ZOS Our guild leaders are stressed by biding wars

Gabriel_H · August 21

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Come to think of it, why have they not done this yet?? They can see what areas are popular and which are not..

Because a game full of Milton Keynes' would look awful.

Stafford197 · August 21

Ph1p wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Guild Traders also make town design worse, and are the reason why nearly all towns except for the major ones are empty. Players pack into places which have lots of traders and all services. I’d prefer to stay in a settlement that I enjoy being around instead, and not be cut off from essential functions by doing so.

There are many valid criticisms of guild traders, but blaming them for bad town design is a bit weird. It exactly the other way around. People flock to conveniently designed towns (Vivec City) or the presence of useful features like pledges (Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden Root) or dungeon/trial PUGs (Belkarth).

This high traffic makes the towns' traders more popular and attracts bigger guilds with better stocked stores, which in turn does bring in more traffic. But why do you think this system makes ZOS design towns in a worse way?

Oh, I actually do agree with you! My point wasn’t clear so I’ll clarify here.

Major towns are designed in a convenient manner which is why they are heavily populated by players. Guild Traders, Banker, Undaunted Pledges, Daily Writs rotation turn-in speed, etc. However, these are only designed this way in the first place because ZOS has made the decision for us to specifically hang out there.

Vvardenfell is a great example of how it’s done. Vivec City’s wayshrine puts us right in front of a bunch of guild traders, including all of the craft services and bankers. It’s a city designed for players to “main it”.
At the same time, we are now disincentivized from “maining” any other town throughout Vvardenfell because they do not offer nearly as much convenience as Vivec City. Those other towns become strictly used as questing areas or for other quick visits but nothing more.

Western Skyrim does the same. Solitude itself is not as popular as other major towns because it’s not as convenient, but it’s the only town with any players there. Have you seen Morthal though? This is a beautiful town, but it was turned strictly into a quest area because it lacks so many essentials, and so no one can actually “main” that town.

Guild Traders in major cities also take up large areas of space which can be used for other things. Good example of this is in Anvil, where entire buildings by the Wayshrine are dedicated to being these weird guild traders buildings instead of actual NPC homes/whatever else.

The point is that having only a handful of towns serve as viable places to hang around, is just so unnecessary… I’d much rather be able to hang out in others towns (such as Morthal) without losing access to all the essential features. Guild Traders are the largest part of this as the traders themselves take up a lot of space and don’t blend into towns the way normal NPCs/buildings do. If an Auction House existed and could be accessed via non-assistant Bankers, half the problem is already solved in terms of towns missing their essentials.

DenverRalphy · August 21

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Guild Traders also make town design worse, and are the reason why nearly all towns except for the major ones are empty. Players pack into places which have lots of traders and all services. I’d prefer to stay in a settlement that I enjoy being around instead, and not be cut off from essential functions by doing so.

There are many valid criticisms of guild traders, but blaming them for bad town design is a bit weird. It exactly the other way around. People flock to conveniently designed towns (Vivec City) or the presence of useful features like pledges (Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden Root) or dungeon/trial PUGs (Belkarth).

This high traffic makes the towns' traders more popular and attracts bigger guilds with better stocked stores, which in turn does bring in more traffic. But why do you think this system makes ZOS design towns in a worse way?

Really, they should redesign all the towns in the game and give reasons to visit each one. They can be different enough but and offer and availability of like conveniences with a certain distance of the Wayshrine. That would put all towns on a equal footing. The most popular towns are popular because of their layouts and amenities, including traders. But there's zero reason why all town in the game can't be similarly designed. I would even make it so each town has rotating reasons to visit each day/week/month. This would make it so each town would be desirable.

If that were true, the capital cities (Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden Root) wouldn't be the big hubs. The designs of those cities (omg, especially Elden Root) are friggin abysmal. 75% of the other cities throughout Tamriel are so much better when looked at from a design/layout perspective. Some players like to rave about Vivec City;s layout too, but I don't see it.

What makes the capital cities so successful is that they have the quest givers for the guild dailies, as well have Roliss Hlaalu the Writ vendor to keep traffic flowiing through them. Vivec City? I dunno why it's so highly sought after, so I just assume it's more a nostalgia thing.

Pelanora · August 21

Zos is not going to redesign the whole game layout and the whole trading system. Come on people.

At best it could remove the info discrepancy between consol and pc players, with a real time 'what's for sale where' list. Remedying the information market failure would be enough.

Stafford197 · August 21

Pelanora wrote: »

Zos is not going to redesign the whole game layout and the whole trading system. Come on people.

At best it could remove the info discrepancy between consol and pc players, with a real time 'what's for sale where' list. Remedying the information market failure would be enough.

I don’t think anyone expects changes to be made no matter what the topic is on these Forums. We literally had an update that capped us to 30 FPS within our menus and ZOS ignored all of the backlash.

Players are allowed to talk about it though, you see all the feedback here whether it’s positive, negative, or cope.

wolfie1.0. · August 21

Elvenheart wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

People pay absolutely insane amounts of gold on trader bids, and of course it's stressful for GMs to try to keep up. Week after week. There's nothing ZOS can do about it, except perhaps scrap the whole system because insane bids is actually the expected result of this system, where access to the market is locked behind a finite number of traders. The demand for those traders will ALWAYS be higher than the supply, because lots of people like the idea of running a guild that has a trader. They're willing to pay a lot in gold and time and stress for it.

Meanwhile, members of the guilds are in 5 different trade guilds, all bidding against each other, raising the cost for themselves. More gold to the weekly gold sink. It's absurd and kind of funny when you step back and look at it objectively.

Personally, I think ZOS should put a reasonable cap on how much a guild can bid for a trader, and if everyone bids the same amount for the same trader select the winner randomly from the bidders, or else let it be first come first serve with the guild who got their bid in first being the winner.

This would make the situation worse

wolfie1.0. · August 21

Pevey wrote: »

Guild leaders come here to say they’ve been social banned for sending emails pretty regularly.

I have dropped guilds that send lots of mails. It doesn’t need to be encouraged.

Pretty sure zos has said art one point the reason they don’t add voice chat to PC is that options like Teamspeak (this was years ago) exist, and there’s no need for them to try to recreate that in game.

If players don’t even join discord, they definitely don’t want your mail.

And I have blacklisted people for putting guild officers on ignore lists.

The recent changes to the mail system actually indicates that there is room, capacity, and capability to allow for guild specific mails. Which would allow better communication to guild members. Whether you read or pay attention to them is always optional. But it would be a welcome tool native to the game.

vsrs_au · August 21

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Elvenheart wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

People pay absolutely insane amounts of gold on trader bids, and of course it's stressful for GMs to try to keep up. Week after week. There's nothing ZOS can do about it, except perhaps scrap the whole system because insane bids is actually the expected result of this system, where access to the market is locked behind a finite number of traders. The demand for those traders will ALWAYS be higher than the supply, because lots of people like the idea of running a guild that has a trader. They're willing to pay a lot in gold and time and stress for it.

Meanwhile, members of the guilds are in 5 different trade guilds, all bidding against each other, raising the cost for themselves. More gold to the weekly gold sink. It's absurd and kind of funny when you step back and look at it objectively.

Personally, I think ZOS should put a reasonable cap on how much a guild can bid for a trader, and if everyone bids the same amount for the same trader select the winner randomly from the bidders, or else let it be first come first serve with the guild who got their bid in first being the winner.

This would make the situation worse

It sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How do you think it would make the situation worse?

wolfie1.0. · August 21

vsrs_au wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Elvenheart wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

People pay absolutely insane amounts of gold on trader bids, and of course it's stressful for GMs to try to keep up. Week after week. There's nothing ZOS can do about it, except perhaps scrap the whole system because insane bids is actually the expected result of this system, where access to the market is locked behind a finite number of traders. The demand for those traders will ALWAYS be higher than the supply, because lots of people like the idea of running a guild that has a trader. They're willing to pay a lot in gold and time and stress for it.

Meanwhile, members of the guilds are in 5 different trade guilds, all bidding against each other, raising the cost for themselves. More gold to the weekly gold sink. It's absurd and kind of funny when you step back and look at it objectively.

Personally, I think ZOS should put a reasonable cap on how much a guild can bid for a trader, and if everyone bids the same amount for the same trader select the winner randomly from the bidders, or else let it be first come first serve with the guild who got their bid in first being the winner.

This would make the situation worse

It sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How do you think it would make the situation worse?

Let's say the cap was set at 10 million gold. For some locations this is high, for others very very low.

In first come first served scenario this means that the guild that places max bid right after flip gets the best traders in the games. Creating a situation where GMs are forced to be online at a specific time to get there location. It also means they can essentially do the same for 10 backup locations.

In the other scenario, where it's randomly selected then you can essentially bid on 10 locations at max price and lose all 10 depending on the locations and number of guilds.

Under either system rival guilds can weaponize it to lock out or disrupt a specific location with very slim consequences. To do that today for the most active locations you would need to have a significant pool of gold.

With the current set up as GM with 10 options I can almost guarantee a trader in one of those 10. I wont be able to do that under the proposed system. Thus making the system worse.

vsrs_au · August 21

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Elvenheart wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

People pay absolutely insane amounts of gold on trader bids, and of course it's stressful for GMs to try to keep up. Week after week. There's nothing ZOS can do about it, except perhaps scrap the whole system because insane bids is actually the expected result of this system, where access to the market is locked behind a finite number of traders. The demand for those traders will ALWAYS be higher than the supply, because lots of people like the idea of running a guild that has a trader. They're willing to pay a lot in gold and time and stress for it.

Meanwhile, members of the guilds are in 5 different trade guilds, all bidding against each other, raising the cost for themselves. More gold to the weekly gold sink. It's absurd and kind of funny when you step back and look at it objectively.

Personally, I think ZOS should put a reasonable cap on how much a guild can bid for a trader, and if everyone bids the same amount for the same trader select the winner randomly from the bidders, or else let it be first come first serve with the guild who got their bid in first being the winner.

This would make the situation worse

It sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How do you think it would make the situation worse?

Let's say the cap was set at 10 million gold. For some locations this is high, for others very very low.

In first come first served scenario this means that the guild that places max bid right after flip gets the best traders in the games. Creating a situation where GMs are forced to be online at a specific time to get there location. It also means they can essentially do the same for 10 backup locations.

In the other scenario, where it's randomly selected then you can essentially bid on 10 locations at max price and lose all 10 depending on the locations and number of guilds.

Under either system rival guilds can weaponize it to lock out or disrupt a specific location with very slim consequences. To do that today for the most active locations you would need to have a significant pool of gold.

With the current set up as GM with 10 options I can almost guarantee a trader in one of those 10. I wont be able to do that under your proposed system. Thus making the system worse.

Thanks for the explanation. It's not my proposed system, though, so your last paragraph is a bit misleading.

Ph1p · August 21

Stafford197 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Guild Traders also make town design worse, and are the reason why nearly all towns except for the major ones are empty. Players pack into places which have lots of traders and all services. I’d prefer to stay in a settlement that I enjoy being around instead, and not be cut off from essential functions by doing so.

There are many valid criticisms of guild traders, but blaming them for bad town design is a bit weird. It exactly the other way around. People flock to conveniently designed towns (Vivec City) or the presence of useful features like pledges (Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden Root) or dungeon/trial PUGs (Belkarth).

This high traffic makes the towns' traders more popular and attracts bigger guilds with better stocked stores, which in turn does bring in more traffic. But why do you think this system makes ZOS design towns in a worse way?

The point is that having only a handful of towns serve as viable places to hang around, is just so unnecessary… I’d much rather be able to hang out in others towns (such as Morthal) without losing access to all the essential features. Guild Traders are the largest part of this as the traders themselves take up a lot of space and don’t blend into towns the way normal NPCs/buildings do. If an Auction House existed and could be accessed via non-assistant Bankers, half the problem is already solved in terms of towns missing their essentials.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying! Personally, I don't think trader stalls feel out of place in a bustling city market, but I agree that ZOS could design new cities with better layouts. For example, I think Vivec is still the only place where the banker is out in the open?

Pelanora · August 21

If they streamlined doors it wouldnt matter so much. Doors should open as you push forward when in front of it. Shouldn't need an extra open mechanism.

wolfie1.0. · August 21

vsrs_au wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Elvenheart wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

People pay absolutely insane amounts of gold on trader bids, and of course it's stressful for GMs to try to keep up. Week after week. There's nothing ZOS can do about it, except perhaps scrap the whole system because insane bids is actually the expected result of this system, where access to the market is locked behind a finite number of traders. The demand for those traders will ALWAYS be higher than the supply, because lots of people like the idea of running a guild that has a trader. They're willing to pay a lot in gold and time and stress for it.

Meanwhile, members of the guilds are in 5 different trade guilds, all bidding against each other, raising the cost for themselves. More gold to the weekly gold sink. It's absurd and kind of funny when you step back and look at it objectively.

Personally, I think ZOS should put a reasonable cap on how much a guild can bid for a trader, and if everyone bids the same amount for the same trader select the winner randomly from the bidders, or else let it be first come first serve with the guild who got their bid in first being the winner.

This would make the situation worse

It sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How do you think it would make the situation worse?

Let's say the cap was set at 10 million gold. For some locations this is high, for others very very low.

In first come first served scenario this means that the guild that places max bid right after flip gets the best traders in the games. Creating a situation where GMs are forced to be online at a specific time to get there location. It also means they can essentially do the same for 10 backup locations.

In the other scenario, where it's randomly selected then you can essentially bid on 10 locations at max price and lose all 10 depending on the locations and number of guilds.

Under either system rival guilds can weaponize it to lock out or disrupt a specific location with very slim consequences. To do that today for the most active locations you would need to have a significant pool of gold.

With the current set up as GM with 10 options I can almost guarantee a trader in one of those 10. I wont be able to do that under your proposed system. Thus making the system worse.

Thanks for the explanation. It's not my proposed system, though, so your last paragraph is a bit misleading.

Apologies i wrote that incorrectly, I edited the post to change "your" to "the" so that it provides correct context

wolfie1.0. · August 21

Ph1p wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Guild Traders also make town design worse, and are the reason why nearly all towns except for the major ones are empty. Players pack into places which have lots of traders and all services. I’d prefer to stay in a settlement that I enjoy being around instead, and not be cut off from essential functions by doing so.

There are many valid criticisms of guild traders, but blaming them for bad town design is a bit weird. It exactly the other way around. People flock to conveniently designed towns (Vivec City) or the presence of useful features like pledges (Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden Root) or dungeon/trial PUGs (Belkarth).

This high traffic makes the towns' traders more popular and attracts bigger guilds with better stocked stores, which in turn does bring in more traffic. But why do you think this system makes ZOS design towns in a worse way?

The point is that having only a handful of towns serve as viable places to hang around, is just so unnecessary… I’d much rather be able to hang out in others towns (such as Morthal) without losing access to all the essential features. Guild Traders are the largest part of this as the traders themselves take up a lot of space and don’t blend into towns the way normal NPCs/buildings do. If an Auction House existed and could be accessed via non-assistant Bankers, half the problem is already solved in terms of towns missing their essentials.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying! Personally, I don't think trader stalls feel out of place in a bustling city market, but I agree that ZOS could design new cities with better layouts. For example, I think Vivec is still the only place where the banker is out in the open?

Correct, and the other two semi prime set ups are technically pay walled

Aurielle · August 21

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

That might be one of the most hyperbolic statements I’ve ever read. Global auction houses work perfectly fine in other games without causing “actual world harm.”

Really! https://mud.fandom.com/wiki/Chinese_gold_farming

ZOS reduce that risk by having a competitor trading system which keeps prices relatively in check.

Global auction houses have no such limitations and so prices get pushed higher and higher, as people bid more and more, which increases the profitability of such a real world "business". The developer, if acting in a moral and responsible way, then have to put more and more resources into stopping the bots, the scammers, the gold farming, thereby taking away resources from actual game development and maintenance.

You don't think that's real world harm? /facepalm

I report /zone gold sellers every single day. The bots, gold farmers, and scammers are already here; the current trading system is not keeping them at bay.

wenchmore420b14_ESO · August 21

Pevey wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

It would help if ZOS could provide some quality-of-life features to make this easier and encourage more people to take active roles in guild management. For example:
Allow a very limited number of guild-wide mails (e.g., 1 or 2 per week) and make it possible to select specific guild ranks as recipients. Guilds sometimes need to communicate with all their members without having to rely on add-ons, risk a social ban, or do excessive manual work.

...

Please no. ZOS rightfully calls this spam. There are tools like Discord for guild communication. With those tools, users can adjust their notification settings however they want. Sending an in-game message is like when someone calls you instead of texting to convey basic info. It just shouldn't be done.

Must disagree on many levels. I take it you are not a GM and not looking at ESO's demographics.
You understand that a large % of ESO players are over 50-60? Many don't have Discord or those who do don't use it as a social hangout. Myself included.
I am a GM and have a TS3 and a Discord channel for my guild. We are at currently 350+. Sending guild mails is the most efficient way of conveying information to the guild. I have had no one ever quit because of it and those that don't want it can opt out. I only send guild wide mails maybe twice a month which I think is reasonable.
But ZoS does work against the GM's in this regard.UP43 changed the parameters of the time allowed before it is tagged as spam. I know as I am now socially banned, again, for mailing my guild to let them know we have the new Scribing Table.
I have a thread about this here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/664242/zos-vs-guild-mails#latest

@ZOS_Kevin Will anyone at least give a quick response to guild mails and a remedy, Please!!

valenwood_vegan · August 21

Hey just a suggestion, as this post had kind of a general initial topic and then has veered into a number of different topics all at once - it's sometimes better to create a new post specifically for a specific idea such as reworking towns; a guild mail feature; etc., to maximize the chance that they are noticed by the powers that be. As someone who has moderated a forum in the past, I think it can be easy to miss a good suggestion in a post where multiple topics are being discussed at the same time.