Why is everybody against an auction house?

Heromofo

nastuug wrote: »

Cuyler wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

The only flaw I see is to guild stores, but they could all be what makes up the auction house.
Instead of a general auction house, like most games, it could be made out of guild stores and work so that you would be buying just like you bought from that guild. It would also decrease, but not eliminate, the need for a vendor.

It wouldn't hurt the social aspect either. How would it be any different than running around to the various guild stores like we already do? It wouldn't. It would be more convenient for sellers (guilds only) and buyers.

Edit:
Ideally this system would need to incorporate the current guild traders in a way that does not harm the current system.
Trading should not be limited to end-game, competitive content only. This should, however, remain viable.

It could work similar to the following:
- The AH would include guild stores.
- Those with vendors would take priority, in order of the bid amount placed.
- Priority items would appear before any others, lower bidders (kiosks/ vendors) goods would only be viewed by going to their store or buy the higher bidders item(s) selling out/ not available.
- Searching items would have to include multiple factors, such by text and/ or the level and quality of the item. This prevents lower bidders and free-for-all traders from being excluded from the listings.

Example: I want a piece of light armor that is both level 30 and rare. If both the highest and lowest bidders from the current system have an item that fits this search than I would see the highest bidders' item(s) first. If they do not than I would see the item from whomever is the highest bidder who meets this search. If none of the bidders meet this search than I would see the free-for-all players.

This keeps the current competition and relevance of the current system.

So people against us is this a good comprise to this argument?.

NO

lol, they will never compromise. Thank God they aren't the devs.

*sigh* stubborn lot

Heromofo

Cuyler wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

The only flaw I see is to guild stores, but they could all be what makes up the auction house.
Instead of a general auction house, like most games, it could be made out of guild stores and work so that you would be buying just like you bought from that guild. It would also decrease, but not eliminate, the need for a vendor.

It wouldn't hurt the social aspect either. How would it be any different than running around to the various guild stores like we already do? It wouldn't. It would be more convenient for sellers (guilds only) and buyers.

Edit:
Ideally this system would need to incorporate the current guild traders in a way that does not harm the current system.
Trading should not be limited to end-game, competitive content only. This should, however, remain viable.

It could work similar to the following:
- The AH would include guild stores.
- Those with vendors would take priority, in order of the bid amount placed.
- Priority items would appear before any others, lower bidders (kiosks/ vendors) goods would only be viewed by going to their store or buy the higher bidders item(s) selling out/ not available.
- Searching items would have to include multiple factors, such by text and/ or the level and quality of the item. This prevents lower bidders and free-for-all traders from being excluded from the listings.

Example: I want a piece of light armor that is both level 30 and rare. If both the highest and lowest bidders from the current system have an item that fits this search than I would see the highest bidders' item(s) first. If they do not than I would see the item from whomever is the highest bidder who meets this search. If none of the bidders meet this search than I would see the free-for-all players.

This keeps the current competition and relevance of the current system.

So people against us is this a good comprise to this argument?.

NO

First of all stop been so [snip] stubborn and talk with us.
Second instead of NO how about details to why garretts idea wouldn't work.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Inappropriate Content and Language]

nastuug

Heromofo wrote: »

nastuug wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Introducing an AH into ESO would not "ruin the in-game economy"... You can't ruin something that does not functionally exist.

What an AH would do is actually create a functional in-game economy.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not understand how economies work.

Shhhh, a healthy dose reality has no place here.

All The Best

Hulf they have to wake up sooner or later they are just a stubborn lot.
They don't want a comprise or discussion they just go back to " learn to play or get lost".

Writing off valid opinions that you happen to not agree with as stubborn or in need of 'waking up' is pretty disappointing. Surely this thread could use less shots at people in lieu of active discussion.

Well with each comprise offered they are shot down just as quick as " stupid " personally i love Garretts comprise so what do you think?.

I enjoy the current system and would dislike to see it changed. (Note: That is not me saying it's stupid - as with many responses to disagreement seem to have been seen in this thread. It's merely a preference.)

I think the system is different but on a personal level i play with friends only and they are off and on.
So lone wolf is my play style and i prefer not to be in guilds i think thats my problem.

If the system stays i would like to see a trade hall in each main city where people like me can buy slots for 20,000 gold and increasing in price. So i can drop off and head back out otherwise i would like to see garretts idea put in.


What do you think @BBSooner ?

I would say that simply being in a casual trade guild with that specific chat turned off would yield the same results without the pricetag, so I wouldn't find that it appealed to me, especially since as of late I have 3 open guild slots. But I understand that is just a work around and not a true (albiet less expensive) solution. Though it might be your preference for the change, I'd prefer keeping the current system intact.

I should point out i plan to play on the consoles so i really would prefer not to jump on the mic.
I loooove the idea of chilling on the couch chilling but without some way to drop off like i would with an ah this makes things alot harder.

Thoughts?

@BBSooner

Yes, run from the PC Master Race you dirty lizard... wait, that's the other guy.

Hahahah lol dam it nas come cosole

driosketch

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

The only flaw I see is to guild stores, but they could all be what makes up the auction house.
Instead of a general auction house, like most games, it could be made out of guild stores and work so that you would be buying just like you bought from that guild. It would also decrease, but not eliminate, the need for a vendor.

It wouldn't hurt the social aspect either. How would it be any different than running around to the various guild stores like we already do? It wouldn't. It would be more convenient for sellers (guilds only) and buyers.

Edit:
Ideally this system would need to incorporate the current guild traders in a way that does not harm the current system.
Trading should not be limited to end-game, competitive content only. This should, however, remain viable.

It could work similar to the following:
- The AH would include guild stores.
- Those with vendors would take priority, in order of the bid amount placed.
- Priority items would appear before any others, lower bidders (kiosks/ vendors) goods would only be viewed by going to their store or buy the higher bidders item(s) selling out/ not available.
- Searching items would have to include multiple factors, such by text and/ or the level and quality of the item. This prevents lower bidders and free-for-all traders from being excluded from the listings.

Example: I want a piece of light armor that is both level 30 and rare. If both the highest and lowest bidders from the current system have an item that fits this search than I would see the highest bidders' item(s) first. If they do not than I would see the item from whomever is the highest bidder who meets this search. If none of the bidders meet this search than I would see the free-for-all players.

This keeps the current competition and relevance of the current system.

So people against us is this a good comprise to this argument?.

I guess? So it would work like this then?

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

So if I understand well...

I am in guild A and sell a Kuta for 5K
Person X is in guild B and sells a Kuta for 4K
Person Y is a non guilded person and sells a Kuta for 3K

Let's assume Guild B bid more than Guild A (and person Y of course did not bid at all)

If I understand well My Kuta will NOT be offered to buyers until person X's Kuta has been sold,
and Person Y's Kuta will not be offered for sale until MY Kuta (though more expensive)has been sold ?

That sounds to me like much much more hurdles and injustice than the current system, unless I misunderstood...

Not talking about the technical issues : people sell stuff in all kind of packaging / quantities... they will make offers of 42 or 56 or whatever unique number of plants just to have a "unique" offer that will not be overriden by the "main guild in place"...

I mean it would just add a broken global market place to the existing system. One where those with the most active trade guilds and biggest pool of gold actually would be able to dictate market prices more so than they are able to do now. I'm surprised it's a suggestion from those who want an AH.

It's kind of like if proponents of battle arena pvp asked as a compromise that said arenas have instant kill mines buried every five meters.

ZOS_MichelleA

Hello there, everyone. We understand that this is a topic many players have opinions on, and we love it when you all share your thoughts with us. That said, we do expect all posts on the forums to be respectful, constructive, and adhere to our Code of Conduct.

We previously posted in order to ask that this thread remain civil, and unfortunately the conversation has continued to devolve into insults and tangential personal arguments. Because of this, we will be closing the discussion. Thank you for your understanding.