And how is this different from a unified auction house?
And how is this different from a unified auction house?
Guild stores get listing fee profits from individuals using their store to list items. The guild store can set the listing fee tax to be more competitive (this system would only apply if there was no individual listing option).
The guild store could then pay its members out from the accumulated listing fee. Basically, it would change the dynamics of guild stores because the members could actually be paid for being a part of them.
And how is this different from a unified auction house?
Guild stores get listing fee profits from individuals using their store to list items. The guild store can set the listing fee tax to be more competitive (this system would only apply if there was no individual listing option).
The guild store could then pay its members out from the accumulated listing fee. Basically, it would change the dynamics of guild stores because the members could actually be paid for being a part of them.
How would they have money to pay their members if they would have to spend it all even for out of the way traders?
It would price out any of the medium to small guilds that regularly get traders to sell their stuff.
Not to mention that considering how ZOS's database seems to be slow, if it had any kind of global search function, you would be looking at a "now searching" screen for half an hour.
VaranisArano wrote: »Another day, another suggestion.
If ZOS can't be bothered to add a keyword item search to their Guild Store UI, I'd be very surprised if they chose to update their Guild Stores to allow something like this.
Azurephoenix999 wrote: »I'd like this. I personally hate when I'm trying to look for something specific and have to manually trek through every town in the game until I find the thing I'm looking for.
This system would make looking for specific items much easier. This is a plus for both buyers (because it's less time spent searching) and sellers (people who want their item find it faster).
The only significant change I can see is that competitive pricing would become more prominent, which means items would generally cost less. As a buyer, I'd like being able to get stuff for less. As a seller, I'd feel a bit disappointed, but the increased rate at which my items would be getting purchased would probably offset this. That said, I'm speaking from the perspective as someone who only sells occasionally, and so when I do shove things in the guild store, it's mainly to clear up my inventory and make some extra gold in the process (always a win-win). I imagine someone whose main income is via guild stores and who sells stuff there regularly might have a different opinion about this.
There are quite a few players that don't want to join a guild or meet requirements to stay in a guild just to list items for sale. The opponents of this argument do not want any sort of global auction system since they won't be able to exploit players as readily and their profit margin would drop.
I propose a solution that doesn't destroy guild stores. This would be in the form of an integrated item search function similar to a unified auction house but still used the guild stores in the search. You would then be able to purchase anything you wanted from the guild stores. It does devalue "guild store location" but also increases the demand. In addition, I propose that players be allowed to list items on this listing by themselves but would incur a heftier "listing fee". This listing fee would be higher than what a guild store listing fee would be.
The other alternative is to allow other players to list on guild stores for an increased fee through this global marketplace. I do think it would be nicer to just offer them the opportunity to list "as individual" for a slightly higher fee though.
And how is this different from a unified auction house?
Guild stores get listing fee profits from individuals using their store to list items. The guild store can set the listing fee tax to be more competitive (this system would only apply if there was no individual listing option).
The guild store could then pay its members out from the accumulated listing fee. Basically, it would change the dynamics of guild stores because the members could actually be paid for being a part of them.
EDIT: Bid to maintain the store then pay the rest out to the members or whatever the excess was. Or simply accumulate more for the next bid. This would add a competitive nature to the guild stores and certain stores would offer better worker compensation and benefits to keep their members.
VaranisArano wrote: »Another day, another suggestion.
If ZOS can't be bothered to add a keyword item search to their Guild Store UI, I'd be very surprised if they chose to update their Guild Stores to allow something like this.
With the multicore update a lot of things will change.
VaranisArano wrote: »Another day, another suggestion.
If ZOS can't be bothered to add a keyword item search to their Guild Store UI, I'd be very surprised if they chose to update their Guild Stores to allow something like this.
There are quite a few players that don't want to join a guild or meet requirements to stay in a guild just to list items for sale. The opponents of this argument do not want any sort of global auction system since they won't be able to exploit players as readily and their profit margin would drop.
I propose a solution that doesn't destroy guild stores. This would be in the form of an integrated item search function similar to a unified auction house but still used the guild stores in the search. You would then be able to purchase anything you wanted from the guild stores. It does devalue "guild store location" but also increases the demand. In addition, I propose that players be allowed to list items on this listing by themselves but would incur a heftier "listing fee". This listing fee would be higher than what a guild store listing fee would be.
The other alternative is to allow other players to list on guild stores for an increased fee through this global marketplace. I do think it would be nicer to just offer them the opportunity to list "as individual" for a slightly higher fee though.