Guild bid on up to 10 different Guild Trader locations each week with update 23

Arrodisia

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Guilds get kicked out and left without vendors each week.

And when that happens it means that new guilds come in. Which is a good thing. Obviously not in your opinion. You seem to "entitled" to your spot.

No it isn't a good thing for the guilds forced out.

anitajoneb17_ESO

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Guilds get kicked out and left without vendors each week.

And when that happens it means that new guilds come in. Which is a good thing. Obviously not in your opinion. You seem to "entitled" to your spot.

No it isn't a good thing for the guilds forced out.

But it's a good thing for the guilds coming in. Why should "older ones" get priority ?

reoskit

This is either willful ignorance or outright trolling.

I recommend not banging your heads against this particular wall; you're never going to break through it.

FelixTheCatt

I love the game , I honestly do , but this guild trader system has always been a joke. It's biased towards the same old guilds. Directly responsible for the whole "Guild Dues" which is a farce in itself. Who the heck would be dumb enough to pay "dues" to be in a guild anyways? Ridiculous. Guilds act like they do something for you in the first place which is a crock of hot , steaming crap. They talk a big game but it always comes down to cliques. 😂

Arrodisia

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Guilds get kicked out and left without vendors each week.

And when that happens it means that new guilds come in. Which is a good thing. Obviously not in your opinion. You seem to "entitled" to your spot.

No it isn't a good thing for the guilds forced out.

But it's a good thing for the guilds coming in. Why should "older ones" get priority ?

No one said that. My whole point from the beginning is this. The change doesn't help newer, smaller, or midsized guilds at all, because most of them don't have the deep pockets to make multiple bids. No one said anything about older guilds. Again you are assuming too much. I was talking about the newer, smaller, and midsized guilds being pushed out. You, specifically, cut out pieces of past comments to twist the conversation into something different. Good luck with that. Cheers

Gandrhulf_Harbard

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Guilds get kicked out and left without vendors each week.

And when that happens it means that new guilds come in. Which is a good thing. Obviously not in your opinion. You seem to "entitled" to your spot.

No it isn't a good thing for the guilds forced out.

But it's a good thing for the guilds coming in. Why should "older ones" get priority ?

Why should richer ones?

All The Best

anitajoneb17_ESO

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Why should richer ones?
All The Best

Because that's the law of offer and demand, upon which trading is based ?

Jayman1000

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes? Im a member of multiple of the largest trade guilds, none of these sells stalls, they need to get their main trader. If they were to sell stalls how would they get their main trader? Can yuo explain exactly how big guilds is selling stalls? Because I dont understand how that would work?

I can explain it, and it has been mentioned in threads before. There are two ways to do it. A fake guild gets a vendor then disbands the guild after they receive payment for the spot, while the person they just sold it to waits at the spot to take the trader as he disbands. The second way is making the buyer into the guild master of the disposable fake guild, after the seller already got payment. So yes. It is very doable. No player, in their right mind, is going to film themselves exploiting the system for you, because they fear being made an example of afterwards.

That's not what I mean with documentation. I wasn't asking how to create a guild, bid on a trader, disband it after payment so the buyer can get it immediately. I was asking about documentation for blaming "Big guilds selling stalls".

Same apples. No one is allowed to name and shame in the forums, and no one will publicly display he/she has manipulated the system to be counted up to satisfy your curiosity. I'm not coming at you. I'm just pointing out, why it would be unrealistic to ask for such a thing, no matter what the specific case is.

The players doing it, obviously, have a lot of money. I don't really care, who is doing it. I'd just like to see it stop, and turned into something more fun for everyone.


Cheers

I just wanted to know if they/you actually had any documentation? Or is it just speculation? Not asking to name and shame.

I don't think you can stop trader flipping. No matter how many traders you put in the game, some can get flipped when guilds get lax on their bids.

Arrodisia

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Guilds get kicked out and left without vendors each week.

And when that happens it means that new guilds come in. Which is a good thing. Obviously not in your opinion. You seem to "entitled" to your spot.

No it isn't a good thing for the guilds forced out.

But it's a good thing for the guilds coming in. Why should "older ones" get priority ?

Why should richer ones?

All The Best

Neither should get priority. That person just leaves out statements to change the direction of a topic. I didn't say that to begin with. I was talking about smaller, midsized, and newer guilds getting pushed out. Cheers

anitajoneb17_ESO

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Neither should get priority. That person just leaves out statements to change the direction of a topic. I didn't say that to begin with. I was talking about smaller, midsized, and newer guilds getting pushed out. Cheers

And you keep ignoring what I was saying, which was perfectly on topic : the multibidding system will allow new guilds to join and that's a good thing in my view.
Besides, since only 1 bid will ever be actually paid each week, no guild needs deep pockets to make multiple bids. As I already said, they can borrow gold from their members.

Arrodisia

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes? Im a member of multiple of the largest trade guilds, none of these sells stalls, they need to get their main trader. If they were to sell stalls how would they get their main trader? Can yuo explain exactly how big guilds is selling stalls? Because I dont understand how that would work?

I can explain it, and it has been mentioned in threads before. There are two ways to do it. A fake guild gets a vendor then disbands the guild after they receive payment for the spot, while the person they just sold it to waits at the spot to take the trader as he disbands. The second way is making the buyer into the guild master of the disposable fake guild, after the seller already got payment. So yes. It is very doable. No player, in their right mind, is going to film themselves exploiting the system for you, because they fear being made an example of afterwards.

That's not what I mean with documentation. I wasn't asking how to create a guild, bid on a trader, disband it after payment so the buyer can get it immediately. I was asking about documentation for blaming "Big guilds selling stalls".

Same apples. No one is allowed to name and shame in the forums, and no one will publicly display he/she has manipulated the system to be counted up to satisfy your curiosity. I'm not coming at you. I'm just pointing out, why it would be unrealistic to ask for such a thing, no matter what the specific case is.

The players doing it, obviously, have a lot of money. I don't really care, who is doing it. I'd just like to see it stop, and turned into something more fun for everyone.


Cheers

I just wanted to know if they/you actually had any documentation? Or is it just speculation? Not asking to name and shame.

I don't think you can stop trader flipping. No matter how many traders you put in the game, some can get flipped when guilds get lax on their bids.

That is, obviously, leading to naming and shaming. No way around it, and no one will partake in it.

You guys weren't discussing simple trader flipping. You were discussing an exploit in the system. I'm not saying I disagree or agree. I'm saying. You won't get anyone to throw another under the bus here, no matter how many times you ask. Have a nice evening, and cheers.

Arrodisia

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Neither should get priority. That person just leaves out statements to change the direction of a topic. I didn't say that to begin with. I was talking about smaller, midsized, and newer guilds getting pushed out. Cheers

And you keep ignoring what I was saying, which was perfectly on topic : the multibidding system will allow new guilds to join and that's a good thing in my view.
Besides, since only 1 bid will ever be actually paid each week, no guild needs deep pockets to make multiple bids. As I already said, they can borrow gold from their members.

I didn't ignore anything you said. I told you. That isn't how it will work, and I already explained why. Nothing you said was able to compete with anything I said. I simply want to see a system, which is fun and fair to all, and you just want to see only the richer guilds on top having fun. I, personally, don't want to be a part of squashing smaller guilds, but our guilds will do what they need to do to keep selling our wares. So, I'll just agree to disagree, and wish you a good evening. Cheers

anitajoneb17_ESO

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Nothing you said was able to compete with anything I said.

What an open mind to different views, it's amazing !

Flaminir

Different views is fine... but I think ZoS should take note of the fact that very clearly 95% of the people involved in this debate are all of the same view that this is an extremely harmful change.

Arrodisia

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Nothing you said was able to compete with anything I said.

What an open mind to different views, it's amazing !

I was very open minded in this thread. I objectively read your comments, and didn't bait you, like you tried to do to me. Maybe you should read the comments I left for others, who came up with some solid view points and suggestions. One of which was completely different than my viewpoint. I left a positive statement behind for that person, and some others. What's amazing is that you still try to twist statements to fit your personal viewpoint, and you still believe people don't see through it. Cheers

anitajoneb17_ESO

Flaminir wrote: »

Different views is fine... but I think ZoS should take note of the fact that very clearly 95% of the people involved in this debate are all of the same view that this is an extremely harmful change.

This is why I had (and still will have) the courtesy to not participate in the official feedback thread. In which, however, one of you thought very clever to behave very rudely, so I doubt they'll have their ears open for you. But that's not on me.

Rushinator

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

I love the game , I honestly do , but this guild trader system has always been a joke. It's biased towards the same old guilds. Directly responsible for the whole "Guild Dues" which is a farce in itself. Who the heck would be dumb enough to pay "dues" to be in a guild anyways? Ridiculous. Guilds act like they do something for you in the first place which is a crock of hot , steaming crap. They talk a big game but it always comes down to cliques. 😂

Really ignorant comment. Guild "dues" came out of necessity. In fact, they are the result of one of ZOS' main goals for the Trader system, which was to be a massive gold sink. ZOS wanted a lot of ESO's gold to be bid every week on the traders to fight gold inflation. So they designed the system so that guilds have to bid a lot of gold each week if they wanted to ensure they won.

Guilds had to adapt or die. The guilds who adopted guild "dues" & thus raised more gold each week won their trader while those who didn't either died or moved to out of the way traders that nobody fought them for.

The new multi-bidding system is most likely a result of ZOS wanting to continue to increase Trade guild bids. A lot of the traders have been relatively stable for a long time with no one contesting them because the price of failure & trying to takeover a trader is so high. Lose your bid = no trader for a week. With not many guilds trying to move around, its resulted in many guilds low-balling or keeping the same bid every week without change since they can get away with it & only increase their bids for a short-period of time when someone challenges them.

With multi-bidding, there's ZERO-RISK now to try to move to a new spot each week. Even if you lose your first 3 bids so what? You have 7 more! And if someone bumps you, you get to your backup bids & bump someone who was bidding lower.

This is gonna force everyone for awhile to bid much more if they want to KEEP their spot. Some guilds might get away with bidding lower each week if they don't care where they end up. With 10 possible bids, they can take their chances bidding lets say 1M on 10 different spots.

But the end result of multi-bidding that ZOS probably expects is that the overall amount of gold bid each week will go up & there will be a lot more movement from guilds bumping each other each week.

A lot of guilds who got away with bidding low amounts relative to their surrounding traders are gonna get a huge wake up call when this update hits.

Gandrhulf_Harbard

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Why should richer ones?
All The Best

Because that's the law of offer and demand, upon which trading is based ?

Oh really, you want to play that game eh?

Ok well the law of SUPPLY & Demand (not offer) mandates that under the current system there would be no demand for isolated Kiosks because they would not supply sufficient revenues to make the worth bidding on, and Traders forced to out of the Trading Hubs would DEMAND more Kiosks in those hubs.

As I have repeatedly said: it is increasingly clear that the Devs, and most people defending the current system and proposed changes to it have no clue about Pre-Industrial Trade and Commerce.

I do, I have and M.A. Hons in Ancient History.

Basic rule of pre-industrial trade: Sell your stuff where the customer is.


People who try to defend the current system, and proposed changes, based on some notion that it replicates real-world trade and commerce are going to lose this debate.

Because if we go down the "realism" route the current trade system would have died a death 2 months after it was launched.

Because realistic trade does just two major things: 1) Makes it easy to sell for sellers, 2) makes it easy to buy for buyers.

The current system does neither.


All The Best

Thorvik_Tyrson

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Guys you are being so negative sheesh . There is lots of room in plenty of good trading guilds, just check the guild finder. Lots of free slots actually. Dont sweat it, this change will make life easier for everyone I have a feeling about this,

"I'm sorry, but you have not been playing EOS since Launch, therefor you cant have your own trading guild" and "No new Trading Guilds allowed" is how I interpret the above comment.

Another way to interpret it would be that you have to join the old boys network in order to be allowed to trade/sell.

The problem that I have with this is that you are telling people that they cant start up any new trading guilds. A group of friends cannot at this point in time move over to ESO from another MMO and start their own trading guild and get a trading spot. I.E. This is very new player unfriendly, which is why I personally feel that it needs to change.


Edited to correct typo's

Thorvik_Tyrson

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

I beg to differ, If the supply of traders is not high enough to meet the demand for them, then they should add more traders.

Thorvik_Tyrson

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder tool that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders, but it may be necessary later if player population keeps increasing and all the trade guilds gets booming full of members.

The guild finder is pointing out the number of shadow guilds that exist. Keep this in mind when you say there are plenty of spots. I counter that there really isnt enough spots as those vacancies that you are talking about do not really exist.

And even if there are spots available. so what! People may not want to join those, and they may want to do trading in their smaller social guilds. I believe that this should be allowed. Today that is not allowed due to the limit of only 210ish traders that exist in the game. That number may go up to 230ish with the next two updates later this year. It still isnt enough.

Thorvik

Thorvik_Tyrson

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

I agree with that. The gold sink for vendors is already high. If they become higher small, medium and newer guilds won't be able to get vendors anymore. There is nothing fun about that.

Do you have any idea how offer and demand work ?
As long as there are more vendor spots than super-rich guilds, (which is the case) the lower- and middle-tier guilds will always get a spot at a price they can afford. Prices are self-adjusting.

With all due respect, I understand it well. There are more guilds than spots, which was how this whole exploiting theme came into play. Fake guilds are capitalizing on demand, due to the lack of kiosks available to accommodate each guild. That demand wouldn't be so high, if A. ) the exploit was removed and B.) if the system had more vendors added. The population has increased. Guilds have also increased. New vendors are very few, and when the fake guilds came into play, the situation intensifies. Then we can add 10 x bidding not just for legit guilds, but fake ones as well. Basically, these fake guilds will each have 10 chances to knock a legitimate guild out of their spot. ZOS not getting rid of the fake guilds, only encourages more to form. So, it's likely, more and more guilds will get knocked out.

When one or multiple of my guilds loses their higher end spots to some inflated bid from a real or fake guild, we'll be snapping up an alternate spot. Other GM's have stated the same. That loss makes us have to push someone else out of their spot. We don't want to have to snatch up another guild's spot, but we'll have to do it in order to keep our sales going. Any spot is better than no spot imho. It's just sad there aren't enough spots to go around, and exploits are even a thing in the trade system.

Did you read what I wrote ?
There are more spots than super-rich guilds.
That means that the prices for lower-tier spots will not skyrocket above a point that smaller/poorer guilds are not able or ready to pay. And that will keep the prices reasonable, fake guilds or not.
Fake guils are capitalizing on demand, but that demand WILL BE LOWER thanks to the multibidding system.
Please stop the fake guild paranoia. I agree that they should be dealt with, but stop acting like there are 100s of them around.
In the game of musical chairs, no matter how long or quick the music goes, there's only one chair missing in the end.

But we are short 100's of chairs that should be in the playing field, and not just one. It would be different if there was only one spot missing, but there are way more than one spot missing in this trading game of musical chairs.

reoskit

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

The guild finder is pointing out the number of shadow guilds that exist. Keep this in mind when you say there are plenty of spots. I counter that there really isnt enough spots as those vacancies that you are talking about do not really exist.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anything you've said, I just want to point out:

Being listed in the Guild Finder is an opt-in process. It is unlikely that guilds set to be disbanded are listed in the GF, unless the folks running them are extra evil and are using new applicants for the bodycount. It's been known to happen, but it's not a super way to hit your 50 guildie mark.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

But we are short 100's of chairs that should be in the playing field, and not just one. It would be different if there was only one spot missing, but there are way more than one spot missing in this trading game of musical chairs.

Yes. It was simply a metaphore.
Actually I'd welcome some more trading spots to relieve the pressure a bit.
My point was more that some people in this thread seem to believe that 10x more bids will lead to 10x more bidders, which is not the case. The number of missing chairs will still be the same and the fear of a torrent of rich guilds wiping everyone down the ladder is unfounded.

Thorvik_Tyrson

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

But we are short 100's of chairs that should be in the playing field, and not just one. It would be different if there was only one spot missing, but there are way more than one spot missing in this trading game of musical chairs.

Yes. It was simply a metaphore.
Actually I'd welcome some more trading spots to relieve the pressure a bit.
My point was more that some people in this thread seem to believe that 10x more bids will lead to 10x more bidders, which is not the case. The number of missing chairs will still be the same and the fear of a torrent of rich guilds wiping everyone down the ladder is unfounded.

I can agree with this. Thanks for the clarification!

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

My point was more that some people in this thread seem to believe that 10x more bids will lead to 10x more bidders, which is not the case.

Exactly. 10x more bidders is not the case.

But the chance to lose more is the case - get it?

10x more bids will mean that there is a higher chance for wealthy guilds to get hit, especially by rogue overbid guilds. At the moment rogue guilds can only bid once and they dont always win. Also one wealthy faction can now hit another wealthy faction with ghost guilds a lot easier as certified by those where this is already happening

Therefore when wealthy guilds do get hit they are going to:

a/ knock off a weaker, non alliance guild as a backup with a hefty bid
b/ knock off another wealthy guild, which is likely to cause inter-faction friction.
c/ increase their bids and backup bids

Therefore guilds further down the chain have a greater chance to get hit by wealthy guilds, which is not the case now. And also their fellows, which is infrequent now. One outcome of which is they will need to increase their bids and therefore membership conditions.

It has been explained over and over and over

anitajoneb17_ESO

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

It has been explained over and over and over

... and still makes zero sense. Rogue guilds or not, they can only win once per guild. Not even sure what you mean by "rogue guilds"...

- Either they're ghost guilds ransoming spots (I already explained why they would be far less likely to make money with that due to the multibidding system)
- Or they're legit guilds trying hard and high and using the trader spot "normally" (in which case that's fair game)
- Or they're personal vendetta which won't last in the long term anyway.

I explained that over and over and over. Maybe it got lost with your windy meme...

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

It has been explained over and over and over

... and still makes zero sense. Rogue guilds or not, they can only win once per guild. Not even sure what you mean by "rogue guilds"...

- Either they're ghost guilds ransoming spots (I already explained why they would be far less likely to make money with that due to the multibidding system)
- Or they're legit guilds trying hard and high and using the trader spot "normally" (in which case that's fair game)
- Or they're personal vendetta which won't last in the long term anyway.

I explained that over and over and over.

They can only win once yes. But the chance to win goes up. The chance for big guilds to lose goes up.

Can I ask you what do you think will happen when big guilds lose more? Nothing? Happy land?

You don't know what rogue guilds are because you are not involved in running trade guilds. Its been explained in this thread. Guilds that over-bid and deliberately set out to cause disruption by over-bidding on big guilds, thereby upsetting the gm and the guild members as a deliberate act. The personal vendetta which you claim will not last in he long term has already been going on for years. Others have also told us that on their platforms ghost guilds are also used as a trading weapon.

Ghost guilds are not going away because of multi-bidding. You imagine they are, but I know for a fact they they are not. You don't know this fact because you are not involved in the trading world. The secret world that you claim does not exist. But I have secret information that you do not, because I operate in that secret world that you say does not exist. The secret world which you say does not exist is actually more real than the made up one that you predict for the future of trading under multi-bidding.

You haven't explained your points in this post over and over. These points are entirely new and as usual plucked out of your imagined view of the trading world rather than a view based on trading knowledge and experience.

I think your real game is playing the forums, because you clearly do not play at trading.

anitajoneb17_ESO

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

They can only win once yes. But the chance to win goes up. The chance for big guilds to lose goes up.

The chance of winning is still the same for everyone. It's 10 bids for everyone.

For the rest I've heard that already : you know everything, you're in the inside of things, you know things, I know nothing, Jon Snow is my middle name,... bla bla bla. But of course when someone asks you to document (or if you have at least some sort of documentation of what you're saying) you jump on your high horse, no of course you cannot talk, that's only for insiders, how can we dare asking for documentation. Funny, isn't it ?

Arrodisia

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

My point was more that some people in this thread seem to believe that 10x more bids will lead to 10x more bidders, which is not the case.

Exactly. 10x more bidders is not the case.

But the chance to lose more is the case - get it?

10x more bids will mean that there is a higher chance for wealthy guilds to get hit, especially by rogue overbid guilds. At the moment rogue guilds can only bid once and they dont always win. Also one wealthy faction can now hit another wealthy faction with ghost guilds a lot easier as certified by those where this is already happening

Therefore when wealthy guilds do get hit they are going to:

a/ knock off a weaker, non alliance guild as a backup with a hefty bid
b/ knock off another wealthy guild, which is likely to cause inter-faction friction.
c/ increase their bids and backup bids

Therefore guilds further down the chain have a greater chance to get hit by wealthy guilds, which is not the case now. And also their fellows, which is infrequent now. One outcome of which is they will need to increase their bids and therefore membership conditions.

It has been explained over and over and over

You made some very good points there. Everything you said makes sense to most people here, just not the couple, who obviously don't understand how the trade guilds really function, or the effect the changes could have on a larger scale for all types of guilds. Sadly, they don't realise that newer, smaller and mid sized guilds are important to the entire system too. Sadly, most smaller, newer guilds don't begin with a lot of capital, and wont be able to afford 10x bidding. So, no they won't be able to benefit from the changes to get spots. It won't be 10 x bidding for everyone in reality, only the already rich. Best wishes and cheers.