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

Elsonso

ezio45 wrote: »

ZOS_RobGarrett

Bottom line. With this system you are taking a tanker truck of gasoline and pouring it on the fire that everyone complaining about the trader system has been telling you about.

Actually... common mistake. Rob Garrett is the Lead Gameplay Designer. I think you are looking for the Lead Systems Designer.

Arrodisia

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

That was very on point. People deep in the trading world see the real issues, and the larger picture, because they've experienced all sides of it, and want to help make it better for everyone.

Jayman1000

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

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.

A simple yes or no would suffice. I dont require you to show me the evidence, I was just curious if they/you had actually seen some evidence.

Arrodisia

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

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.

A simple yes or no would suffice. I don't require you to show me the evidence, I was just curious if they/you had actually seen some evidence.

I wasn't the person you asked in the first place, and you asked that person to "document this postulate" as you stated above. So yes, you were asking for evidence, not a simple yes or no, if he or she saw it. I honestly told you. No one will give that information to you, and I explained why. Naming and shaming isn't allowed here, but that was a cute attempt at trying to change your statements, hoping someone would slip a tidbit out. No one in their right mind is going to admit to doing or seeing anything, specifically related to an exploit, in the forums. Do you, actually, have something on topic to say? if not, we're pretty much done here. Have a good night, and enjoy playing the game. cheers.

Jayman1000

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

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.

A simple yes or no would suffice. I don't require you to show me the evidence, I was just curious if they/you had actually seen some evidence.

I wasn't the person you asked in the first place, and you asked that person to "document this postulate" as you stated above. So yes, you were asking for evidence, not a simple yes or no, if he or she saw it. I honestly told you. No one will give that information to you, and I explained why. Naming and shaming isn't allowed here, but that was a cute attempt at trying to change your statements, hoping someone would slip a tidbit out. No one in their right mind is going to admit to doing or seeing anything, specifically related to an exploit, in the forums. Do you, actually, have something on topic to say? if not, we're pretty much done here. Have a good night, and enjoy playing the game. cheers.

Ok, you keep reading what you want instead of what I actually write. Im just gonna paste my previous comment to said person and mention this last time that I did not request documentation to be shown or naming or shaming or what have you. I bet you are still gonna see it that way though, but whatever; I have repeated this too many times to keep going.

"Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes?"

ezio45

lordrichter wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

ZOS_RobGarrett

Bottom line. With this system you are taking a tanker truck of gasoline and pouring it on the fire that everyone complaining about the trader system has been telling you about.

Actually... common mistake. Rob Garrett is the Lead Gameplay Designer. I think you are looking for the Lead Systems Designer.

Garrett oversees ui and combat

Arrodisia

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

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.

A simple yes or no would suffice. I don't require you to show me the evidence, I was just curious if they/you had actually seen some evidence.

I wasn't the person you asked in the first place, and you asked that person to "document this postulate" as you stated above. So yes, you were asking for evidence, not a simple yes or no, if he or she saw it. I honestly told you. No one will give that information to you, and I explained why. Naming and shaming isn't allowed here, but that was a cute attempt at trying to change your statements, hoping someone would slip a tidbit out. No one in their right mind is going to admit to doing or seeing anything, specifically related to an exploit, in the forums. Do you, actually, have something on topic to say? if not, we're pretty much done here. Have a good night, and enjoy playing the game. cheers.

Ok, you keep reading what you want instead of what I actually write. Im just gonna paste my previous comment to said person and mention this last time that I did not request documentation to be shown or naming or shaming or what have you. I bet you are still gonna see it that way though, but whatever; I have repeated this too many times to keep going.

"Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes?"

Do you know what "to document" something means? You used it as a verb, and phrased it as a question. So, as far as I can see. You either don't know what it means, according to your answer, or you flat out contradicted yourself. Anyway, to document something means to furnish documentary evidence of something, in this case the statement the other player made to you. You did ask him/her to prove it. So, do you not understand what you wrote, or are you contradicting yourself? Anyway, if anyone is reading what he/she wants, it's you, which you yourself made obvious in your last statements. At this point, you seem like you're trolling to derail this thread, and I'm not interested in helping you do so. Have a nice day, and best wishes.

Urigall

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Big guilds selling stalls?

Size doesn't matter in this case - straw man. Let's burn him to the ground. He's tinder dry and only needs a spark to do the job.

There are at least three guilds with empty inventories. They were empty on Sunday; they were empty as of 10 minutes ago. Who bought the kiosks? Various possibilities. I laid these possibilities out in an earlier comment in this very here thread: scroll up.

Four of the reasons are about as likely as...well, let's just accept that they're rather unpersuasive. Maybe the Gremlins at their trickery is borderline.

Given that answer number four is a racing certainty, what size of guild do you think was behind the purchase? Small, medium or large? That is not a trick question. Equally, the answer is unimportant in the context of the core problem (see below).

Kiosks cost wonga, so it's...just...possible, that the guild behind the purchases have a bob or two. They might be brassick lint. Unlikely. Might be a tad more reasonable to infer that they're not paupers. Once again, this is unimportant for the purposes of what follows.

Enough of my badinage. Whether the purchase was made by a wealthy guild is not of any, real importance (even though less wealthy guilds buying up kiosks, and leaving them empty, is not an answer that is believable) What IS important is that it was possible to buy the kiosks in the first place and then leave them empty. That's the point we should focus upon.

The scale of this problem is masked by the possibility of buying kiosks then putting only 1-15 30-day items up. A guild with a minimum of 50 members can't list at least 500, 30-day items? Tell me another one. It's probably another form of kiosk buying. Less obvious, until one thinks through the financial implications of selling next to nothing.

Kiosks are being bought and left empty. That fact alone is evidence enough to prove summat's up. Whether the buyers have mountains of gold, or whether they are skint, is irrelevant.

Sorry for the reek folks - straw man went up in seconds.

GarnetFire17

JarlUlfric wrote: »

As someone who runs a large trading guild, this seems to be a massive headache that is going to require so much more from our members to maintain our spots.

3 total bids? Sure that's cool.

10?! That's ridiculous.

What they should also do is take a % of the bids that you place that weren't the bid that wins.

So if let's say you bid 10M in Place 1, 8M in Place 2, and 5M in Place 3.

You win Place 1, the game should take a small % of the bids from Places 2 & 3. There should be some sort of price for being able to bid in more than one place. Make it 5 - 10% of the bid. So in this case, you'd pay anywhere from 650k to 1.3M for being able to bid in more than one place with how much the bid was in this hypothetical scenario.

That would be enough for the larger guilds to be more strategic and think about bids rather that dropping mountains of gold on places that have no business being bid on that much.

It wold hurt the less rich guilds more than it would the richer ones. BC maybe the guilds don't make 10M bids x10, maybe they only make 5 bids of 10m, 9.99M, 9.98M, 9.97M 9.96M. and then Maybe 2M on a spot worth 500k. It's all in the budget for the rich guilds. Meanwhile the little guy guild fundraises hard and increases dues to bid 3M on their favorite spot and 1M on another not so good spot and prays, and then still gets hit with 15% non-refund fee.

The answer to this is just not to go through with this change because it does more harm that good.

GarnetFire17

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.

You don't understand... "Don't bid out of your league" is just not acceptable to guilds that have scrapped and clawed to a spot and make ends meet in that spot for a long time that has now become "out of their league" because of a bad change by the developers that makes the already overpriced kiosks even more overpriced.

GarnetFire17

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. Cheers mate

It's GAME! Thank you! We are already working like it's a second job to keep spots that is not making close to what our guilds are spending on it and now ZOS wants to ramp it up x10! ZOS please! have mercy on us, it's a video game!

Urigall

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

We are already working like it's a second job to keep spots that is not making close to what our guilds are spending on it

If kiosk costs go up there could be a knock on effect for traders, over and above the hassle for some GMs. Minimum sales requirements will probably have to go up if kiosk costs rise. If so, traders in expensive guild spots will probably face higher, weekly targets.

Maybe kiosk prices will stabilise. Maybe they will rise as guilds bid for the very best spots.

We won't know until the system goes live.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Urigall wrote: »

Maybe kiosk prices will stabilise. Maybe they will rise as guilds bid for the very best spots.

and maybe (or, in my view, hopefully) there will be a redistribution / widening in what's considered "very best spots" .
On PC/EU, the very best top 1st spot that beats them all is Belkarth, to this day. This has historical reasons (back in late 2014 until mid 2015 Craglorn was the only place for vet characters to play overland content, and it was also the only place to hand in max level crafting writs). None of the major reasons why a hub is considered "best spot'' is valid for Belkarth anymore (bank vicinity, wayshrine vicinity, undaunted traffic, etc... ), yet the domination of Belkarth remains.

Other hubs offer better practicalities (Windhelm, Coldharbour, Sentinel... ) but are still less considered, less valued and less sought after.

Let's hope this new system will widen the perspectives and redraw the cards a bit.

anitajoneb17_ESO

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

You don't understand... "Don't bid out of your league" is just not acceptable to guilds that have scrapped and clawed to a spot and make ends meet in that spot for a long time that has now become "out of their league" because of a bad change by the developers that makes the already overpriced kiosks even more overpriced.

Just not acceptable ?
"Don't bid out of your league" is the equivalent of "don't spend more than you earn", that's the very basics of profitable business. There's nothing unacceptable with that.
As to the rest, it's simply a change of market conditions. It's nothing to accept or not accept, it's "adapt or die".
You're still free to like or dislike it, and to try and have ZOS change their minds, but beyond that, it's not a matter of acceptance.
Having occupied a spot for a very long time is a truly good achievement, BUT it doesn't grant you nor entitle you to keep said spot under the same conditions forever.
This stability (one could even say "immobility") is even probably the very reason why ZOS is making this move.

DaveMoeDee

WardenofNirn wrote: »

``With Update 23, you can have your Guild bid on up to 10 different Guild Trader locations each week. Priority is given to the location with the highest bid, and if you miss your first preference, the system checks your second, third, and so on. Once you win a bid on a Guild Trader, all other bids are refunded back to your Guild bank. With this addition, it is easier to ensure you get a Guild Trader location you like (as long as you have the gold to bid)!``

This will only help the biggest trading guilds out there to ensure a trader each week. What small or medium sized guild has tens or even hundreds of millions on their bank account, letting them bid on 10 locations at once?

Why did you implement this? To get rid of all bigger guilds backup traders in a nice way? @ZOS_GinaBruno

Are you saying you need enough gold to cover all bids and not just the winning bid?

anitajoneb17_ESO

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

[
Are you saying you need enough gold to cover all bids and not just the winning bid?

Yes, they explained it on ESO Live. Whenever you place a bid, the money is withdrawn from the guild bank account. All non-winning bids are refunded upon trader flip, and immediately reimbursed, but in order to place the bid, you need to have the cash on hand first.

SantieClaws

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

WardenofNirn wrote: »

``With Update 23, you can have your Guild bid on up to 10 different Guild Trader locations each week. Priority is given to the location with the highest bid, and if you miss your first preference, the system checks your second, third, and so on. Once you win a bid on a Guild Trader, all other bids are refunded back to your Guild bank. With this addition, it is easier to ensure you get a Guild Trader location you like (as long as you have the gold to bid)!``

This will only help the biggest trading guilds out there to ensure a trader each week. What small or medium sized guild has tens or even hundreds of millions on their bank account, letting them bid on 10 locations at once?

Why did you implement this? To get rid of all bigger guilds backup traders in a nice way? @ZOS_GinaBruno

Are you saying you need enough gold to cover all bids and not just the winning bid?

Yes - you need to pay upfront for any bid.

You get refunded for any bid you don't win.

This is why it massively advantages those who already have large cash reserves - i.e. the biggest and most powerful guilds.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Urigall

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

and maybe (or, in my view, hopefully) there will be a redistribution / widening in what's considered "very best spots" .
On PC/EU, the very best top 1st spot that beats them all is Belkarth, to this day. This has historical reasons (back in late 2014 until mid 2015 Craglorn was the only place for vet characters to play overland content, and it was also the only place to hand in max level crafting writs). None of the major reasons why a hub is considered "best spot'' is valid for Belkarth anymore (bank vicinity, wayshrine vicinity, undaunted traffic, etc... ), yet the domination of Belkarth remains.

Other hubs offer better practicalities (Windhelm, Coldharbour, Sentinel... ) but are still less considered, less valued and less sought after.

Let's hope this new system will widen the perspectives and redraw the cards a bit.

I wasn't aware of the background to Belkarth taking on the mantle of best spot. Useful information - thank you.

I've also found it odd that certain spots aren't as popular. Windhelm has a good layout as you point out. I do half my dailies in Sentinel because there are fewer players around and because everything for dailies is in one, easy loop. The wayshrine is close to the trader spots. Riften is also well laid out imo. I do some dailies there. Even Shornhelm is not badly laid out, although the traders are a little bit away from the wayshrine.

Let's wait and see how the new system plays out. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's more to it than meets the eye. Alienating a large number of players is not in ZoS's interests.

I'm holding my fire until the new system goes live.

And thanks again for the Belkarth background.

ezio45

Even if, by some miracle, zos fixes the shell guild issue. We still dont want this system.

Guild A in mournhold loses to guild 0
Guild A has a back up stall in the tier below them Grahtwood
Guild A's back up bid, is gunna be more than enough to snipe Guild B in grahtwood
Guild B has a backup in rawl
Guild B snipes guild C's stall, because again there the tier above them and have more money
Guild c has a back up in Alinor
Guild C back up snipes guild E's stall
Cycle continues

I dont want my guilds bid being contingent on another guild winning or losing their bid.

I really would start screwing with players guilds either because mine being active with some pretty chill people is about the only reason havent quit this laggy, bugged out, grindy, tsunami of nerfs patch after patch of a game, years ago. Im willing to bet theirs a damn good number of people who feel the same. Because every guild Ive been in ever, that has had a sizable (4-5) of there main members leave, ends up having a dead asf roster with no one being on in 12 months. Just my personal experience with it.

Pevey

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

You don't understand... "Don't bid out of your league" is just not acceptable to guilds that have scrapped and clawed to a spot and make ends meet in that spot for a long time that has now become "out of their league" because of a bad change by the developers that makes the already overpriced kiosks even more overpriced.

Just not acceptable ?
"Don't bid out of your league" is the equivalent of "don't spend more than you earn", that's the very basics of profitable business. There's nothing unacceptable with that.

Every single guild bids more than they earn each week in taxes. If they did not, they would never have a spot. That is how out of touch you are. That is why people have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. It’s okay to speculate about what the multi-bid changes may entail, but you are not speculating from an informed position.

reoskit

Urigall wrote: »

Maybe kiosk prices will stabilise. Maybe they will rise as guilds bid for the very best spots.

We won't know until the system goes live.

It has taken ages for kiosk prices to "stabilize" and even then, they still ebb and flow. Bids currently have a rhythm of sorts; if you've been at this a while, you know what those tides look like. You know when you need to bid high and when you can lower your guard a bit and save money for busy times.

A cornerstone of the current stability is that guilds can only bid on ONE spot. With multibidding, there is no risk whatsoever in shot-gun blasting 10 bids everywhere. It leads to incredible instability.

We know bids will rise.
People will bid protectively.
Many will bid far, wide, and high.
And, if you want to claim a kiosk, there will be no such thing as dropping your guard. Ever.

All of these price increases need to be covered. Important: just because the kiosks cost more doesn't mean they're generating more. That means trade guildies are going to have to pick up the tab for the price increases. This is bad.

None of this is speculation; this is common sense for many of us.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Pevey wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

You don't understand... "Don't bid out of your league" is just not acceptable to guilds that have scrapped and clawed to a spot and make ends meet in that spot for a long time that has now become "out of their league" because of a bad change by the developers that makes the already overpriced kiosks even more overpriced.

Just not acceptable ?
"Don't bid out of your league" is the equivalent of "don't spend more than you earn", that's the very basics of profitable business. There's nothing unacceptable with that.

Every single guild bids more than they earn each week in taxes. If they did not, they would never have a spot. That is how out of touch you are. That is why people have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. It’s okay to speculate about what the multi-bid changes may entail, but you are not speculating from an informed position.

Stop with the personal attacks and talk about the actual stuff.
I never said that earnings for guilds was restricted to taxes.

Again, I am exposing my views from a very informed position, believe it or not. Unlike you, who look more and more like spoilt children stubbornly refusing to leave your comfort zones and consider your priviledges granted. Without even understanding that this is precisely that ZOS is fighting against with this decision.

Dont_do_drugs

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Without even understanding that this is precisely that ZOS is fighting against with this decision.

oh, youre working for zos? how u know? do they talk to you, did they explain to you? i still didnt find any comment or explanation by zos so far. still waiting.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

What's your pro

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Without even understanding that this is precisely that ZOS is fighting against with this decision.

oh, youre working for zos? how u know? dis they talk to you, did they explain to you? i still didnt found any comment or explanation by zos so far. still waiting.

Using my brains works better than waiting for ZOS (especially considering how rudely you've been requesting explanations, like if you're entitled to them).

Dont_do_drugs

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

What's your pro

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Without even understanding that this is precisely that ZOS is fighting against with this decision.

oh, youre working for zos? how u know? dis they talk to you, did they explain to you? i still didnt found any comment or explanation by zos so far. still waiting.

Using my brains works better than waiting for ZOS (especially considering how rudely you've been requesting explanations, like if you're entitled to them).

i am pretty sure we all are entitled to hear a good reason for that massive change. especially since devs tend to comment a lot of other changes and the reasons for them there, just not for this one part. its something called customer-friendliness. while you are just trolling here and trying to derail the thread, a lot of the people and gm commenting here have spent years and a lot of money into this game and as well a lot of constructive feedback work, reporting goldsellers, bots, supporting community formation, which supports people staying in the game and leaving their money here as well, while spending their ingame time not only for the personal fun of questing, raiding and so on but also into stuff, which can be considered some kind of work as well.

not gonna comment the rest.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

It seems that we are forgetting something.
Some here refer to guilds like it is a "Thing". It is not. It is hundreds and hundreds of players of ESO, coming together to share, experience and work together under the management and leadership of it's GM and Officers. It is hard work and in most cases a second job to run a 500ppl trade guild.

Yes, we deserve to hear from ZoS on this and ZoS NEEDS to know that this is a BAD decision.
When guilds have to start charging dues, raising prices, etc it hurts not a name on a guild trader tag, it affects hundreds and hundreds of players.

To the ones who tell us to calm down or we don't deserve a response, do YOU run a guild? Have you had to get up at 5AM to make a bid and play the "Bid Game" before they changed the time? Have you spent 20-30 hrs a week of your game time working on rosters, planning auctions, balancing guild bank, clearing inactives, doing recruiting, etc?
If not, you have NO idea how much this is going to affect not just the GM and Officers with making it harder to run a guild, but the hundreds of members who will pay the price for these changes.

Yes, I will admit that SOMETHING needs to be done about "Ghost Guilds", but this is NOT the answer.

As asked for in the PTS thread, @ZOS_GinaBruno , can we get a response on this? Please?
My 2 Drakes!
Huzzah!

Grimm13

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

What's your pro

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Without even understanding that this is precisely that ZOS is fighting against with this decision.

oh, youre working for zos? how u know? dis they talk to you, did they explain to you? i still didnt found any comment or explanation by zos so far. still waiting.

Using my brains works better than waiting for ZOS (especially considering how rudely you've been requesting explanations, like if you're entitled to them).

Dev Notes are quite often in other sections to support why and what ZOS is doing and attempting, i.e. PvP. We have been asking for the same respect for Guilds and pointing out that we have not and are not receiving either. Trying to do this in the most polite way but is hard to do tell someone that they are failing to communicate without being rude in anyone's eyes.

We too are using our brains and experience to explain to the Dev's how we see this change with the non-existing data provided. We've accepted ZOS at their word that they wish to improve communication in the past. We are not seeing the evidence and giving an opportunity for that to be corrected by proving what we are expecting to see.

This is what adults do in communicating.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Grimm13 wrote: »

This is what adults do in communicating.

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

could someone from zos at least pretend to care for courtesy reasons?

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Hello? Anyone out there? Orbs and other things were worth responding too. Why aren't trade guild GMs not worth anything to you? Never felt as mistreated and downgraded by zos like these times.

Not even when u replaced Craglorn map. Not even when you guys trolled me by telling me some specific goldsellers and aeth dust exploiter were banned just to see my guild outbid the following week by them with their exploited 100m which didnt get removed by you and which most likely attacked me for speaking out on their exploit on forums.

Would you consider these two posts as adult, polite, engaging ... ?

Even regardless of form, you don't realise that most of the arguments you're bringing up are comforting ZOS in their decision ?

- Bids will go up : yes, that's what ZOS wants (gold sink)
- Stability is endangered : yes, and it's high time. The same guilds holding the same spots for years is a sign of a malfunctioning system (even if that's the result of hard work).
- Outsiders can't understand what's truly going on : well, if there's soooo much going on undercover, that's also a big signal for a system that's become malfunctioning over time
- There's a strict (and unfounded) hierarchy between guild spots : another sign of a malfunctioning, sclerotic system.
- The guilds have formed big alliances and consortium, each big guild has 5 or 6 offspring guilds with which they share their cash power : another monopolistic situation that proves a dysfunctioning system.
- and the most obvious one :

ezio45 wrote: »

I don't want my guilds bid being contingent on another guild winning or losing their bid.

But that's exactly how things are supposed to work : guilds bidding against one another, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. If you say that the current system lets you enjoy a fixed and secured spot forever, then you're just proving that you don't want to play competitively - which is what the bidding system is about. You're proving that the system is dysfunctioning.

Remember the "Bleaker's roleplay episode" ? I thought that was clever, funny and impertinent. It showed great organisation and communication among players behind the scenes, for the enjoyment and benefit of all AP farmers.
Yet ZOS considered it exploit. Non-aggression alliances among players in PvP is considered exploit. The level of non-aggression alliances in the trading system is probably, at this stage, considered unhealthy by ZOS.

As a result, as long as you argue with ZOS by insisting on the very aspects of the trading systems that you want to keep (in your view) but that cause problems (in their view) you're not going to achieve anything. The minimum ground for constructive communication is to agree upon what is considered "problems", and that isn't given right now in my view.

And yes, I'm not ZOS, these are all my deductions. You may listen to them and include them or not in your own reasoning, or you may push them under the rug with your usual "you know nothing and just want to troll". Your call.

Grimm13

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Non-aggression alliances among players in PvP is considered exploit. The level of non-aggression alliances in the trading system is probably, at this stage, considered unhealthy by ZOS.

As a result, as long as you argue with ZOS by insisting on the very aspects of the trading systems that you want to keep (in your view) but that cause problems (in their view) you're not going to achieve anything. The minimum ground for constructive communication is to agree upon what is considered "problems", and that isn't given right now in my view.

The problem is that ZOS has not communicated what they see the problem to be, they have done this in other areas within Dev Notes on changes. No one can say for certain what ZOS is actually thinking, I've asked questions to get more insight. Without answers I must make a determination based on what variables I do know of as I see them.

I defend my position and why I post the questions I have asked. I leave it to moderators to sort whether posts are within the bounds of the rules.

ezio45

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

This is what adults do in communicating.

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

could someone from zos at least pretend to care for courtesy reasons?

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Hello? Anyone out there? Orbs and other things were worth responding too. Why aren't trade guild GMs not worth anything to you? Never felt as mistreated and downgraded by zos like these times.

Not even when u replaced Craglorn map. Not even when you guys trolled me by telling me some specific goldsellers and aeth dust exploiter were banned just to see my guild outbid the following week by them with their exploited 100m which didnt get removed by you and which most likely attacked me for speaking out on their exploit on forums.

Would you consider these two posts as adult, polite, engaging ... ?

Even regardless of form, you don't realise that most of the arguments you're bringing up are comforting ZOS in their decision ?

- Bids will go up : yes, that's what ZOS wants (gold sink)
- Stability is endangered : yes, and it's high time. The same guilds holding the same spots for years is a sign of a malfunctioning system (even if that's the result of hard work).
- Outsiders can't understand what's truly going on : well, if there's soooo much going on undercover, that's also a big signal for a system that's become malfunctioning over time
- There's a strict (and unfounded) hierarchy between guild spots : another sign of a malfunctioning, sclerotic system.
- The guilds have formed big alliances and consortium, each big guild has 5 or 6 offspring guilds with which they share their cash power : another monopolistic situation that proves a dysfunctioning system.
- and the most obvious one :

ezio45 wrote: »

I don't want my guilds bid being contingent on another guild winning or losing their bid.

But that's exactly how things are supposed to work : guilds bidding against one another, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. If you say that the current system lets you enjoy a fixed and secured spot forever, then you're just proving that you don't want to play competitively - which is what the bidding system is about. You're proving that the system is dysfunctioning.

Remember the "Bleaker's roleplay episode" ? I thought that was clever, funny and impertinent. It showed great organisation and communication among players behind the scenes, for the enjoyment and benefit of all AP farmers.
Yet ZOS considered it exploit. Non-aggression alliances among players in PvP is considered exploit. The level of non-aggression alliances in the trading system is probably, at this stage, considered unhealthy by ZOS.

As a result, as long as you argue with ZOS by insisting on the very aspects of the trading systems that you want to keep (in your view) but that cause problems (in their view) you're not going to achieve anything. The minimum ground for constructive communication is to agree upon what is considered "problems", and that isn't given right now in my view.

And yes, I'm not ZOS, these are all my deductions. You may listen to them and include them or not in your own reasoning, or you may push them under the rug with your usual "you know nothing and just want to troll". Your call.

Probably worded that poorly. Yes My bid should depend on whether or not the other guilds bidding on the stall win or loose. It should not depend on some guild 3 tiers up that lost and is now sniping my stalls with a back up.

Everyone should have to raise there bids, make an educated decision about where to bid. If they raises enough to win, they win, if they didnt they lose.

One of the problems with this system is that it goes completely against that. It takes all of the planning and strategy out of this. Its become a system based on luck