trade guilds who were affected by this (it was just a handful) missed out on a week's worth of profits since they were unable to get a guild trader, we felt a little extra gold was appropriate and wouldn't harm the overall server economy.

Honestly this blows my mind. Obviously I have no clue what your plans are with gold that has been injected into the economy already, but I doubt you'll actually remove that gold. So some damage is already done.

Now to the part I quoted. Bidding on a guild trader is meant to remove gold from the economy to prevent overinflation (I know, good joke). I understand that some guilds actually lost gold because of the issues, but going beyond 100% is introducing more gold into the economy. No ifs and buts.

The lost "profits" you're talking about are a good joke as well. The trader system doesn't generate gold, quite the opposite in fact. When someone lists an item it takes away 1% of the asking price immediately. That gold is gone, never to be seen again. Then there is an additional tax of 7% upon successful sale. 3.5% of which are again for some obscure oblivion realm never to be seen again. The remaining 3.5% are actually contributed to the guild and 92% of the asking price go to the person who listed the item.

I already wrote that the trader system doesn't generate gold in any way, it only moves gold from one player to another. So all you're accomplishing with this move is inflating and thus damaging the economy further and devaluing gold and buying power of every other person playing on the EU server.

And in my book it doesn't matter if it's just a couple hundred thousand gold or a couple hundred million.

You get the 1% Listing Fee back if you sell that item.

brimits

We should have won our trader on Sunday but the trader did not show our guild name but we did get our gold refunded then.
Having posted several tickets ZOS has even bothered to apologise or acknowledge and today has made it even worse.
Today all our guild bids were cancelled with no refunds and virtually all our gold was removed from the guild bank.

Dagoth_Rac

Heresyall wrote: »

You get the 1% Listing Fee back if you sell that item.

I have some weird OCD going on where I have to receive a nice, round number from my sales. So I always need to keep that 1% coming back in mind. Otherwise I'll end up with some random amount of gold in my sold email.

Why is it OK for me to sell at some weird number like 10752g? But not OK for me to receive some weird number like 10752g? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bucky_13

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

I have some weird OCD going on where I have to receive a nice, round number from my sales. So I always need to keep that 1% coming back in mind. Otherwise I'll end up with some random amount of gold in my sold email.

Why is it OK for me to sell at some weird number like 10752g? But not OK for me to receive some weird number like 10752g? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Funnily enough, I have a habit of avoiding buying items from traders that have that sort of price, unless it's something rare that I can't afford to skip, since it annoys me. I also tend to sell things for even 100s or 1000s as much as possible for that same reason. While the amount of money I get from sales doesn't bother me for some reason though.

Aragorn79

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

"It was just a handful" does not sound like 95% to me. If you know otherwise, encourage those guilds to report their situation to ZOS promptly.

i dont know, what that handful is referred to. maybe to all formed guilds ever in the game (lol)...i really dont know. but yeh, even if its not 95%....it might be 90% of the won bids....at least might be a number which fits, since the last 10% managed to hire a trader before the history info went in, that they actually won the bid and started blocking them from hiring.

i mean were u around that evening? yes most guilds which won were blocked by the guild history from hiring. and nearly all traders were unoccupied. i guess, as i heard, only stormhaven(/wayrest was regular.

The handful refers to those guilds that won a bid but did not get the trader because of the bug AND did not get a refund from the system for not getting the trader. So it is a handful because many guilds that won a bid and did not get a trader because of the bug got their gold reimbursed for the bid.
So, yes, I was there that night and the majority of guilds did not get the trader they won because of the bug, BUT there is a difference between guilds that in the aftermath received the gold back (also much in excess) and guilds that did not receive any gold back. So the handful of guilds means those that placed a bid, won it, gold was deducted, but the trader was not available due the bug and there was no gold back from the system, ergo a big loss. That is why it is fair that the excess gold be removed AND that the gold spent on a winning but not available trader be refunded as well.

Blobsky

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

I'd guess that ZOS isn't mentally connecting that the guilds that received the duped gold also lost their traders so some of that Duped Gold should remain with the guild to cover their lost traders. @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

I agree with this @ZOS_JessicaFolsom ...

Many guilds, including my own, have not spent any gold from the dupe, but if ALL gold was taken back would now lose out on every bid they made for the week, which is multiple hundreds of millions of gold of LEGITIMATE gold. ONE of each bid should have been refunded, as those bids lost (due to one of the bids winning).

Will the gold that SHOULD have been refunded from lost bids be correctly calculated?

StabbityDoom

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

OsManiaC wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Atm a lot of people are complaining about missing gold from the unseccessfull won bid and people saying they didn't get the full amount removed. So are u going on working on the gold part or has it been it now, Jessica?

Any gold that is "missing" or guild trader bids canceled due to removing the gold associated with them was done as part of this effort. Any gold that's been removed was removed because it was duped during the issue last Sunday.

I am trying very hard to understand.

very basic question I will ask.

I bid 5 million gold. system says I hired xyz with 5 million. in virtual reality some other guild is there.

where is my 5 million gold

Just chatted with a few folks here and it sounds like there is a separate issue happening. Apologies for misunderstanding those of you I did. If you lost gold on Sunday, August 18 as a result of the server issues, that is not expected behavior and we will help you. One such example is if you placed a bid last week and won a guild trader on Sunday, but now find yourself in a position where your gold for the bid was taken out of your guild bank but you do not have the guild trader that the system said you won. We're currently exploring options to help those of you who are in that position. We'll provide an update within the next few hours with more details.

Thanks again for your patience, and apologies again for the initial misunderstanding.

Jessica kicks major ***. Thanks Jessica for listening to those who were harmed!

anitajoneb17_ESO

Well, we talk to 10-20 people in our own circles, 50% or so have a problem, we call this "nearly everyone has a problem".
ZOS looks at millions of players and thousands of guilds, among which 218 of them (top) have a problem and call it "a handful".
Sounds legit to me. Matter of perspective.

What I see is that ZOS finally decided to put the matter in the hands of humans (the ones with a slow but agile brain) instead of a script (the quick but stubborn AI).
The problem is that it is going to be much harder now for humans to sort out stuff now that a script, obviously written without the full knowledge of the variety of situations that occurred, has been messing up everything even more.