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

Arrodisia

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

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!

That was very well said. We have hundreds of active people in each of our guilds, in each area, and on multiple servers. Yes. We do deserve an answer. Some people did ask nicely, and some people may not have. It doesn't mean those who asked nicely should be ignored too.

Arrodisia

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

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.

That entire set of statements was quite perceptive, and yes. It would be a good thing, if ZOS would help ease the trading community's mind on these matters.

FelixTheCatt

I've no sympathy for anyone that CHOSE to run a guild for that very reason. I love the martyr mentality as if they are sacrificing for everyone else. One , get over yourselves. Two , if its so much "work" running a guild., don't do it! A guild is supposed to be about the members. All members. Which it isn't. Time after time , see the same guilds big and small , you can donate items and gold , no access though. Ask GM or an officer to grab an item , ignored. Pfft...gimme a break!

reoskit

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

I've no sympathy for anyone that CHOSE to run a guild for that very reason. I love the martyr mentality as if they are sacrificing for everyone else. One , get over yourselves. Two , if its so much "work" running a guild., don't do it!

Guilds, FYI, do not run themselves.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

A guild is supposed to be about the members. All members.

I absolutely agree. This is why I'm here. To advocate for my guildies', my officers', and my own QoL. This change is set to introduce insane price increases. There is no extra revenue generation. This just means everyone has to pitch in more while gaining nothing.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

Time after time , see the same guilds big and small , you can donate items and gold , no access though. Ask GM or an officer to grab an item , ignored. Pfft...gimme a break!

I'd like to remind you that not all GMs/officers are cut from the same cloth. Many of us are devoted to our guilds and our guildies. The chip on your shoulder, generated from whatever sour experience you've had, should not apply to us all. It's shortsighted to think that we all deserve your scorn.

I highly recommend you find a more worthy guild and experience what proper guild management looks like. You may find your mind changed.

Arrodisia

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.

Guilds do overbid to secure their spots. Anyone running, or helping to run a guild would know that. Thank you for that comment.Guilds are already relying on taxes, donations, and such to barely scrape by. GM's, officers, and members are dumping all they have into the bids each week. More bids would be too much.

Urigall

One option is to change the system so accumulated capital cannot be used to bolster bids or to facilitate ghost guilds: bids have to be made using revenue from the past week's sales.

Guilds could only make two bids; their preferred spot and a back up. Big guilds could risk bidding on one of the "better" spots as a second choice. The big guild would not know if "lesser" guilds had made enough money to outbid them on one of those better spots. The big guild might decide it's too risky and take the safer option of a much, lower spot as a secondary bid. The certainty that was a corollary to having huge, capital reserves has been removed.

Unsuccessful guilds could keep their unspent revenue for next week's bids. If revenue is transferred from one guild to another, the revenue cannot be placed in the recipient guild's revenue account - it becomes capital.

Guilds would have to chase sales in order to boost revenue ("we are cheaper!") Listing single trait items at 1 gold and common motifs at 200% over market average would be very unwise. Maximising revenue for next week's bid becomes the goal.

Issues: getting it off the ground (how does it work initially?) and allowing newly-formed guilds to enter the bidding process. These issues present difficulties; they are not, necessarily, insurmountable problems.

Downsides: unpredictability and breaking of continuity (are these big issues for the buyers of items?)

Upsides: Removes the ability to deploy massive, capital resources as a weapon. More opportunities for smaller guilds: a smaller guild that achieves good sales one week, could have a much better chance of getting a step up the trading ladder; maybe a big step. Alleviates upwards pressure on kiosk prices. Exorcises the ghost guilds.

What about the gold sink? A fair amount would still be removed under a revenue-based system. In all likelihood, there wouldn't be much change.

The trading map would probably be constantly changing if this system was introduced. Is that a bad thing and, if so, for whom? Can't see buyers being too disadvantaged. If anything, buyers would benefit as guilds started to price competitively, in pursuit of next week's bidding fee.

FelixTheCatt

reoskit wrote: »

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

I've no sympathy for anyone that CHOSE to run a guild for that very reason. I love the martyr mentality as if they are sacrificing for everyone else. One , get over yourselves. Two , if its so much "work" running a guild., don't do it!

Guilds, FYI, do not run themselves.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

A guild is supposed to be about the members. All members.

I absolutely agree. This is why I'm here. To advocate for my guildies', my officers', and my own QoL. This change is set to introduce insane price increases. There is no extra revenue generation. This just means everyone has to pitch in more while gaining nothing.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

Time after time , see the same guilds big and small , you can donate items and gold , no access though. Ask GM or an officer to grab an item , ignored. Pfft...gimme a break!

I'd like to remind you that not all GMs/officers are cut from the same cloth. Many of us are devoted to our guilds and our guildies. The chip on your shoulder, generated from whatever sour experience you've had, should not apply to us all. It's shortsighted to think that we all deserve your scorn.

I highly recommend you find a more worthy guild and experience what proper guild management looks like. You may find your mind changed.

Yeah , admittedly I generalized. You are correct ,I'm sure there is a guild out there that isn't what I described but honestly I've been in many since launch of all sizes and that's been every single experience I've had. Many claimed to be run like yours but never are. Still , if you and your officers run your guild the way you say , good on you and you're members are truly fortunate. I was wrong to lump everyone into the same mold. Maybe its a console PC thing. I've played since launch on console and PS4 NA experience has been 100% same ol , same ol. We need guilds like yours.

Arrodisia

Urigall wrote: »

One option is to change the system so accumulated capital cannot be used to bolster bids or to facilitate ghost guilds: bids have to be made using revenue from the past week's sales.

Guilds could only make two bids; their preferred spot and a back up. Big guilds could risk bidding on one of the "better" spots as a second choice. The big guild would not know if "lesser" guilds had made enough money to outbid them on one of those better spots. The big guild might decide it's too risky and take the safer option of a much, lower spot as a secondary bid. The certainty that was a corollary to having huge, capital reserves has been removed.

Unsuccessful guilds could keep their unspent revenue for next week's bids. If revenue is transferred from one guild to another, the revenue cannot be placed in the recipient guild's revenue account - it becomes capital.

Guilds would have to chase sales in order to boost revenue ("we are cheaper!") Listing single trait items at 1 gold and common motifs at 200% over market average would be very unwise. Maximising revenue for next week's bid becomes the goal.

Issues: getting it off the ground (how does it work initially?) and allowing newly-formed guilds to enter the bidding process. These issues present difficulties; they are not, necessarily, insurmountable problems.

Downsides: unpredictability and breaking of continuity (are these big issues for the buyers of items?)

Upsides: Removes the ability to deploy massive, capital resources as a weapon. More opportunities for smaller guilds: a smaller guild that achieves good sales one week, could have a much better chance of getting a step up the trading ladder; maybe a big step. Alleviates upwards pressure on kiosk prices. Exorcises the ghost guilds.

What about the gold sink? A fair amount would still be removed under a revenue-based system. In all likelihood, there wouldn't be much change.

The trading map would probably be constantly changing if this system was introduced. Is that a bad thing and, if so, for whom? Can't see buyers being too disadvantaged. If anything, buyers would benefit as guilds started to price competitively, in pursuit of next week's bidding fee.

I have some questions. If the bid were to be based on previous week sales. How would new guilds be able to competitively bid and/or bid at all? How would a guild, who lost a spot, be able to bid the next week with no sales, because they had no trader? Wouldn't this be against guilds who rely on donations to help the guild along? How will the system differentiate between a guild with accumulated money and a guild with donated money? I'm just curious.

Urigall

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

I have some questions. If the bid were to be based on previous week sales. How would new guilds be able to competitively bid and/or bid at all? How would a guild, who lost a spot, be able to bid the next week with no sales, because they had no trader? Wouldn't this be against guilds who rely on donations to help the guild along? How will the system differentiate between a guild with accumulated money and a guild with donated money? I'm just curious.

Hello juttaa.

The above was off the top of my head, so probably needs revision. Might not even be workable in the end.

New guilds could possibly be catered for by a lottery system, so they get a foothold. There might be other ways to do it.

Losers of one week's round would retain their revenue from that week. They could deploy it next week, and the next if they lost out again, knowing they'd only be bidding against guilds that had accumulated a week's revenue themselves. Wouldn't be unduly handicapped. Does that make sense?

The game could keep track of weekly sales and identify how much has been raised in any, one week. That's a possible answer to your last question.

The concept of revenue-based bidding is very appealing though. Whether it could be implemented...maybe, maybe not.

The over-riding problem is accumulated capital as a weapon. The effect needs to be removed. Quite how it's done is open to discussion, but it is the core problem. A revenue-based bidding system would remove the skewing effect of accumulated capital completely.

Arrodisia

Urigall wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

I have some questions. If the bid were to be based on previous week sales. How would new guilds be able to competitively bid and/or bid at all? How would a guild, who lost a spot, be able to bid the next week with no sales, because they had no trader? Wouldn't this be against guilds who rely on donations to help the guild along? How will the system differentiate between a guild with accumulated money and a guild with donated money? I'm just curious.

Hello juttaa.

The above was off the top of my head, so probably needs revision. Might not even be workable in the end.

New guilds could possibly be catered for by a lottery system, so they get a foothold. There might be other ways to do it.

Losers of one week's round would retain their revenue from that week. They could deploy it next week, and the next if they lost out again, knowing they'd only be bidding against guilds that had accumulated a week's revenue themselves. Wouldn't be unduly handicapped. Does that make sense?

The game could keep track of weekly sales and identify how much has been raised in any, one week. That's a possible answer to your last question.

The concept of revenue-based bidding is very appealing though. Whether it could be implemented...maybe, maybe not.

The over-riding problem is accumulated capital as a weapon. The effect needs to be removed. Quite how it's done is open to discussion, but it is the core problem. A revenue-based bidding system would remove the skewing effect of accumulated capital completely.

Hello Urigall

These ideas may possibly need some revision. So, pretty much guilds who lost bids repeatedly, because they had no vendor would bleed players. Since they wouldn't be able to deploy donations, only revenue from sales, they wouldn't be able to bid more, and get pushed completely out. Donations are crucial to bidding, not just for established rich guilds but for small, medium, and newer guilds, who are still growing as well. Some of these ideas would punish the guilds for receiving backing, rather than encourage them to grow. They just wouldn't benefit small, medium or newly formed guilds. I don't see how these ideas could help, and I'm just pointing out, the negative impact it could have on those guilds.

Best wishes

kringled_1

The limitation to sales revenue could also easily be bypassed. Just have two or more wealthy guild members engage in dummy sales to each other at massively inflated prices. Yes, you'd lose 50% compared to direct donations, but you could still boost a new guild into a very large bid.

Arrodisia

reoskit wrote: »

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

I've no sympathy for anyone that CHOSE to run a guild for that very reason. I love the martyr mentality as if they are sacrificing for everyone else. One , get over yourselves. Two , if its so much "work" running a guild., don't do it!

Guilds, FYI, do not run themselves.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

A guild is supposed to be about the members. All members.

I absolutely agree. This is why I'm here. To advocate for my guildies', my officers', and my own QoL. This change is set to introduce insane price increases. There is no extra revenue generation. This just means everyone has to pitch in more while gaining nothing.

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

Time after time , see the same guilds big and small , you can donate items and gold , no access though. Ask GM or an officer to grab an item , ignored. Pfft...gimme a break!

I'd like to remind you that not all GMs/officers are cut from the same cloth. Many of us are devoted to our guilds and our guildies. The chip on your shoulder, generated from whatever sour experience you've had, should not apply to us all. It's shortsighted to think that we all deserve your scorn.

I highly recommend you find a more worthy guild and experience what proper guild management looks like. You may find your mind changed.

I second that. We have some really friendly, helpful GM's and guildies giving everything they have to their guilds on some servers. I hope. He finds a nice guild on his server too.

Arrodisia

kringled_1 wrote: »

The limitation to sales revenue could also easily be bypassed. Just have two or more wealthy guild members engage in dummy sales to each other at massively inflated prices. Yes, you'd lose 50% compared to direct donations, but you could still boost a new guild into a very large bid.

That is a very interesting, let's call it, work around, but losing so much of the gold intended for the guild bid wouldn't be as effective. Not to mention, we don't want to introduce another possible manipulation into the mix imho.

Urigall

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Donations are crucial to bidding, not just for established rich guilds but for small, medium, and newer guilds, who are still growing as well

Hello again juttaa.

I did think about this issue. Lower income guilds do need donations - under the current system.

Take out donations and everyone is then relying on their weekly sales. Yes, bigger guilds would still have an advantage through higher sales.

But I wonder if a large part of the pressure for donations is caused by some guilds having huge, capital resources. Something like, if we don't raise money through donations, guild X will outbid us - they are mega rich. Without a source of additional money, bidding success is then entirely contingent upon the weekly amount raised from sales. I see that system as a lot fairer.

The playing field wouldn't be levelled overnight. It would become a lot more level than it is at present.

And traders in higher earning guilds can donate more than traders in lower guilds. So there is a skewing effect here as well. There is also the issue of using donations to dilute the effect of a revenue-based system. It would be easy to use donations as a conduit for money to boost bid levels.

Someone mentioned buying and selling the same item repeatedly as a way of boosting sales. That is a good argument for making many items bind upon purchase - regardless of the system of kiosk bids. I see little reason why any consumable item should not be bound upon purchase. It's not as if someone buys a motif or recipe, then say, "nah...boring...I'll sell it"

anitajoneb17_ESO

Urigall wrote: »

It's not as if someone buys a motif or recipe, then say, "nah...boring...I'll sell it"

But someone can happily buy a motif for 2K and re-sell it for 20K, even if they personally have no use for it.

Also, I for instance regularly sell for my friends who don't have enough to sell to attend a trading guild, have no guild spot left, or simply don't want to be in a trading guild. They sell me their stuff (via the exchange UI) and I sell it through my trading guilds. Whether this is done with profit in mind or just for the sake of helping others doesn't matter : it's legit in both cases.

Artificial sales among guilds members to inflate guild sales statistics oder MM prices already happens, but I don't think it happens on a really significant scale. It's pretty costly after all (3.5% of the transaction goes to the void).

Dont_do_drugs

But I wonder if a large part of the pressure for donations is caused by some guilds having huge, capital resources. Something like, if we don't raise money through donations, guild X will outbid us - they are mega rich. Without a source of additional money, bidding success is then entirely contingent upon the weekly amount raised from sales. I see that system as a lot fairer.

the main bidding pressure is made by the fact, that actually 3,5% tax is too low as income for a guild compared to a single persons income via trading. a lot of low- and medium range hubs are occupied by guilds which bidd higher than what they get in tax, due to the fact, that gm and officers tend to be trade active as well. giving 500k or a million into a guids bank weekly isnt a lot effort these days, not such kind of effort which necessarily needs to lead into private loss each week. could be even more, if someone really wants "to know it", lets say, 2 or 3 mio weekly. for that kind of personal income a guild has to sell with 500 members 60 till 80m. we do agree on the fact, that we dislike charging donations from members and that guilds should run by sales taxes. this would be the best and fairest way of goldsink as well and would reward the management of a trade guild more for active recruitment work, than for ego-sales work. i really wonder, why zos never changed anything about that part. would be easy way of sinking gold without breaking a lot.

but yes, i also see atm guilds faking sales for the reputation, without beeing depending on that, would also happen if you need more gold into the bank. the reselling community, which likes to find cheap stuff to resell would also have a problem with your idea - and also reselling items is also a goldsink factor, maybe no massive one, but its sinking gold through guilds.

Urigall

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

But someone can happily buy a motif for 2K and re-sell it for 20K, even he they personally have no use for it.

Done that a few times.

Someone paid a lot more than they could have paid, were it not for me getting an item first and skimming off profit. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else. Excuses excuses...

Never paid 2k then sold for 20k I wish though..

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Urigall wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Donations are crucial to bidding, not just for established rich guilds but for small, medium, and newer guilds, who are still growing as well

Hello again juttaa.

I did think about this issue. Lower income guilds do need donations - under the current system.

Take out donations and everyone is then relying on their weekly sales. Yes, bigger guilds would still have an advantage through higher sales.

But I wonder if a large part of the pressure for donations is caused by some guilds having huge, capital resources. Something like, if we don't raise money through donations, guild X will outbid us - they are mega rich. Without a source of additional money, bidding success is then entirely contingent upon the weekly amount raised from sales. I see that system as a lot fairer.

The playing field wouldn't be levelled overnight. It would become a lot more level than it is at present.

And traders in higher earning guilds can donate more than traders in lower guilds. So there is a skewing effect here as well. There is also the issue of using donations to dilute the effect of a revenue-based system. It would be easy to use donations as a conduit for money to boost bid levels.

Someone mentioned buying and selling the same item repeatedly as a way of boosting sales. That is a good argument for making many items bind upon purchase - regardless of the system of kiosk bids. I see little reason why any consumable item should not be bound upon purchase. It's not as if someone buys a motif or recipe, then say, "nah...boring...I'll sell it"

But, as far as depending on guild sales, the guild only receives 3.5% of any sale. That's 3 1/2 cents on a dollar.
The rest is a gold sink. Even the biggest guilds with millions in sales can't support a trader bid on sales alone.

But the issue here is asking ZoS NOT to implement the multi bidding change to the live server.

Urigall

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

the reselling community, which likes to find cheap stuff to resell would also have a problem with your idea - and also reselling items is also a goldsink factor, maybe no massive one, but its sinking gold through guilds.

I can't prove this but I do believe trading is a huge part of the game for many players. Some players possibly devote the largest part of their game time to trading. A lot of their profit probably derives from flipping items. Take away the system that allows flipping and a lot of players might leave ESO. Can't prove that either. I do believe that some players would leave though.

I've done it a fair bit (flipping) so I'd be poorer if it ceased. Wouldn't make me leave ESO. Some players probably would leave.

The gold sink question is complicated. I'm trying to get my head around how it works/interacts with trading. Some say trading is essential to trading' others say it isn't. I don't know so I'll leave it at that.

The debate keeps coming back to this issue of multiple bids and their malign effect. I still think capital (gawd, I sound like ...whatshername...AOC?) is the key issue. How to negate that effect...difficult. The proposal seems likely to make matters much worse.

Some people have also commented on the absence of feedback from ZoS regarding WHY the changes are being put forward. It wasn't done on a whim. There must something they're seeing as in need of amendment. What and why...a mystery. I've looked at the patch notes without seeing any pointers.

Urigall

Erratum:

-- Some say trading is essential to THE GOLD SINK; others say it isn't. I don't know so I'll leave it at that.--

reoskit

Urigall wrote: »

Erratum:

-- Some say trading is essential to THE GOLD SINK; others say it isn't. I don't know so I'll leave it at that.--

It is. I acknowledge that and I, for one, am ok with it. To an extent.

What I'm not ok with is flogging trade guilds and their members and putting the burden of even more of the gold sink on us, just because no other way has been found.

We used to have a huuuuge gold sink: houses. Now that most people have bought the base game houses they want, gold is no longer being sunk into those sales. Since new houses are primarily only being released for crowns (or free - tyvm!!), that particular gigantic sink has dried up.

A couple great ways to add to the gold sinks?
- Stop introducing crown-only houses.
- Stop introducing pay to skip skill lines and skyshards as crown-only.
- Stop introducing crown-only motifs, housing items, styles, etc.

You may see a theme here? Make all these things purchasable with gold as well and the gold will sink quickly. Obviously, that cuts into crown sales and will never happen.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Urigall wrote: »

Erratum:

-- Some say trading is essential to THE GOLD SINK; others say it isn't. I don't know so I'll leave it at that.--

Well, if you consider.....
A kiosk in one of the 4 major towns cost 5.5 to 9.5 million gold a week, and a average kiosk in a town is 250k to 1 million gold a week, and the "out of the way" kiosks are 50k to 150k a week, and there are 200+ kiosks in game, that is a shite ton of gold going into the gold sink each week! (Easily 250 mill a week probably)
So yes, trading is probably the BIGGEST gold sink in game and a necessary one for a stable economy.
My 2 Drakes.... Huzzah!

FelixTheCatt

Kiosks really run that much?? Prime locations in capital cities I get but the out of way kiosks are crazy! Used to be the way to get the best deals to attract buyers to those locations vs primes.

Urigall

reoskit wrote: »

Stop introducing crown-only houses.

And remove the quest line requirement for buying some existing houses with gold. Always narked me that it was possible to bypass these requirements by using crowns for some of the bigger houses. Either remove the quest requirements or make the crown purchases requirement also dependent upon doing the quests first. No quest requirements would probably increase gold sales of these houses.

Didn't use crowns for Hunding's. Did the quest line first and paid in gold.

Used crowns for Mistveil because I reached something like 51 out of the 61 required quests, couldn't locate the other quest givers, said stuff this for a game of soldiers and used crowns instead. I got fed up looking for the quest givers and gave in to temptation. Stupid bugger.

DragonRacer

FelixTheCatt wrote: »

Kiosks really run that much?? Prime locations in capital cities I get but the out of way kiosks are crazy! Used to be the way to get the best deals to attract buyers to those locations vs primes.

And that person is quoting PC kiosks... they are all considerably more expensive here on PS4 NA.

I know because I have seen and experienced the kinds of bids that win and lose in all sorts of areas. Most of our solo out of the way traders are at minimum 250k+ weekly investment and the big capitals are anywhere from 15-20 million depending.

Urigall

DragonRacer wrote: »

Most of our solo out of the way traders are at minimum 250k+ weekly investment and the big capitals are anywhere from 15-20 million depending.

Those figures match with the ones I've seen bandied around in chat. I'm talking about PCEU btw.

A guild seeking to bid 10 million would have to sell at least 350 million a week according to my mental arithmetic (3.5% back from taxation) Assuming funding from sales only.

I'd guess few traders - even in top guilds - are selling an average of nearly a million every week. Nothing like it. And 10 million is probably at the lower end for the very best spots on PC. Could probably double that figure.

Guilds must be getting the shortfall from their own sources.

Grimm13

10 bids a majority of GM's from large to small guilds alike believe is too many. What if the number was adjusted? Would it become palatable for many that oppose it?

1) Lower the multi-bids to 3
2) Traders locked from purchase when guild disbands ((removing incentive to disband) This is a deal breaker, must be done)
3) On Guild UI add in sub-section (Guild Bank: Bid History) to give one window to view bids and bid returns, allows easy
screen shot to use in tickets if need be.
4) Allow bids to be removed, solves accidental bids and adjustments.

5) On forums add in Guild Discussion section. Be it Crafting and Guilds or Guilds and Housing. Either makes
sense as those interests crossover. Guilds probably would be low traffic since a lower number number would post.
Keep in mind each of those posters represent up to 500 players or more (x1-x5'ish).


What is thought of this? It's a limited back up, limited added tracking/work, limited additional funds needed, limited chain reaction.
If multi-bids is a ZOS del breaker, then compromising on the amount makes sense. IMHO 2) is a deal breaker for guilds, must be done.

Arrodisia

Urigall wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Donations are crucial to bidding, not just for established rich guilds but for small, medium, and newer guilds, who are still growing as well

Hello again juttaa.

I did think about this issue. Lower income guilds do need donations - under the current system.

Take out donations and everyone is then relying on their weekly sales. Yes, bigger guilds would still have an advantage through higher sales.

But I wonder if a large part of the pressure for donations is caused by some guilds having huge, capital resources. Something like, if we don't raise money through donations, guild X will outbid us - they are mega rich. Without a source of additional money, bidding success is then entirely contingent upon the weekly amount raised from sales. I see that system as a lot fairer.

The playing field wouldn't be levelled overnight. It would become a lot more level than it is at present.

And traders in higher earning guilds can donate more than traders in lower guilds. So there is a skewing effect here as well. There is also the issue of using donations to dilute the effect of a revenue-based system. It would be easy to use donations as a conduit for money to boost bid levels.

Someone mentioned buying and selling the same item repeatedly as a way of boosting sales. That is a good argument for making many items bind upon purchase - regardless of the system of kiosk bids. I see little reason why any consumable item should not be bound upon purchase. It's not as if someone buys a motif or recipe, then say, "nah...boring...I'll sell it"

Hello Urigall.

Unfortunately, not every guild has huge capital to back up their guilds. Just because some of them do, others shouldn't be punished for it. If smaller, newer and mid sized guilds couldn't donate to supplement sales, they'd become even more disadvantaged. The field would never be leveled with something like that in place. They would have no starting and building progression for starter, smaller, and mid sized guilds. There would only be established guilds thriving in that scenario. Also, bind on purchase would be negative on the economy. It would limit the items available to sell in the game significantly, leaving very little to sell, which would be boring, water downed game play.

Anyway, the issue at hand right now is the 10x bids, which smaller, mid sized, and newer guilds just don't have the resources to do. Other issues can be dealt with in another thread.

Best wishes

Urigall

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Anyway, the issue at hand right now is the 10x bids, which smaller, mid sized, and newer guilds just don't have the resources to do. Other issues can be dealt with in another thread.

Best wishes

Hello juttaa - yes, the issue at hand is certainly the impact of the changes as proposed. I suppose it was inevitable that the discussion would morph, but the current issue is the one that should be addressed.

I cannot work out why these changes are being put forward. Commenting on them is very difficult because we don't know the rationale. I said earlier that the patch notes don't seem to give any indication of the why; all they say is the what.

Very odd.

And best wishes to you too.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Grimm13 wrote: »

10 bids a majority of GM's from large to small guilds alike believe is too many. What if the number was adjusted? Would it become palatable for many that oppose it?

1) Lower the multi-bids to 3
2) Traders locked from purchase when guild disbands ((removing incentive to disband) This is a deal breaker, must be done)
3) On Guild UI add in sub-section (Guild Bank: Bid History) to give one window to view bids and bid returns, allows easy
screen shot to use in tickets if need be.
4) Allow bids to be removed, solves accidental bids and adjustments.

5) On forums add in Guild Discussion section. Be it Crafting and Guilds or Guilds and Housing. Either makes
sense as those interests crossover. Guilds probably would be low traffic since a lower number number would post.
Keep in mind each of those posters represent up to 500 players or more (x1-x5'ish).


What is thought of this? It's a limited back up, limited added tracking/work, limited additional funds needed, limited chain reaction.
If multi-bids is a ZOS del breaker, then compromising on the amount makes sense. IMHO 2) is a deal breaker for guilds, must be done.

Thoughts :
1/ Yeah, why not.
2/ MMMhh... not sure. Wouldn't stop snipers to snipe anyone just for the sake of sniping, the collateral victims being the buyers (empty stalls). I agree something should be done, I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it - yet I've nothing better to suggest at this stage.
3/ Unless I'm mistaken, I think that's already in the pipes.
4/ NO WAY. That would only lead to even more behind-the-scenes arrangements and issues and run all over the place to change things like half a second before trader flip... no no no. Bid is bid.Made a mistake ? Sure, happens to the best of us. Be more careful next time.
5/ Why not "trade and trading guilds" ? I don't see any specific link between housing and guilds, nor guilds and crafting... guilds are for many different, often unrelated things, whereas the trading system is specifically designed around trading guilds. I'd ask for a "trading and trading guilds" section.