Potential Guild Trader Exploit! Please Investigate and Fix ASAP!

Gandrhulf_Harbard

dustinoverfield wrote: »

It seems what happened is a guild has found a way to exploit the system and by using this method they essentially got themselves 2 bids. I think ZoS should quickly make an example of that guild before this becomes a regular practice for many trade guilds. Such a shame to see a trade guild sink to this level

It is one of the many inherent flaws with the Trade Kiosk system.

Not only does this happen but high-end trade guilds are sweeping up 2, 3 or even 4 kiosks a week by subsidising "sister guilds" and even bribing other guilds not to bid.

Most of the defenders of the current trade system claim it is less prone to being monopolised, and claim that such can easily happen with an Auction House.

I have never seen anyone totally monopolise a market in a game with an AH- but when this kind of thins is happening in ESO we are close to one or two guilds monopolising all meaningful trade in the game.

Shameful that Zeni a) didn't see this coming, when players like me and others were warning of this way back at launch, and b) have chosen to do precisely nothing about it.

All The Best

Artis

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...

This. I came to this thread to say that this was possible. Yes, expect "WTS a guild trader" in chats soon if this is not fixed.

The easy fix is - if the guild is disbanded the trader is still unavailable for hiring and just stays empty until the end of the week. Which makes sense. He already got paid, right? Why would he work if he doesn't have to?
That way the people who bid on multiple spots will simply waste their gold if they don't use those traders as intended.

Another possible fix - raise the number of players required to get a store and/or bid on the trader. I would go with the latter one. Keep it 50 for guildies to get their own store, but no one wants a guild of 50 players to win a trader, since they won't provide enough goods for customers anyway. Make it 300 or something. That way you still keep the opportunity to use the trader if the guild that owned him disbanded, however you make it much more difficult to exploit.

NerdyHayseed

Can we please get some insight from ZoS on this? @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Gandrhulf_Harbard

Artis wrote: »

but no one wants a guild of 50 players to win a trader,

Except of course those 50 players who have been trying like mad to break into the Trade Guild Monopoly.

The ONLY way prices of goods and kiosks is ever going to be "corrected" to a reasonable level is if it is made EASIER, not harder, for more people to bring goods to the market.

All The Best

Cpt_Teemo

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

dustinoverfield wrote: »

It seems what happened is a guild has found a way to exploit the system and by using this method they essentially got themselves 2 bids. I think ZoS should quickly make an example of that guild before this becomes a regular practice for many trade guilds. Such a shame to see a trade guild sink to this level

It is one of the many inherent flaws with the Trade Kiosk system.

Not only does this happen but high-end trade guilds are sweeping up 2, 3 or even 4 kiosks a week by subsidising "sister guilds" and even bribing other guilds not to bid.

Most of the defenders of the current trade system claim it is less prone to being monopolised, and claim that such can easily happen with an Auction House.

I have never seen anyone totally monopolise a market in a game with an AH- but when this kind of thins is happening in ESO we are close to one or two guilds monopolising all meaningful trade in the game.

Shameful that Zeni a) didn't see this coming, when players like me and others were warning of this way back at launch, and b) have chosen to do precisely nothing about it.

All The Best

Exactly, The guild traders are failing so hard right now it would be best to just implement a centralized Market place for One Tamriel or even if its just a market place for each Faction. True stuff will get inflated but it won't be as bad as single guilds running the entire games trading system, that is pretty much the end of casual trading there.

Dolgubon

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

dustinoverfield wrote: »

It seems what happened is a guild has found a way to exploit the system and by using this method they essentially got themselves 2 bids. I think ZoS should quickly make an example of that guild before this becomes a regular practice for many trade guilds. Such a shame to see a trade guild sink to this level

It is one of the many inherent flaws with the Trade Kiosk system.

Not only does this happen but high-end trade guilds are sweeping up 2, 3 or even 4 kiosks a week by subsidising "sister guilds" and even bribing other guilds not to bid.

Most of the defenders of the current trade system claim it is less prone to being monopolised, and claim that such can easily happen with an Auction House.

I have never seen anyone totally monopolise a market in a game with an AH- but when this kind of thins is happening in ESO we are close to one or two guilds monopolising all meaningful trade in the game.

Shameful that Zeni a) didn't see this coming, when players like me and others were warning of this way back at launch, and b) have chosen to do precisely nothing about it.

All The Best

Exactly, The guild traders are failing so hard right now it would be best to just implement a centralized Market place for One Tamriel or even if its just a market place for each Faction. True stuff will get inflated but it won't be as bad as single guilds running the entire games trading system, that is pretty much the end of casual trading there.

Go look at Rawl Kha. Mournhold. Wayrest. Oh hey look, there's 19 different guild traders. And okay, some of them are connected guilds. So say, 14 different groups. Doesn't look like a single guild. And that's 7000 players (minus some ppl in more than one trade guild) But even if they were all connected under one banner - most trade guild officers or leaders don't make any money. They spend hours of their time, for free. If you want to get into one of those trade guilds, it's maybe not exactly easy, but it's not difficult either. And there's still a lot of other trade guilds in other places for people who just want to be casual traders.

ElfFromSpace

Duck wrote: »

Unpopular opinion time!


What if we "fixed" the problem by completely tossing out the bidding system for traders.

Make it a raffle instead.

Would guilds all be fixed to 1 raffle ticket at a trader? Or should they be able to buy an unlimited amount (same chances of winning as the bid system TBH, but the 2nd and 3rd and 4th place would be random not sorted by money bid)? Or maybe a limited quantity? And what price per ticket? Traffic could dictate what area has most costly trader raffle tickets, and update on a monthly or 3-month basis. When a guild disbands while owning the trader, the trader falls to the next randomly raffled guild.

I have long, long debated, discussed and thought about the bid issues. I still believe the "City Bidding" system proposed 2 years ago would be the best overall approach. It would certainly help to fix this current situation both by reducing the need for backup bids and by reducing the likelyhood of guilds getting a stall for their fake guild for a ridiculously low price because they got lucky. What do you think of this proposed system change:

"Potential New Bid Systems
1. City bidding- Each guild bids on a city and the top 5 guilds are placed in that city. This would greatly reduce the direct guild on guild competition, with the drama it causes. Guilds could not target another guild just to be spiteful, and would not be able to hold the same resentment towards a guild that outbid them since the bids aren't targeted at one guild. Guilds that wish to pay less can take a risk and try to get a city for cheap. Guilds that chose to pay more are more secure and can select their preferred spot. Allow each guild to rank the traders 1-X with their top choice, second choice, etc. The top bidder gets their first pick. Second bidder gets their top choice of what is left. This would allow guilds to settle into a favorite spot most times, but a guild that made a good bit but got bumped from their preferred spot would end up elsewhere in the city rather than with no trader. This system would be more balanced overall allowing smaller guilds to get into cities with any reasonable bid for that city while still allowing guilds to put in a preference for their favorite stall location."

Dubhliam

If guilds could bid on locations instead of traders, this would not be happening.

It is too easy to get outbid for a single trader.

Stormahawk

This exploit is a serious issue and can be abused to reserve guild trader spots for large guilds (and get them for cheap), sell them to guilds that lost, and lock smaller guilds out of certain areas for good in the process.

For those unaware, if you lose a guild trader bid, that gold is refunded. This means you can have multiple ghost guilds like "Guild for Testing" bid at multiple locations to attempt to reserve a spot for essentially zero risk.

Saying that we need to get rid of the guild trader system because someone abused this exploit is the equivalent to saying we need to get rid of PVP because a couple of players used Cheat Engine. Like PVP, guild traders are a core gameplay aspect of ESO. The issue at hand is that there is an exploit that was abused to reserve a guild trader for a guild that lost its bid on different trader. I hope ZOS takes action and does not let that guild keep the trader as it did not rightfully win the bid.

I propose a simpler solution to this exploit, which I think from a technical standpoint should be fairly simple to implement. Simply do not allow guilds that currently have a trader to disband. If a real guild decides to disband, they would just have to wait until Sunday night when the guild traders flip. This might also reduce zone recruitment spam since you need 50 members in a guild in order to be able to bid on a spot for a ghost guild.

dustinoverfield

Wow this thread blew up fast, I hope it helps the issue get addressed. How many members are needed in one of these "fake" guilds to get a double bid btw? Isn't only 50? Maybe make that requirement higher, like 200 or 300 members so its not so easy to do?

Stormahawk

dustinoverfield wrote: »

Wow this thread blew up fast, I hope it helps the issue get addressed. How many members are needed in one of these "fake" guilds to get a double bid btw? Isn't only 50? Maybe make that requirement higher, like 200 or 300 members so its not so easy to do?

I think making it so guilds can't disband if they have a trader will be a better solution. Raising the requirement will hurt smaller guilds who are trying to get into trading.

Erasure

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

Saying that we need to get rid of the guild trader system because someone abused this exploit is the equivalent to saying we need to get rid of PVP because a couple of players used Cheat Engine. Like PVP, guild traders are a core gameplay aspect of ESO. The issue at hand is that there is an exploit that was abused to reserve a guild trader for a guild that lost its bid on different trader. I hope ZOS takes action and does not let that guild keep the trader as it did not rightfully win the bid.

I propose a simpler solution to this exploit, which I think from a technical standpoint should be fairly simple to implement. Simply do not allow guilds that currently have a trader to disband. If a real guild decides to disband, they would just have to wait until Sunday night when the guild traders flip. This might also reduce zone recruitment spam since you need 50 members in a guild in order to be able to bid on a spot for a ghost guild.

I like that idea.

dustinoverfield

Stormahawk wrote: »

dustinoverfield wrote: »

Wow this thread blew up fast, I hope it helps the issue get addressed. How many members are needed in one of these "fake" guilds to get a double bid btw? Isn't only 50? Maybe make that requirement higher, like 200 or 300 members so its not so easy to do?

I think making it so guilds can't disband if they have a trader will be a better solution. Raising the requirement will hurt smaller guilds who are trying to get into trading.

I like this suggestion too

dustinoverfield

Im wondering what the recruitment message for "Guild for Testing" was lol

Cpt_Teemo

Probably Free Alloy per person

ElfFromSpace

dustinoverfield wrote: »

Wow this thread blew up fast, I hope it helps the issue get addressed. How many members are needed in one of these "fake" guilds to get a double bid btw? Isn't only 50? Maybe make that requirement higher, like 200 or 300 members so its not so easy to do?

No, this is not the solution. As others have said, new players wanting to break into the trade system already have a serious uphill battle to reach 50 members before they have a kiosk. They basically have to recruit 50 desperate noobs who don't know any better and or don't care about their guild slots. It would be perhaps reasonable to require at least 60 items in the guild store before a bid can be placed. That would force people to plan ahead before bidding and to have at least 2 people paying listing fees, that would be lost in the case of shenanigans.


However the suggestion I think would fix this problem quickest and easiest would be to not reopen the spot for hire if the guild disbanded. Simply leave the spot empty for the week thus removing the incentive and ability to exploit. Then, long term, we are still hoping that ZOS has some other improvements to this current bid system.

dustinoverfield

ElfFromSpace wrote: »

dustinoverfield wrote: »

Wow this thread blew up fast, I hope it helps the issue get addressed. How many members are needed in one of these "fake" guilds to get a double bid btw? Isn't only 50? Maybe make that requirement higher, like 200 or 300 members so its not so easy to do?

No, this is not the solution. As others have said, new players wanting to break into the trade system already have a serious uphill battle to reach 50 members before they have a kiosk. They basically have to recruit 50 desperate noobs who don't know any better and or don't care about their guild slots. It would be perhaps reasonable to require at least 60 items in the guild store before a bid can be placed. That would force people to plan ahead before bidding and to have at least 2 people paying listing fees, that would be lost in the case of shenanigans.


However the suggestion I think would fix this problem quickest and easiest would be to not reopen the spot for hire if the guild disbanded. Simply leave the spot empty for the week thus removing the incentive and ability to exploit. Then, long term, we are still hoping that ZOS has some other improvements to this current bid system.

Yeah I agree now that I see all the suggestions, I like the ones that were given here better than mine

ZOS_CoriJ

There are some really good suggestions being made that we would like to keep going. With that in mind, we ask that you refrain from any accusations against specific people/groups or commentary that might break our rules. Most of the discussion has been good and it would be counter-productive to the attention you're trying to achieve to get the thread off-topic or tanked.

If you do feel that you really need to point out specific individuals or groups, please be sure to report to Customer Support in the meantime with any relevant detail.

Thanks!

code65536

Did the amount that was bid ever become public?

If the dummy guild bid competitively for the spot and won it because they paid however millions a spot like that goes for, then it lends support to the story that this was just a workaround for the can't-retract-a-mistaken-bid problem (particularly since it appears the main guild had lost their trader last week, so they were probably scrambling for a spot after last week's close, and it's especially easy during that scramble to accidentally bid instead of hire). With the bid system the way it is, there really aren't any good options for them if that was indeed the case. While I doubt ZOS really intended for guilds to disband like that, I also doubt that they really intended for misplaced bids to be so easy to make and so punishing. Yet the system is such that both of these problems exist.

Now, if the dummy guild bid and won with some low nominal amount to cover the main guild's rear while the main guild made a competitive bid elsewhere, then, yes, that would indeed be cause for alarm and a dangerous precedent to set.

Either way, there are two problems with the bid system that need to be fixed here: traders shouldn't be hireable if the guild holding them disbands (the NPC already got paid; they should take a weeklong holiday) and there needs to be a way for a guild to cancel or retract a bid--in a blind bidding system, there's no reason why bids shouldn't be retractable. (Well, there are a lot of problems with the clunky guild and bidding system that need fixing, but that's a topic for another thread...)

Mrs_Malaka

NerdyHayseed wrote: »

Can we please get some insight from ZoS on this? @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

After reading this thread Gina & Jessica be like:

NerdyHayseed

ElfFromSpace wrote: »

No, this is not the solution. As others have said, new players wanting to break into the trade system already have a serious uphill battle to reach 50 members before they have a kiosk. They basically have to recruit 50 desperate noobs who don't know any better and or don't care about their guild slots. It would be perhaps reasonable to require at least 60 items in the guild store before a bid can be placed. That would force people to plan ahead before bidding and to have at least 2 people paying listing fees, that would be lost in the case of shenanigans.

However the suggestion I think would fix this problem quickest and easiest would be to not reopen the spot for hire if the guild disbanded. Simply leave the spot empty for the week thus removing the incentive and ability to exploit. Then, long term, we are still hoping that ZOS has some other improvements to this current bid system.

This really is the simplest, quickest and best solution. It removes all incentive to finagle 2 bids. If a guild accidentally bids on a backwater trader, they get to improve the rural locale for a week. Tough. Furthermore, an empty "prime" trader stall won't make or break anyone or the trading aspect of the game. If a guild loses members over a week of a less than prime spot, perhaps they should re-direct their focus on creating a guild ppl want to be in through feast and famine. :^

Erasure

code65536 wrote: »

Did the amount that was bid ever become public?

If the dummy guild bid competitively for the spot and won it because they paid however millions a spot like that goes for, then it lends support to the story that this was just a workaround for the can't-retract-a-mistaken-bid problem (particularly since it appears the main guild had lost their trader last week, so they were probably scrambling for a spot after last week's close, and it's especially easy during that scramble to accidentally bid instead of hire). With the bid system the way it is, there really aren't any good options for them if that was indeed the case. While I doubt ZOS really intended for guilds to disband like that, I also doubt that they really intended for misplaced bids to be so easy to make and so punishing. Yet the system is such that both of these problems exist.

Now, if the dummy guild bid and won with some low nominal amount to cover the main guild's rear while the main guild made a competitive bid elsewhere, then, yes, that would indeed be cause for alarm and a dangerous precedent to set.

Either way, there are two problems with the bid system that need to be fixed here: traders shouldn't be hireable if the guild holding them disbands (the NPC already got paid; they should take a weeklong holiday) and there needs to be a way for a guild to cancel or retract a bid--in a blind bidding system, there's no reason why bids shouldn't be retractable. (Well, there are a lot of problems with the clunky guild and bidding system that need fixing, but that's a topic for another thread...)

Ding ding ding, we have a winner... This entire situation was created by the simple reality that bids, even glitched, unintentional bids, can't be retracted. Not by trade GM's, not by Customer Support, not by anyone in the state of Maryland. The feature needs a rewrite.

Artis

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Artis wrote: »

but no one wants a guild of 50 players to win a trader,

Except of course those 50 players who have been trying like mad to break into the Trade Guild Monopoly.

The ONLY way prices of goods and kiosks is ever going to be "corrected" to a reasonable level is if it is made EASIER, not harder, for more people to bring goods to the market.

All The Best

And 50 people who created a fake guild wanted to bid on two spots, and they also worked hard and made millions of gold they can throw away, so what's your point? That the interests of few should trump interests of many?

I'm not talking about prices. I'm talking about fixing the system so it keeps working as intended. Which is obvious - it's intended that each guild bids in one spot. Either leave those traders dead in case the guild disbands or increase the number of people it takes to get a trader. At least in major spots/towns.

Stormahawk wrote: »

I propose a simpler solution to this exploit, which I think from a technical standpoint should be fairly simple to implement. Simply do not allow guilds that currently have a trader to disband. If a real guild decides to disband, they would just have to wait until Sunday night when the guild traders flip. This might also reduce zone recruitment spam since you need 50 members in a guild in order to be able to bid on a spot for a ghost guild.

That's another good one. I didn't suggest this because it's kind of sad not to let people free the guild spot. Also, what stops them from kicking everybody from the guild and then a GM leaving the guild? I mean, that should still be possible because you can't force a player to stay in the guild.

ZOS_CoriJ wrote: »

There are some really good suggestions being made that we would like to keep going. With that in mind, we ask that you refrain from any accusations against specific people/groups or commentary that might break our rules. Most of the discussion has been good and it would be counter-productive to the attention you're trying to achieve to get the thread off-topic or tanked.

If you do feel that you really need to point out specific individuals or groups, please be sure to report to Customer Support in the meantime with any relevant detail.

Thanks!

I bet my suggestions or at least one of them won and be implemented Expect the number of people it takes to get a trader raised soon

code, both dummy guild and main guild bid competitively, they only won one spot. Yes, they still spent millions. But the current system won't punish them. IF they won both spots, they could keep the dummy guild just to prevent the competition to sell OR they could sell that spot and get all the gold they spent back + make profit. By basically selling the information about what time exactly they will disband (Like they could be in teamspeak with the buyer and tell him so he'd go and hire the trader right after disbanding).

NerdyHayseed

I don't see why bids should be retractable? It's an auction, after all. Bids are not retractable. That's life; suck it up. Only removing the reward will deter exploits or working around code - code that ZOS intended. Isn't that against TOS, btw? One guild, one bid - choose wisely and take your lumps.

Artis said "code, both dummy guild and main guild bid competitively, they only won one spot. "
Do you know this for fact? The situation would actually allow the guild (any guild) to win 2 spots. The dummy guild securing the preferred spot and the actual guild stuck with their non-retractable bid on a less than preferred spot.

Woolenthreads

Just to throw an idea out there (one I expect to see pooh-poohs for )

Why not set up the Traders to carry two Guilds rather than one?

Oh and a second idea. Alternatively if the Guild that "won" the Trader, disbands, it automatically gets awarded to the second highest bidder.

code65536

NerdyHayseed wrote: »

I don't see why bids should be retractable? It's an auction, after all. Bids are not retractable. That's life; suck it up. Only removing the reward will deter exploits or working around code - code that ZOS intended. Isn't that against TOS, btw? One guild, one bid - choose wisely and take your lumps.

Because it's a blind auction. In an open auction, where other people can see the bids and make their decisions based on the bids already out, bids absolutely should not be retractable.

But unlike most auctions you see IRL, the ESO trader bids are blind. Guilds gain absolutely no advantage by being able to retract a bid prior to auction close, and guilds suffer absolutely no disadvantage by other guilds being able to retract their bids prior to auction close. Of course, any bid in place at the time of the auction close will stick and should not be retractable.

What retraction allows is for the correction of mistakes. For example, a while ago, I was the member of a guild where one of its officers was an officer of multiple guilds. When that officer went to update the bid for guild A, they accidentally selected the wrong guild and placed a bid for guild B in that same spot. Both guilds A and B that this person was an officer for were now bidding for the same spot due to one little mistake, and there was absolutely no recourse whatsoever. Yes, of course, people who bid try to be careful. I triple-check everything before placing a bid. But mistakes can still happen particularly when a guild is scrambling for a spot, and since there is absolutely no advantage to be gained from retracting bids prior to bidding close, this is simply a quality-of-life fix for an already-stressful bid system.

Have you ever been the GM of a trade guild and experienced the weekly stress of bidding? Frankly, telling us to just "suck it up" is appallingly flippant, and I suspect that every GM, current or former, would concur with me.

NerdyHayseed

code65536 wrote: »

[
Have you ever been the GM of a trade guild and experienced the weekly stress of bidding? Frankly, telling us to just "suck it up" is appallingly flippant and idiotic, and I suspect that every GM, current or former, would concur with me.

Well that was uncalled for. I see you've edited your comment some. Good for you; name calling is beneath you. And trying to marginalize my comments because I'm not a GM is not helpful to the discussion.

Retractable bids do not address the exploit. Using a dummy guild to have 2 bid is still a possibility; allowing a guild to hedge their bets, and lock out other guilds from other stalls. Having retractable bids only addresses the excuse used by a guild that created 2 bids in the this last round of trader auctions. I seek to eliminate the 2 bids exploit by removing the reward. Leaving a trader empty if a guild disbands does that. No muss, no fuss.

Do you not agree that leaving a trader vacant if a guild disbands would eliminate the exploit?

Scaena

code65536 wrote: »

Did the amount that was bid ever become public?

If the dummy guild bid competitively for the spot and won it because they paid however millions a spot like that goes for, then it lends support to the story that this was just a workaround for the can't-retract-a-mistaken-bid problem (particularly since it appears the main guild had lost their trader last week, so they were probably scrambling for a spot after last week's close, and it's especially easy during that scramble to accidentally bid instead of hire). With the bid system the way it is, there really aren't any good options for them if that was indeed the case. While I doubt ZOS really intended for guilds to disband like that, I also doubt that they really intended for misplaced bids to be so easy to make and so punishing. Yet the system is such that both of these problems exist.

Now, if the dummy guild bid and won with some low nominal amount to cover the main guild's rear while the main guild made a competitive bid elsewhere, then, yes, that would indeed be cause for alarm and a dangerous precedent to set.

Either way, there are two problems with the bid system that need to be fixed here: traders shouldn't be hireable if the guild holding them disbands (the NPC already got paid; they should take a weeklong holiday) and there needs to be a way for a guild to cancel or retract a bid--in a blind bidding system, there's no reason why bids shouldn't be retractable. (Well, there are a lot of problems with the clunky guild and bidding system that need fixing, but that's a topic for another thread...)

Or its possible that a guild after losing their bid last week, didn't want to lose their bid a second time in a row, which could have lost them a lot of members, decided to use this exploit to ensure they had a trader this week even if they lost their bid again. I'm not here to name and shame, to be clear, just wanted to explain a different reason. I'm here to see if I can use this exploit to become Emperor of Tamriel. The Kingpin of all Traders and guilds!

I agree that making traders unhireable after a guild disbands for the rest of the week PLUS allowing guilds to cancel their bids are good suggestions. It would fix both issues. It would also unfortunately end my plans for world domination

Mrs_Malaka wrote: »

NerdyHayseed wrote: »

Can we please get some insight from ZoS on this? @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

After reading this thread Gina & Jessica be like:

Well I hope they respond! We need clarification on whether its acceptable or not. OR at the very least whether they are going to let the exploit sit unfixed. I need to know for my own domination ambitions.

Artis wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Artis wrote: »

but no one wants a guild of 50 players to win a trader,

Except of course those 50 players who have been trying like mad to break into the Trade Guild Monopoly.

The ONLY way prices of goods and kiosks is ever going to be "corrected" to a reasonable level is if it is made EASIER, not harder, for more people to bring goods to the market.

All The Best

And 50 people who created a fake guild wanted to bid on two spots, and they also worked hard and made millions of gold they can throw away, so what's your point? That the interests of few should trump interests of many?

I'm not talking about prices. I'm talking about fixing the system so it keeps working as intended. Which is obvious - it's intended that each guild bids in one spot. Either leave those traders dead in case the guild disbands or increase the number of people it takes to get a trader. At least in major spots/towns.

Agreed.

NerdyHayseed wrote: »

I don't see why bids should be retractable? It's an auction, after all. Bids are not retractable. That's life; suck it up. Only removing the reward will deter exploits or working around code - code that ZOS intended. Isn't that against TOS, btw? One guild, one bid - choose wisely and take your lumps.

Artis said "code, both dummy guild and main guild bid competitively, they only won one spot. "
Do you know this for fact? The situation would actually allow the guild (any guild) to win 2 spots. The dummy guild securing the preferred spot and the actual guild stuck with their non-retractable bid on a less than preferred spot.

I could see allowing a guild to cancel bids within say a hour of placing it but honestly bid canceling doesn't hurt anyone. Bids are supposed to be blind so who cares if a guild bids on a spot in G zone but then cancels and bids in a spot in K zone. This is a game and its supposed to be fun, not frustrating where one mistake screws over your guild for a week.

My opinion is that using this exploit to fix that is not acceptable as its opened a can of worms.

For worthless empty guilds bidding on spots... in my opinion there should be a requirement for X amount of items up for sale before you can bid on a trader so that no store that is empty can bid. If you want a trader than have at least 1000 items up for sale for example.

NerdyHayseed

Scaena wrote: »

I agree that making traders unhireable after a guild disbands for the rest of the week PLUS allowing guilds to cancel their bids are good suggestions. It would fix both issues. It would also unfortunately end my plans for world domination

Mrs_Malaka wrote: »

NerdyHayseed wrote: »

Can we please get some insight from ZoS on this? @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

After reading this thread Gina & Jessica be like:

Well I hope they respond! We need clarification on whether its acceptable or not. OR at the very least whether they are going to let the exploit sit unfixed. I need to know for my own domination ambitions.

Artis wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Artis wrote: »

but no one wants a guild of 50 players to win a trader,

Except of course those 50 players who have been trying like mad to break into the Trade Guild Monopoly.

The ONLY way prices of goods and kiosks is ever going to be "corrected" to a reasonable level is if it is made EASIER, not harder, for more people to bring goods to the market.

All The Best

And 50 people who created a fake guild wanted to bid on two spots, and they also worked hard and made millions of gold they can throw away, so what's your point? That the interests of few should trump interests of many?

I'm not talking about prices. I'm talking about fixing the system so it keeps working as intended. Which is obvious - it's intended that each guild bids in one spot. Either leave those traders dead in case the guild disbands or increase the number of people it takes to get a trader. At least in major spots/towns.

Agreed.

I could see allowing a guild to cancel bids within say a hour of placing it but honestly bid canceling doesn't hurt anyone. Bids are supposed to be blind so who cares if a guild bids on a spot in G zone but then cancels and bids in a spot in K zone. This is a game and its supposed to be fun, not frustrating where one mistake screws over your guild for a week.

My opinion is that using this exploit to fix that is not acceptable as its opened a can of worms.

For worthless empty guilds bidding on spots... in my opinion there should be a requirement for X amount of items up for sale before you can bid on a trader so that no store that is empty can bid. If you want a trader than have at least 1000 items up for sale for example.

Agree completely . Only having retractable bids doesn't fix the exploit. If both are implemented (having a dead trader and allowing for limited retractable bids), that would go a long way to making a better trading system.

SaSa2112

Lots of great ideas for fixes....here is my take on it....

1) Allow for bid retraction. I don't know of ANYONE that hasn't placed an accidental bid. However, before this, we all just sucked it up and didn't exploit. So please CLOSE THAT LOOPHOLE!

2) Don't allow disbanded guilds empty a trader spot. Make it stick for the week. (Stop the KingPin!)

3) I love the city center trader bidding idea. So frustrating to lose a bid and have an empty kiosk next to you. Plus I like the idea that you won't individually get targeted out of spite. It obviously occurs.

4) NO AUCTION HOUSE! I love the uniqueness of the trading system. It feels so much more immersive to me. The economic game is a great part of the allure for some of us! Even more than PvE or PvP! So if you take that away, most of the game will be dead for me. I get that some people don't like to shop. But some of us love doing ESO retail therapy or just like the idea of checking out dusty little traders in the outback looking for deals.

5) Using a ghost guild (or series of them), it would be possible for moneyed guilds to actually pay less for a trader spot than they do now. The NUMBER ONE concern of a trading guild is having a guild trader. If you knew that you would have an available back up, you could actually take a chance to reduce your bidding on a prime spot knowing that you have a back up waiting in the wings. It would make it way easier for big guilds to drive out medium/small guilds - most of whom could not compete with that type of money.

I saw that you, ZOS, responded about not saying things about individuals/groups - but you have yet to comment on this latest practice of ghost guild bidding and disbanding. I am worried about keeping our trader - because it is our primary concern. (:::Looks at King Pin:::)