Burner Traders, an “Exploit” that needs to be fixed.

The702Guy

So I’m sure there have been other guilds out there that have bid on a trader just find out they lost to burner guild and now don’t have a spot for the week, nothing is more frustrating then that when it comes to the bidding system. I’m not talking about getting outbid by another actual guild, I’m talking about getting outbid by a “guild” that has been created by a bigger guild for the sole purpose to reserve a second spot in case they lose their bid. For those who don’t know how it works, big guilds (especially ones with multiple sister guilds) will bid on one or multiple spots in smaller cities with a “guild” that they have made with the minimum 50 members so in the event their main guild loses its bid they can disband this burner guild and then secure that spot for the week with their main guild. What ends up happening is other smaller trading guilds will lose their spot to these types of traders and sometimes they don’t even get used leaving an empty trader all week. This really hurts smaller guilds because these bigger guilds have hundreds of millions of gold and can outbid a smaller guild without thinking twice. Now I used exploit in quotes because as far as I know there is no rule against this but a lot of people really feel this is an exploit. Now here is my suggestion to fix this issue. Most people know that if you can find an unsecured you can hire it for 10k, what I suggest is in the event that a guild is disbanded that has a trader for the week the trader goes to the next highest bidder from the previous set of bids for 10k. If the runner up managed to find an unclaimed trader for the week then it would go to the next guild that bid and so on. The only way it would be open is if there were no other bids that week. This would prevent big guilds pushing out small guilds with their burners because they would no longer be able to disband and then secure with their main guild. Any other thoughts on this?

Imza

that sounds like a suggestion you should bring to the attention of Zos

The702Guy

Imza wrote: »

that sounds like a suggestion you should bring to the attention of Zos

Yeah I have, it never used to be this bad but it seems like it is happening way more often now

swirve

Its bad... and its been mentioned on the forum b4.

Lissiexx

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/410767/dummy-guilds-the-answer-to-stop-this-practice#latest

I have appealed to get a solution and so have others before me - it could be done simply by not allowing the disbanding of guilds while they have a trader. There is no incentive then. But ZOS don't seem to be interested

Rickter

This is why there are laws against monopolies.

Really sad how the same tactics mobsters and big brother corporations use irl to screw over the little guy are used in a video game by a bunch of 18-30 year olds.

Cpt_Teemo

Rickter wrote: »

This is why there are laws against monopolies.

Really sad how the same tactics mobsters and big brother corporations use irl to screw over the little guy are used in a video game by a bunch of 18-30 year olds.

Well it technically is a monopoly, but a digital monopoly which holds no value irl

NoTimeToWait

The702Guy wrote: »

Imza wrote: »

that sounds like a suggestion you should bring to the attention of Zos

Yeah I have, it never used to be this bad but it seems like it is happening way more often now

Actually, it happens way more often, because bigger guilds started being "sniped" way more often lately, so they defer to this measure as a second line of defense.

And contrary to your belief, I doubt that even the best trading guilds/alliances have even dozens of millions in their coffers (I don't count gold in the personal pockets of guild members, but the buffer fund available to guild is usually not that big). And being outbid on a major spot means losing like 8-14 mil. And without any reserved spot, the losses will be around additional 4-5 millions in guild revenues and (amounting to total 15-20 mil lost)... And even more is lost in sales, which become almost non-existent (which is worse, because donations are a fair part of guild income) So... as I said the main reason big trading guilds started to resort to these techniques because of the high amount of lost gold when they get outbid.

And being a member of a few Craglorn guilds (varies between 2-4), I could say that a lot of them are being sniped often by the same "no name" guilds that sell almost nothing and can't possibly afford getting a prime spot multiple times in a row. Which makes me speculate that either we have an emerging player on the trading scene, or someone spends millions to debalance and awake from stasis the overall established system for certain reasons. And I have a suspicion that some of these attacks may be funded by botters, but this suspicion is way too unfounded

So yeah. Trading wars are like this... gruesome and unforgiving to less numerous, less successful or weak.

P.S. a lot of speculation here, so do not take it too seriously. And of course I am not talking about the guilds who use these techniques to blackmail and extort gold, that is a low game.

The702Guy

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

The702Guy wrote: »

Imza wrote: »

that sounds like a suggestion you should bring to the attention of Zos

Yeah I have, it never used to be this bad but it seems like it is happening way more often now

Actually, it happens way more often, because bigger guilds started being "sniped" way more often lately, so they defer to this measure as a second line of defense.

And contrary to your belief, I doubt that even the best trading guilds/alliances have even dozens of millions in their coffers (I don't count gold in the personal pockets of guild members, but the buffer fund available to guild is usually not that big). And being outbid on a major spot means losing like 8-14 mil. And without any reserved spot, the losses will be around additional 4-5 millions in guild revenues and (amounting to total 15-20 mil lost)... And even more is lost in sales, which become almost non-existent (which is worse, because donations are a fair part of guild income) So... as I said the main reason big trading guilds started to resort to these techniques because of the high amount of lost gold when they get outbid.

And being a member of a few Craglorn guilds (varies between 2-4), I could say that a lot of them are being sniped often by the same "no name" guilds that sell almost nothing and can't possibly afford getting a prime spot multiple times in a row. Which makes me speculate that either we have an emerging player on the trading scene, or someone spends millions to debalance and awake from stasis the overall established system for certain reasons. And I have a suspicion that some of these attacks may be funded by botters, but this suspicion is way too unfounded

So yeah. Trading wars are like this... gruesome and unforgiving to less numerous, less successful or weak.

P.S. a lot of speculation here, so do not take it too seriously. And of course I am not talking about the guilds who use these techniques to blackmail and extort gold, that is a low game.

A lot of these guilds have 40mil or more in multiple guild banks and even have separate places to store their gold. This post comes from personal experience, I have personally been out bid by a burner and then gone back the next day and one of the major guilds was there. I know certain guilds (who will be unnamed due to naming and shaming rule) that do at least two burners per week if not more. Going through some of these smaller cities it is getting to be more and more often that you find burner traders and I know other GMs who have been sniped by burners. Sniping happens, it’s part of the bidding process and you lose your trader for the week. The difference is that bigger guilds can get sniped but because they stole someone else’s trader as a back up, they are safe. This is the problem that needs to be stopped.

yodased

This is capitalism in its purest form.

What you are suggesting is more on line with a socialistic system, but ZOS has always stated this should be a free market.

How do you combat this? I dunno, capitalidm favors those already ahead and doesnt provide catch up mechanics.

The702Guy

yodased wrote: »

This is capitalism in its purest form.

What you are suggesting is more on line with a socialistic system, but ZOS has always stated this should be a free market.

How do you combat this? I dunno, capitalidm favors those already ahead and doesnt provide catch up mechanics.

The way the bidding system is set up though is that each guild gets one bid per week. When these burner guilds are created it gives a guild 2, 3, or even more bids per week which is not how the system is intended. I’m not saying to stop guilds from creating more guilds so they can grow, but the burner guilds are not actually guilds they are a safety net that screws over other real guilds.

Wreuntzylla

yodased wrote: »

This is capitalism in its purest form.

What you are suggesting is more on line with a socialistic system, but ZOS has always stated this should be a free market.

How do you combat this? I dunno, capitalidm favors those already ahead and doesnt provide catch up mechanics.

Where did ZoS state that?

The only statements I recall prior to the release of guild traders were the exact opposite. They believed their system would inherently regulate typical antitrust-like issues seen in other games. Obviously, on that front, epic fail.

Fleshreaper

Wouldn't be hard for Zeni to figure out which locations are the most bid upon. Then assign all traders in say Reaper's March a 1. All traders in Mornhold 2, so on and so on. Now guilds just bid for a spot. Highest 6 bids get the top tier spots, next 6 get the second tier spots until all spots are taken.

yodased

I understand exactly what is happening.

The same way corporations make shell corps and tax annuities to mitigate their risk of loss or evade issue.

The problem is proving they are burner guilds and not a real guild, also its not a free market if they dont allow cutthroat practices.

The way to beat them is to make more money than them and outbid them, but may be impossible because they are that far ahead of you.

Basically ZOS would have to decide to level the playing field and they have cone out and said they are not interested in that.

Fair market is a fuct name cause nothing fair about it, in game or life.

The702Guy

yodased wrote: »

I understand exactly what is happening.

The same way corporations make shell corps and tax annuities to mitigate their risk of loss or evade issue.

The problem is proving they are burner guilds and not a real guild, also its not a free market if they dont allow cutthroat practices.

The way to beat them is to make more money than them and outbid them, but may be impossible because they are that far ahead of you.

Basically ZOS would have to decide to level the playing field and they have cone out and said they are not interested in that.

Fair market is a fuct name cause nothing fair about it, in game or life.

I don’t think you read the original post, I’m not saying to regulate the big guilds. What I’m saying is make it so they can’t disband a burner trader and secure it with their main guild when they lose. If there is no benefit then this won’t happen anymore.

Edit: You don’t have to kick burner guilds out of trader status, it will stop on its own if big guilds can’t just disband them for an easy secure.

Prof_Bawbag

Fleshreaper wrote: »

Wouldn't be hard for Zeni to figure out which locations are the most bid upon. Then assign all traders in say Reaper's March a 1. All traders in Mornhold 2, so on and so on. Now guilds just bid for a spot. Highest 6 bids get the top tier spots, next 6 get the second tier spots until all spots are taken.

Is this the same ZoS that think we're getting a bargain when they cut the Dro-M'athra motif from 6k to 5k crowns, the same ZoS that think players will pay 30k gold for some luxury vendor item that is more or less the same item we can get or make in game for next to nothing, the same ZoS who actually push you to use a morph on a skill that no one in their right mind uses and so on? I highly doubt many folk at ZoS actually play or even pay much attention to the finer details of the game now.

yodased

The702Guy wrote: »

yodased wrote: »

I understand exactly what is happening.

The same way corporations make shell corps and tax annuities to mitigate their risk of loss or evade issue.

The problem is proving they are burner guilds and not a real guild, also its not a free market if they dont allow cutthroat practices.

The way to beat them is to make more money than them and outbid them, but may be impossible because they are that far ahead of you.

Basically ZOS would have to decide to level the playing field and they have cone out and said they are not interested in that.

Fair market is a fuct name cause nothing fair about it, in game or life.

I don’t think you read the original post, I’m not saying to regulate the big guilds. What I’m saying is make it so they can’t disband a burner trader and secure it with their main guild when they lose. If there is no benefit then this won’t happen anymore.

I did read it. The point is you can't regulate any guild activities and have a free market.

Also, you cant prove these are burner guilds before they are disbanded.

If you ask them to regulate bidding then you are asking them to regulate the free market. Again, which they said they will not do.

You just dont want to understand what im saying because you are mad about the situation and it affects you personally, i understand that, but it doesnt change facts.

The702Guy

yodased wrote: »

The702Guy wrote: »

yodased wrote: »

I understand exactly what is happening.

The same way corporations make shell corps and tax annuities to mitigate their risk of loss or evade issue.

The problem is proving they are burner guilds and not a real guild, also its not a free market if they dont allow cutthroat practices.

The way to beat them is to make more money than them and outbid them, but may be impossible because they are that far ahead of you.

Basically ZOS would have to decide to level the playing field and they have cone out and said they are not interested in that.

Fair market is a fuct name cause nothing fair about it, in game or life.

I don’t think you read the original post, I’m not saying to regulate the big guilds. What I’m saying is make it so they can’t disband a burner trader and secure it with their main guild when they lose. If there is no benefit then this won’t happen anymore.

I did read it. The point is you can't regulate any guild activities and have a free market.

Also, you cant prove these are burner guilds before they are disbanded.

If you ask them to regulate bidding then you are asking them to regulate the free market. Again, which they said they will not do.

You just dont want to understand what im saying because you are mad about the situation and it affects you personally, i understand that, but it doesnt change facts.

If you read the original post you would know that I suggested a way to stop the burners. You don’t need to prove that they are burners because I’m not saying that they need to kick burner guilds out of Traders. What I’m saying is that if you make it so a guild can’t be disbanded and a trader opened for an easy secure by a bigger guild then this won’t happen anymore.

strangeradnd

They should just make any guild caught using these practices disband and forfeit all assets. Won't see it happen to often after the first couple. Just remember to wear you galoshes if they do because the tears would be deep. On a side note anyone associated with two instances should forfeit all their personal in game assets as well.

NoTimeToWait

The702Guy wrote: »

A lot of these guilds have 40mil or more in multiple guild banks and even have separate places to store their gold. This post comes from personal experience, I have personally been out bid by a burner and then gone back the next day and one of the major guilds was there. I know certain guilds (who will be unnamed due to naming and shaming rule) that do at least two burners per week if not more. Going through some of these smaller cities it is getting to be more and more often that you find burner traders and I know other GMs who have been sniped by burners. Sniping happens, it’s part of the bidding process and you lose your trader for the week. The difference is that bigger guilds can get sniped but because they stole someone else’s trader as a back up, they are safe. This is the problem that needs to be stopped.

Erm, 40 mil is not hundreds. And my rough calculations show that one week without trader results in 15-20 mil lost when you are bidding for a top spot. And no, this is not the problem, this is only a symptom. Removing symptoms won't rid you of the problem. I agree, that this mechanic needs to be fixed, but ZOS also need to do something with botting. I don't mean they need to prevent botting completely (which is impossible), but at least to prevent bot trains rampaging in the obvious places

Fleshreaper wrote: »

Wouldn't be hard for Zeni to figure out which locations are the most bid upon. Then assign all traders in say Reaper's March a 1. All traders in Mornhold 2, so on and so on. Now guilds just bid for a spot. Highest 6 bids get the top tier spots, next 6 get the second tier spots until all spots are taken.

Doesn't work always like that. Sometimes you specifically want some place for reasons. Like one of the best spots on DLC anniversary are often situated in the DLC location (like it was a good idea to have a trader in Anvil and Kvatch on Dark Brotherhood anniversary because lots of people were running there buying pots, selling stuff etc)

strangeradnd wrote: »

They should just make any guild caught using these practices disband and forfeit all assets. Won't see it happen to often after the first couple. Just remember to wear you galoshes if they do because the tears would be deep. On a side note anyone associated with two instances should forfeit all their personal in game assets as well.

ZOS won't do that, because I guess most of the top trading guilds were involved in these schemes one way or another(which as was mentioned are not actually exploits) and you don't wont to lose a decent part of the market (and I think Craglorn by itself comprises 20-30% of all Nirn market net value)

Synnastix

Sounds like something a universal auction house would fix, at least everyone gets a chancce to sell their junk.

kargen27

yodased wrote: »

This is capitalism in its purest form.

What you are suggesting is more on line with a socialistic system, but ZOS has always stated this should be a free market.

How do you combat this? I dunno, capitalidm favors those already ahead and doesnt provide catch up mechanics.

The way you combat this is make it so the winning guild gets the trader for the week whether they disband or not. If 50 players from a large guild want to form a guild and bid on another trader that is fine. But if they win the bid it is tied to their splinter guild for the entire week.

starkerealm

The702Guy wrote: »

yodased wrote: »

I understand exactly what is happening.

The same way corporations make shell corps and tax annuities to mitigate their risk of loss or evade issue.

The problem is proving they are burner guilds and not a real guild, also its not a free market if they dont allow cutthroat practices.

The way to beat them is to make more money than them and outbid them, but may be impossible because they are that far ahead of you.

Basically ZOS would have to decide to level the playing field and they have cone out and said they are not interested in that.

Fair market is a fuct name cause nothing fair about it, in game or life.

I don’t think you read the original post, I’m not saying to regulate the big guilds. What I’m saying is make it so they can’t disband a burner trader and secure it with their main guild when they lose. If there is no benefit then this won’t happen anymore.

Edit: You don’t have to kick burner guilds out of trader status, it will stop on its own if big guilds can’t just disband them for an easy secure.

The simple solution is to temporarily shut down the merchant if the guild that won the bid disbanded. Leave a sign that guilds can bid on, but don't simply open it up to anyone who wanders up with 10k in their pockets.

The702Guy

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

The702Guy wrote: »

A lot of these guilds have 40mil or more in multiple guild banks and even have separate places to store their gold. This post comes from personal experience, I have personally been out bid by a burner and then gone back the next day and one of the major guilds was there. I know certain guilds (who will be unnamed due to naming and shaming rule) that do at least two burners per week if not more. Going through some of these smaller cities it is getting to be more and more often that you find burner traders and I know other GMs who have been sniped by burners. Sniping happens, it’s part of the bidding process and you lose your trader for the week. The difference is that bigger guilds can get sniped but because they stole someone else’s trader as a back up, they are safe. This is the problem that needs to be stopped.

Erm, 40 mil is not hundreds. And my rough calculations show that one week without trader results in 15-20 mil lost when you are bidding for a top spot. And no, this is not the problem, this is only a symptom. Removing symptoms won't rid you of the problem. I agree, that this mechanic needs to be fixed, but ZOS also need to do something with botting. I don't mean they need to prevent botting completely (which is impossible), but at least to prevent bot trains rampaging in the obvious places

I said 40 mil, in multiple guildbanks, that would equate to hundreds. Also how did you get that number? You can’t count the money bid because that is refunded if you lose and I garuntee you no guild in the game makes that much in taxes per week even in the best spots. Can’t speak for pc but definitely not on console. Even if that number was accurate that’s how the system is made, one bid per Guild. If you lose that’s it and you try again next week like everyone else. And making it so you can’t disband a guild just to secure the trader again would stop the main issue of these burners. There would be no profit and no point in bidding on those spots with burner guilds if you can’t easily disband it and secure it again. Yes there would still be the trolls who do it because they are trolls but it would root out most of this issue. Botting I can agree with fixing that but that is a whole other issue.

WhiteNoiseMaker

Without naming and shaming, I've heard it bragged that these guilds do a lot of buying gold from the very same botters that people report all the time. It explains a LOT in regards to how the burner guilds operate regularly and consistently.

Jayman1000

I agree. But as usual, don't expect any changes at all.

starkerealm

WhiteNoiseMaker wrote: »

Without naming and shaming, I've heard it bragged that these guilds do a lot of buying gold from the very same botters that people report all the time. It explains a LOT in regards to how the burner guilds operate regularly and consistently.

With respect, I think we might be talking about three separate, interconnected, issues.

We have the guilds that buy botted gold, bidding on high profile kiosks. Probably under the misguided impression that the kiosks are a license to print money... which, I mean, they kinda are, but it takes a lot of work, which they're not ready for.

We have the guilds that are using proxy guilds to bid on backup locations. In case they lose their primary spot. Which probably means losing their primary spot to the people in the previous group.

Finally, we have guilds that pick up kiosks using proxy guilds, then try to sell those locations to third parties. Which may consist, primarily, of guilds from the second group who didn't lose out on their initial investment, and are now stuck with a location they can't get into functional shape before the week is out, looking to recover their expenses in time to do it again next week.

Which shakes out to a bunch of horror stories floating around on the boards. I don't think anyone's completely wrong (except the guy saying that all of the trade guilds are part of a secret ESO Illuminati), but I don't think it's quite as simple as, "oh, hey, botted gold ahoy."

FloppyTouch

Small amount of rich players exploiting the guild trader system hmmmm sounds like the argument against AH weird right?

The702Guy

WhiteNoiseMaker wrote: »

Without naming and shaming, I've heard it bragged that these guilds do a lot of buying gold from the very same botters that people report all the time. It explains a LOT in regards to how the burner guilds operate regularly and consistently.

That’s a whole other theory that unfortunately you can’t really prove, but I’ve had my suspicions too. This burner trader deal is an easy fix by either making guilds unable to disband when they secure a trader or by making the trader go to the next highest bidder when it is disbanded. I feel botting is an issue that can never be fixed because ZoS can keep banning accounts but more just keep being made

jazsper77

The fact ZOS has stayed silent on all the threads about shaky Guild practices should tell you all you need to know.
* I have support tickets where ZOS EMPLOYEES say as a GM they feel my pain whenever I have a Guild issue. HMMMM. Again I wonder why nothing ever gets touched upon with Traders.

NoTimeToWait

Fleshreaper wrote: »

I said 40 mil, in multiple guildbanks, that would equate to hundreds. Also how did you get that number? You can’t count the money bid because that is refunded if you lose and I garuntee you no guild in the game makes that much in taxes per week even in the best spots. Can’t speak for pc but definitely not on console. Even if that number was accurate that’s how the system is made, one bid per Guild. If you lose that’s it and you try again next week like everyone else. And making it so you can’t disband a guild just to secure the trader again would stop the main issue of these burners. There would be no profit and no point in bidding on those spots with burner guilds if you can’t easily disband it and secure it again. Yes there would still be the trolls who do it because they are trolls but it would root out most of this issue. Botting I can agree with fixing that but that is a whole other issue.

Okay, I was wrong about bids. I thought you would lose the money if you lost a bid... And IMO that would make sense because that would prevent bids rising to crazy amounts... Now I understand why we have such an inflated bidding bubble.
Maybe they should really change the way the bidding works if the money is refunded.

On PC EU top Craglorn guilds make 200+ mil in sales in front, and around 80-100 mil in the back. Well, 4-8 mil lost in taxes, and way more lost in donations (because fewer people will donate if they made no sales).

FloppyTouch wrote: »

Small amount of rich players exploiting the guild trader system hmmmm sounds like the argument against AH weird right?

Lol. Like rich players won't exploit AH having tons of gold to spare. Actually, current system prevents them from real exploiting. Like it's really hard for a single person to turn more than 10 mil a month right now with current boundaries of 5 guilds, 30 listing slots per guild. And the time it requires to run around to actually MAKE USE of 10 mil is just crazy. Now if I had access to a single central AH... that would be interesting.

And, btw, people who are rich became rich not because of the current system, but because of analyzing the game overall. Nothing would prevent them getting even more richer with another system (I would say, new system would make even more opportunities to get filthy rich because of the market chaos)