Potential Guild Trader Exploit! Please Investigate and Fix ASAP!

Scaena

Tabbycat wrote: »

It sounds like an exploit to me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno or @ZOS_JessicaFolsom can you clarify on whether or not this is allowed?

We do need clarification. After all I can't very well start planning my new empire without knowing whether it will get me in trouble or not.

I wonder if I should bring in some other large guilds so we can expand quickly. With some gold funding we could bid with alt guilds on spots in zones like Elden Root, Mournhold and Wayrest.

Maybe also small spots in Skywatch and Marburk. Shut those zones down so people head to my traders more often or just to sell back at inflated costs.

This is getting exciting! Tamriel Domination!

PathwayM

Scaena wrote: »

Tabbycat wrote: »

It sounds like an exploit to me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno or @ZOS_JessicaFolsom can you clarify on whether or not this is allowed?

We do need clarification. After all I can't very well start planning my new empire without knowing whether it will get me in trouble or not.

I wonder if I should bring in some other large guilds so we can expand quickly. With some gold funding we could bid with alt guilds on spots in zones like Elden Root, Mournhold and Wayrest.

Maybe also small spots in Skywatch and Marburk. Shut those zones down so people head to my traders more often or just to sell back at inflated costs.

This is getting exciting! Tamriel Domination!

0.o

Dawnblade

The whole trader system is set up in such a way that it allows a handful of players to be able to monopolize large portions of the market at the expense of others, it is not set up in such a way to create a fair, transparent, and open marketplace for all.

Traders are highly limited (especially ones with traffic / volume), tied to one guild at a time, with each guild restricted to a limited number of players, and each player limited in the number of items they can list on a trader.

There will always be those trying to game the system by using alt guilds to bid on multiple traders, capture traders to lock out other guilds, bribe and pay off guilds to bid / not bid on traders, bribe / pay off others to gain traders, share player rosters across guilds so the same players have multiple traders to sell through, etc, etc.

So sorry, I just can't don't care that someone happened to spot some shenanigans going on with traders considering they and their guild / guild members probably have at least participated in shenanigans of their own.

PathwayM

Dawnblade wrote: »

The whole trader system is set up in such a way that it allows a handful of players to be able to monopolize large portions of the market at the expense of others, it is not set up in such a way to create a fair, transparent, and open marketplace for all.

Traders are highly limited (especially ones with traffic / volume), tied to one guild at a time, with each guild restricted to a limited number of players, and each player limited in the number of items they can list on a trader.

There will always be those trying to game the system by using alt guilds to bid on multiple traders, capture traders to lock out other guilds, bribe and pay off guilds to bid / not bid on traders, bribe / pay off others to gain traders, share player rosters across guilds so the same players have multiple traders to sell through, etc, etc.

So sorry, I just can't don't care that someone happened to spot some shenanigans going on with traders considering they and their guild / guild members probably have at least participated in shenanigans of their own.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the point is still clear that this behavior clearly undermines intended mechanics and how the trade system was designed in the first place. With that said, backhanded comments directed toward me regarding your disapproval of my reporting of these "shenanigans" are unwelcome.

Dolgubon

Dawnblade wrote: »

The whole trader system is set up in such a way that it allows a handful of players to be able to monopolize large portions of the market at the expense of others, it is not set up in such a way to create a fair, transparent, and open marketplace for all.

Traders are highly limited (especially ones with traffic / volume), tied to one guild at a time, with each guild restricted to a limited number of players, and each player limited in the number of items they can list on a trader.

There will always be those trying to game the system by using alt guilds to bid on multiple traders, capture traders to lock out other guilds, bribe and pay off guilds to bid / not bid on traders, bribe / pay off others to gain traders, share player rosters across guilds so the same players have multiple traders to sell through, etc, etc.

So sorry, I just can't don't care that someone happened to spot some shenanigans going on with traders considering they and their guild / guild members probably have at least participated in shenanigans of their own.

I don't know how you can consider sharing player rosters to be 'shenanigans.' Most guilds that have a reasonable size and mostly active people are bound to share at least one or two members, if not more.

It's also relatively easy to join a trade guild, as long as you want to. Certainly, it's harder to join one in Rawl Kha or Mournhold, but they're not the only good trader spots out there.

nooblybear

Being merely the former GM of a disbanded guild, I have some insights which I hope are relatively neutral on this matter.

I recall that this happened (or still happens) on console, where someone accused a group of people of doing this so that they could "sell" the spot for real money on Facebook. The issue there was the selling-spots-for-real-money, not the disbanding of the guild.

I really fail to comprehend how this could be described as an exploit. This is working exactly how Zenimax intended it. If they didn't, then the trader would stay blocked when the guild had disbanded. It isn't necessarily ideal behaviour, but why should one guild be "made example of" because they came up with a solution to what is a disgustingly broken system?

Explanation: The bidding system is currently broken in that a call to GuildKioskPurchase can somehow be interpreted as GuildKioskBid on the back-end, and lock a guild into an out-of-the-way trader that happens to be bugged out (showing that it has no trader and can be hired) for the next week. This has been a long-running issue and the responses that I've heard from various Zenimax support tickets ranges from "Nothing we can do about it" to "We don't know how the system works so we can't fix it" (paraphrasing mine). This happens regularly when guilds are attempting to hire an empty, back-up trader and something "goes wrong". There are no debates about this. (Almost) Every trade guild in the game has fallen prey to this bug.

Back to the "exploit": If the guild in question did indeed get locked into another trader (which is what I was told when I heard about it from a friend earlier), then they had to not only put together a guild of 50 people, but transfer an amount of gold equivalent to how much they would traditionally bid to this new guild, then bid with it. Then take the risk that, upon disbanding the guild, anyone had the opportunity to hire the trader. It seems like an extremely risky, potentially no-win situation. This is not the simple method people seem to think it is.

On the matter of other people talking about monopolizing traders and such, that's certainly something for Zenimax to address, but a well-funded group could potentially do this regardless. Some of the methods being described by people in this thread do not even require the disbanding of the guild.

Finally, there are a number of negative responses from the GMs of guilds strongly associated with a guild who, in the best of terms, can be described as "at war" with the so called "guilty guild". These are the same guilds that, when the "at war" guild decides to move against the "guilty guild", take the spot being vacated for a low price in order to ensure that the "guilty guild" can't hire for nothing.

I'm not implying any partisanship on their behalf, but I'd like to make it utterly clear that people in this thread cannot be considered completely neutral on the matter, or free of ulterior motives.

Especially myself.

Luthid

Scaena wrote: »

PathwayM wrote: »

Scaena wrote: »

This is disturbing to hear but I admit after reading his I couldn't help but think how this would help with my own guilds bids. We lost our bid two weeks ago so if this is acceptable practice then I'll have to do the same and create alt guilds to bid on other spots.

When we lost our bid it was hard and I don't want it to happen again. I don't want to ruin the game for other guilds but if I can bid on two or even three spots to ensure my guild has a trader each week then I will unless I'm told it's not acceptable by ZOS.

I'm sorry to the other guilds but if I hire multiple trader spots with our gold then it's fair play right? Even if I'm taking multiple spots I'm still paying. It's not like it's my fault if all the other small guilds die out because wealthier guilds are now buying up all the spots as backups.

I could even maybe SELL spots I won bids on? Maybe create a cartel of sorts where we win multiple spots each week then sell those spots to guilds who lost. I could probably make a ton of gold by winning traders and selling them.. Hmm...

A lot of possibilities open up if this is allowed. I could make trader spots even more rare and valuable by bidding on all the cheap spots with alt guilds shutting out the new trader guilds then demand whatever I want to allow new guilds a place in my new cartel. Maybe start charging a "protection tax" so I don't bid on your trader spot with my alt guild.

Hmm... I wonder what else I could do with this...

Please keep in mind that my original post was not in any way intended to promote cheating in anyway and I would discourage you from using this exploit. My sole intentions are to make the issue known and nothing else.

That's up to Zenimax to decide right? If they say it's allowed then who am I to disagree? If they want to allow my guild to dominate why should I say no? If I want to bid on multiple guild traders and sell them and zenimax says ok then why shouldn't I? If I want to create my own little empire of trader spots why not?

It's up to Zenimax to say whether it's fair or an exploit. Who knows... maybe in a couple of months guilds will have to come to my guild for permission to bid on spots. Everyone will be a part of my cartel all those who disagree will be forced out by my alt guilds.

Zenimax will have to let us know if they want guild monopolies and half or more traders filled with now worthless guilds just taking up room to shut out the competition and make them come to the big guilds to plead for a spot.

In PVP they have the Emperor achievement right? Maybe Trade should have the King Pin Achievement for when you thoroughly destroy all competition and take all the trader spots with alt guilds.

You are a special kind of evil genius

Sweetpea704

redspecter23 wrote: »

Probably more of a loophole than an exploit. The people in question didn't do anything against the rules but are working the system. ZOS should probably find a way to patch up that loophole before it escalates past one testing guild and into something much larger and more sketchy.

Working the system, is an exploit.

redmoonga

I don't even bid in the same city as the guild in question and I believe this is cheating. The stall showed as occupied and many guilds passed it by. They then opened it at their leisure by disbanding, minimizing the so called risk. Totally bogus, and yes, guilds that do this can EXPECT the ire of those that don't use exploits.

@Redmoonga

Erasure

So let me get this straight, y'all consider a guild winning a trader cheating because you don't like what it did with the spot? Whoever deletes the most gold gets the privileges afforded to do what they want with it, right? What's the issue?

Scaena

nooblybear wrote: »

Being merely the former GM of a disbanded guild, I have some insights which I hope are relatively neutral on this matter.

I recall that this happened (or still happens) on console, where someone accused a group of people of doing this so that they could "sell" the spot for real money on Facebook. The issue there was the selling-spots-for-real-money, not the disbanding of the guild.

I really fail to comprehend how this could be described as an exploit. This is working exactly how Zenimax intended it. If they didn't, then the trader would stay blocked when the guild had disbanded. It isn't necessarily ideal behaviour, but why should one guild be "made example of" because they came up with a solution to what is a disgustingly broken system?

Explanation: The bidding system is currently broken in that a call to GuildKioskPurchase can somehow be interpreted as GuildKioskBid on the back-end, and lock a guild into an out-of-the-way trader that happens to be bugged out (showing that it has no trader and can be hired) for the next week. This has been a long-running issue and the responses that I've heard from various Zenimax support tickets ranges from "Nothing we can do about it" to "We don't know how the system works so we can't fix it" (paraphrasing mine). This happens regularly when guilds are attempting to hire an empty, back-up trader and something "goes wrong". There are no debates about this. (Almost) Every trade guild in the game has fallen prey to this bug.

Back to the "exploit": If the guild in question did indeed get locked into another trader (which is what I was told when I heard about it from a friend earlier), then they had to not only put together a guild of 50 people, but transfer an amount of gold equivalent to how much they would traditionally bid to this new guild, then bid with it. Then take the risk that, upon disbanding the guild, anyone had the opportunity to hire the trader. It seems like an extremely risky, potentially no-win situation. This is not the simple method people seem to think it is.

On the matter of other people talking about monopolizing traders and such, that's certainly something for Zenimax to address, but a well-funded group could potentially do this regardless. Some of the methods being described by people in this thread do not even require the disbanding of the guild.

Finally, there are a number of negative responses from the GMs of guilds strongly associated with a guild who, in the best of terms, can be described as "at war" with the so called "guilty guild". These are the same guilds that, when the "at war" guild decides to move against the "guilty guild", take the spot being vacated for a low price in order to ensure that the "guilty guild" can't hire for nothing.

I'm not implying any partisanship on their behalf, but I'd like to make it utterly clear that people in this thread cannot be considered completely neutral on the matter, or free of ulterior motives.

Especially myself.

Are you for hire? You sound like the perfect front man to run PR for my new cartel.

Don't worry everyone he's not taking your traders and dominating Tamriel he's actually doing something that should be cheered! He's actually fixing a broken trader system!

How much gold per week do you charge? We should really talk. You sound like the perfect person to get people to welcome my coming monopoly

nooblybear

redmoonga wrote: »

I don't even bid in the same city as the guild in question and I believe this is cheating. The stall showed as occupied and many guilds passed it by. They then opened it at their leisure by disbanding, minimizing the so called risk. Totally bogus, and yes, guilds that do this can EXPECT the ire of those that don't use exploits.

I understand your ire, but you can't exactly describe yourself as neutral in this matter, based purely on the few conversations we've had since I returned to the game.

PathwayM

nooblybear wrote: »

Being merely the former GM of a disbanded guild, I have some insights which I hope are relatively neutral on this matter.

I recall that this happened (or still happens) on console, where someone accused a group of people of doing this so that they could "sell" the spot for real money on Facebook. The issue there was the selling-spots-for-real-money, not the disbanding of the guild.

I really fail to comprehend how this could be described as an exploit. This is working exactly how Zenimax intended it. If they didn't, then the trader would stay blocked when the guild had disbanded. It isn't necessarily ideal behaviour, but why should one guild be "made example of" because they came up with a solution to what is a disgustingly broken system?

Explanation: The bidding system is currently broken in that a call to GuildKioskPurchase can somehow be interpreted as GuildKioskBid on the back-end, and lock a guild into an out-of-the-way trader that happens to be bugged out (showing that it has no trader and can be hired) for the next week. This has been a long-running issue and the responses that I've heard from various Zenimax support tickets ranges from "Nothing we can do about it" to "We don't know how the system works so we can't fix it" (paraphrasing mine). This happens regularly when guilds are attempting to hire an empty, back-up trader and something "goes wrong". There are no debates about this. (Almost) Every trade guild in the game has fallen prey to this bug.

Back to the "exploit": If the guild in question did indeed get locked into another trader (which is what I was told when I heard about it from a friend earlier), then they had to not only put together a guild of 50 people, but transfer an amount of gold equivalent to how much they would traditionally bid to this new guild, then bid with it. Then take the risk that, upon disbanding the guild, anyone had the opportunity to hire the trader. It seems like an extremely risky, potentially no-win situation. This is not the simple method people seem to think it is.

On the matter of other people talking about monopolizing traders and such, that's certainly something for Zenimax to address, but a well-funded group could potentially do this regardless. Some of the methods being described by people in this thread do not even require the disbanding of the guild.

Finally, there are a number of negative responses from the GMs of guilds strongly associated with a guild who, in the best of terms, can be described as "at war" with the so called "guilty guild". These are the same guilds that, when the "at war" guild decides to move against the "guilty guild", take the spot being vacated for a low price in order to ensure that the "guilty guild" can't hire for nothing.

I'm not implying any partisanship on their behalf, but I'd like to make it utterly clear that people in this thread cannot be considered completely neutral on the matter, or free of ulterior motives.

Especially myself.

Thank you for your comments, however I would like to address the elephant in the room.

The screen shots in my original post were from one guild, while another guild now owns the same spot in Rawl'Kha.

I don't care who may or may not have done this and I am in no way naive to the fact that this has likely been going on for some time. What this post was intended to do was make the community aware of what can in fact happen with a broken system like we currently have. There is no arguing that a single guild now has the potential to place multiple bids on various traders because if a guild disbands then their trader becomes available for hire once again.

Please keep in mind that my original post made no mention of making an example of any guild and I explicitly left names out for reasons related to resolving the issue and not punishing people.

This method is as easy as it seems, and has very little risk involved if the second guild wins their bid (which could be for an extremely cheap price).

nooblybear

Scaena wrote: »

Are you for hire? You sound like the perfect front man to run PR for my new cartel.

Don't worry everyone he's not taking your traders and dominating Tamriel he's actually doing something that should be cheered! He's actually fixing a broken trader system!

How much gold per week do you charge? We should really talk. You sound like the perfect person to get people to welcome my coming monopoly

No, I do my own thing, and I have my own opinions. You're welcome to disagree with them. You're also welcome to interpret them how you will. There are opinions there, which are certainly mine, but there are also facts. Gloss over them if you will, try to discredit me however you like: the facts stand for themselves.

Scaena

nooblybear wrote: »

redmoonga wrote: »

I don't even bid in the same city as the guild in question and I believe this is cheating. The stall showed as occupied and many guilds passed it by. They then opened it at their leisure by disbanding, minimizing the so called risk. Totally bogus, and yes, guilds that do this can EXPECT the ire of those that don't use exploits.

I understand your ire, but you can't exactly describe yourself as neutral in this matter, based purely on the few conversations we've had since I returned to the game.

Actually maybe not. Sorry can't hire you anymore. I won't say anything more because I don't want to violate the forums rules.

Dolgubon

Redmoonga's not even close to neutral lol. Probably the most non neutral person lol.

MLGProPlayer

Here is a novel idea, never before attempted in MMOs...

Why not have a central trader that everyone has access to? Where anyone can list and purchase items from? This novel system would also have a proper search function (radical, I know).

This idea might be a few years ahead of its time, but I think I'm onto something.

PathwayM

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Here is a novel idea, never before attempted in MMOs...

Why not have a central trader that everyone has access to? Where anyone can list and purchase items from? This novel system would also have a proper search function (radical, I know).

This idea might be a few years ahead of its time, but I think I'm onto something.

But that would destroy @Scaena's cartel plans...

Emencie

Seems like business as usual when it comes to eso trade guild monopoly.

Scaena

nooblybear wrote: »

Scaena wrote: »

Are you for hire? You sound like the perfect front man to run PR for my new cartel.

Don't worry everyone he's not taking your traders and dominating Tamriel he's actually doing something that should be cheered! He's actually fixing a broken trader system!

How much gold per week do you charge? We should really talk. You sound like the perfect person to get people to welcome my coming monopoly

No, I do my own thing, and I have my own opinions. You're welcome to disagree with them. You're also welcome to interpret them how you will. There are opinions there, which are certainly mine, but there are also facts. Gloss over them if you will, try to discredit me however you like: the facts stand for themselves.

Hey I consider this a win/win. If Zenimax allows it then Tamriel is mine!! All traders will become my assets to do what I will with them.

If Zenimax says it's an exploit then I won't have to worry about ghost guilds bidding against me as a backup for a larger guild.

In my opinion everyone should welcome my coming conquest.

kargen27

kargen27 wrote: »

ElfFromSpace wrote: »

This just makes the trading game even more broken. Other guilds have been aware of this potential exploit for a long time but have not put it into practice. If this is considered acceptable behavior, then soon every large trade guild will feel the need to create a fake second bid guild to hedge their bets. Smaller guilds will find themselves outbid by the backup bids of large guilds and if the large guild doesn't need the spot that week, then the fake guilds with no items for sale will likely just sit there, locking guilds with lower budgets out completely.

Trading guilds for a long time now have had back-up bids on traders that they can usually get for cheap. That way if they do lose their preferred spot they still at least have something available. That is why you see so many traders that have one green recipe in them or something like that.

When they get the spot they want they just leave the other one empty for the week. Just part of the cost of doing business. And being able to deny potential competition a spot is just an added bonus.

The fact that it exists doesn't in any way make it acceptable in my opinion.[/quote]

I agree completely. Were it possible to do I would like to see any guild that does this be unable to bid on traders for a set period of time.

nooblybear

PathwayM wrote: »

Thank you for your comments, however I would like to address the elephant in the room.

The screen shots in my original post were from one guild, while another guild now owns the same spot in Rawl'Kha.

I don't care who may or may not have done this and I am in no way naive to the fact that this has likely been going on for some time. What this post was intended to do was make the community aware of what can in fact happen with a broken system like we currently have. There is no arguing that a single guild now has the potential to place multiple bids on various traders because if a guild disbands then their trader becomes available for hire once again.

Please keep in mind that my original post made no mention of making an example of any guild and I explicitly left names out for reasons related to resolving the issue and not punishing people.

This method is as easy as it seems, and has very little risk involved if the second guild wins their bid (which could be for an extremely cheap price).

I understand your original intent, and it's certainly something that it would be nice to have Zenimax address.

Let's talk about the other elephant in the room: the number of people who seem to be outraged in this thread that are leaders of, officers of, or high-ranking members of guilds that are closely interlinked, the majority of which seem to be associated with the Council of Nirn (if they still call themselves that). Just by signatures alone, I've spotted the GMs and former GMs of at least four trade guilds directly associated, plus a self-described officer, and other members. This group's history with the current occupant of this trader on PC NA is well known and well-documented.

Somehow I doubt they would be quite so outraged if it was one of their own who had done something similar.

Kivisild

As many people replied in this forum, this will cause problems down the road. Especially over the fact that some guilds possibly intended for nobody to find out they were doing it. My opinion on the exploit stands that you can create a monopoly and as Scaena said "charge guilds a protection tax" if they wanted to keep the trader. Also speaking you can sell these Traders for real life currency which is outrageous! Now that the community is aware of the issue who knows what could happen in the future.

PathwayM

nooblybear wrote: »

PathwayM wrote: »

Thank you for your comments, however I would like to address the elephant in the room.

The screen shots in my original post were from one guild, while another guild now owns the same spot in Rawl'Kha.

I don't care who may or may not have done this and I am in no way naive to the fact that this has likely been going on for some time. What this post was intended to do was make the community aware of what can in fact happen with a broken system like we currently have. There is no arguing that a single guild now has the potential to place multiple bids on various traders because if a guild disbands then their trader becomes available for hire once again.

Please keep in mind that my original post made no mention of making an example of any guild and I explicitly left names out for reasons related to resolving the issue and not punishing people.

This method is as easy as it seems, and has very little risk involved if the second guild wins their bid (which could be for an extremely cheap price).

I understand your original intent, and it's certainly something that it would be nice to have Zenimax address.

Let's talk about the other elephant in the room: the number of people who seem to be outraged in this thread that are leaders of, officers of, or high-ranking members of guilds that are closely interlinked, the majority of which seem to be associated with the Council of Nirn (if they still call themselves that). Just by signatures alone, I've spotted the GMs and former GMs of at least four trade guilds directly associated, plus a self-described officer, and other members. This group's history with the current occupant of this trader on PC NA is well known and well-documented.

Somehow I doubt they would be quite so outraged if it was one of their own who had done something similar.

Well, I can't control who posts in my thread. You obviously came here to provide your opinion. With that said, I do believe your last post is the definition of "naming and shaming". Why do you feel it is necessary to call out a group of people for their opinions? I welcome everyone's opinion in this thread, including yours. These types of comments are unwelcome and make me feel the need to put on a tin foil hat.

nooblybear

PathwayM wrote: »

Well, I can't control who posts in my thread. You obviously came here to provide your opinion. With that said, I do believe your last post is the definition of "naming and shaming". Why do you feel it is necessary to call out a group of people for their opinions? I welcome everyone's opinion in this thread, including yours. These types of comments are unwelcome and make me feel the need to put on a tin foil hat.

What am I shaming them about? I'm simply commenting that a disparate group of supposedly unassociated people are, indeed, associated. They identify themselves as such in their signatures.

PathwayM

nooblybear wrote: »

PathwayM wrote: »

Well, I can't control who posts in my thread. You obviously came here to provide your opinion. With that said, I do believe your last post is the definition of "naming and shaming". Why do you feel it is necessary to call out a group of people for their opinions? I welcome everyone's opinion in this thread, including yours. These types of comments are unwelcome and make me feel the need to put on a tin foil hat.

What am I shaming them about? I'm simply commenting that a disparate group of supposedly unassociated people are, indeed, associated. They identify themselves as such in their signatures.

You directly claimed that people that have posted in this forum are "at war" with another guild and called out some kind of organization to which they belong. I'm pretty sure this assumption was a direct shaming as you directly described their posts as negative.

If you need further explanation you can find the definition of shaming here:

lmgtfy.com/?q=shaming

NerdyHayseed

We're all associated; we all play ESO. Certainly many players have been in more than one guild, are in more than one or have even created one or two.. or three. Those facts don't invalidate concerns raised in this thread.

Erasure

Kivisild wrote: »

As many people replied in this forum, this will cause problems down the road. Especially over the fact that some guilds possibly intended for nobody to find out they were doing it. My opinion on the exploit stands that you can create a monopoly and as Scaena said "charge guilds a protection tax" if they wanted to keep the trader. Also speaking you can sell these Traders for real life currency which is outrageous! Now that the community is aware of the issue who knows what could happen in the future.

Come on, who has the time for that? Don't forget, you actually have to *win* the bid, as well as be willing to sacrifice the guild roster and build it again each time. Millions of gold deleted and at least 50 people sacrificing a guild slot? And for all of that, you're not even guaranteed to install your chosen group.

Whole thread full of allied gm's trying to get people scared this could be used offensively... it seems it was used to avoid a prime trade guild being screwed for a week in a bad spot due to poorly coded trader mechanics, not to mess with anyone. Chill.

Scaena

nooblybear wrote: »

PathwayM wrote: »

Thank you for your comments, however I would like to address the elephant in the room.

The screen shots in my original post were from one guild, while another guild now owns the same spot in Rawl'Kha.

I don't care who may or may not have done this and I am in no way naive to the fact that this has likely been going on for some time. What this post was intended to do was make the community aware of what can in fact happen with a broken system like we currently have. There is no arguing that a single guild now has the potential to place multiple bids on various traders because if a guild disbands then their trader becomes available for hire once again.

Please keep in mind that my original post made no mention of making an example of any guild and I explicitly left names out for reasons related to resolving the issue and not punishing people.

This method is as easy as it seems, and has very little risk involved if the second guild wins their bid (which could be for an extremely cheap price).

I understand your original intent, and it's certainly something that it would be nice to have Zenimax address.

Let's talk about the other elephant in the room: the number of people who seem to be outraged in this thread that are leaders of, officers of, or high-ranking members of guilds that are closely interlinked, the majority of which seem to be associated with the Council of Nirn (if they still call themselves that). Just by signatures alone, I've spotted the GMs and former GMs of at least four trade guilds directly associated, plus a self-described officer, and other members. This group's history with the current occupant of this trader on PC NA is well known and well-documented.

Somehow I doubt they would be quite so outraged if it was one of their own who had done something similar.

And here I thought we were trying to see if Zenimax would crown me the King Pin of Tamriel...

Could you know take the personal politics elsewhere?

Let's get back to what really matters. Tamriel Domination!

nooblybear

PathwayM wrote: »

You directly claimed that people that have posted in this forum are "at war" with another guild and called out some kind of organization to which they belong. I'm pretty sure this assumption was a direct shaming as you directly described their posts as negative.

If you need further explanation you can find the definition of shaming here:

lmgtfy.com/?q=shaming

Actually, I was just stating well-documented fact. If they find this something to be ashamed off, I'm sorry they feel that way. Maybe they should reconsider their actions in the future if they are so bothered by them?