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

Arrodisia

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.

Good evening.

Some of the thoughts here have merit but most wouldn't help smaller, midsized and newer guilds?

1.) Many guilds are struggling to make 1 bid right now. 2, 3, 5, or 10 wouldn't matter. It would still cripple them.

2.)It would as you say remove the incentive to disband for selling the guild, but not remove the incentive for a rogue guild to push another guild out of their spot for as long as they see fit, and can afford. It's still something to consider though, just maybe with another way to stop both.

3.) I have questions. It wasn't very specific on exactly what would be available and to who? Who would be able to see the entire bid history? I mean. Would it include bids against you for that spot in that week. If anyone more than the gm can see it, it wouldn't be good. If they can see other guilds' bids, it's also not a good idea. ZOS already refunds bids without it, if an error occurs.

4.)Allowing bids to be removed for the first 24-48hours, maybe, to correct accidental bids, but not towards the end of the bidding process. The choices should be locked at that point. Otherwise players will just spam a rebid into the system at the last second.

5.) A guild discussion section sounds interesting. Maybe one of the sub sections could be Trading guilds


Best wishes

SteveCampsOut

To all the uppity folks who have dismissed me. I never claimed to be in a prime location nor did I claim to be a big trade guild. I still run a guild with 500 members give or take at any time. I still maintain a trader every week give or take one or two bumps. You can disregard me as small change because I don't jump through all the hoops you do for your high stress high competition guilds but you don't get to define my guild as not a trade guild. We have a Trader. Hence. A Trade Guild. Hence Proof that your model of Trade Guild isn't the only one out there. I never claimed to speak for any of you and to the former officer of my guild who found the need to chip in on the pile up. Your attitude is precisely why you were removed from the guild. Keep it to yourself. Thanks.

Peace Out Indeed!

Grimm13

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

3.) I have questions. It wasn't very specific on exactly what would be available and to who? Who would be able to see the entire bid history? I mean. Would it include bids against you for that spot in that week. If anyone more than the gm can see it, it wouldn't be good. If they can see other guilds' bids, it's also not a good idea. ZOS already refunds bids without it, if an error occurs.

4.)Allowing bids to be removed for the first 24-48hours, maybe, to correct accidental bids, but not towards the end of the bidding process. The choices should be locked at that point. Otherwise players will just spam a rebid into the system at the last second.

3) Only available to how has rights by rank to place bids. Correctly on PTS that is how they do it but the information in guild transactions so the bids and returns are getting buried. Also only your first bid is showing up. a subsection is needed for clearer tracking.

4) I can understand your logical and can see a 24hour countdown before the bidding locks in. This allows guilds that has an officer allowed to bid placing a bid at a wrong location from the GM's desire to make a correction.

FlopsyPrince

Why do you need the gold for each build if it is going to be refunded except in the winning case (if that happens). Allow bids below the current max and take enough money to make up the difference if a higher bid is made.

Though this whole mess shows how broken this system is, even if some people just love it. All this hassle just to be able to sell things in the game. Not a good move, but we are stuck with it unless someone at ZoS gets some sense.

Arrodisia

Banshee1505 wrote: »

This only benefits guilds/alliances with a lot of gold. Where's the benefit for the smaller guilds? We asked for a way to make backup guilds disappear and now they implemented a whole backup bid system?

This exactly. We did ask for a way to get rid of fake, ghost, and back up guilds. Instead, they gave them more power to knock legitimate trade guilds out. We just don't understand why they thought it would get rid of the problem, or benefit every legitimate guild. It would be good, if ZOS could spare a moment to tell us how this helps the legitimate smaller, mid sized, and startup guilds.

reoskit

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Why do you need the gold for each build if it is going to be refunded except in the winning case (if that happens). Allow bids below the current max and take enough money to make up the difference if a higher bid is made.

While it seems like a good idea, this leads to an even steeper slope of bid increases.

Instead of having to plan how to distribute your gold over the various bids you want to make, you can throw all your money behind the same bid on 10 kiosks. The only cap is how much you're willing/able to spend on your kiosk.

This means you can, and will, bid higher than if you were distributing your gold over various bids.

So will everyone else. Each week.

You'll know where you lost bids at that price. So, if you want to move, you'll bid higher next time.

So will everyone else. Each week.

Climb climb climb. See?

DaveMoeDee

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

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.

So the only problem here is that if rich guild A loses the bid for their normal spot in Rawl'kha, they might a lower choice choice and take the normal spot for a poorer guild in Vivec City. The outcome would be more location volatility as competition for top location would cause ripples across all locations as people get outbid in their normal spots by guilds losing bids in their own normal spots.

The hold placed on your gold when bidding makes sense to that guilds don't but in enormous bids for all locations in the most expensive cities. With this system, they might have to lower their bid on their preferred spot to have a chance on their backups. The reality is that many guilds in prime locations aren't swimming in enough gold to have deposits for 3 locations in Rawl'kha.

Having backups potentially a big boon as you can just split up 1k among your choices 2-10 so you have backup options. But the instability in locations that is likely to occur seems far from optimal. If you want a top location, you currently run the risk of getting nothing. Guilds that don't want the risk bid on lesser towns, knowing they will likely win that bid. With the new system, the risk is being increased even in the lesser towns so that the richer guilds can be almost guaranteed to not walk away empty handed.

I am curious to see how this plays out.

DaveMoeDee

ezio45 wrote: »

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

Perhaps they need to place bidders based on first choices. Then they consider the second choices for all stalls that are still empty. Then third choices. And so on. Basically, backup bids will only be considered if no one bid on a stall.

I am partial to a less volatile system than the one being described as being active on PTS where the ripple effects could lead to all stalls changing hands from one week to the next. I prefer a system where a guild can choose what tier of trade guild it will be and members can know what to expect. The new system's potential ripple effects can cause instability in all guilds.

Urigall

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

The new system's potential ripple effects can cause instability in all guilds.

That could well be intention of the changes.

Players are - understandably - worried at the effect on small to medium guilds.

If the worst comes to pass ZoS will have, effectively, ceded control of an important aspect of the game to a small number of third parties. A certain degree of control is already exerted by a few, large guilds.It's not in ZoS's interests to facilitate even tighter control...for a number of reasons.

I think there's more to it than meets the eye.

Grimm13

It is very disturbing that this is a major retooling of the Trader Bidding system yet we have been given no Dev insight as to why or what they are expecting to achieve. We have been asking for over a week now and still there is not one response from ZOS.

It makes me suspect that ZOS has not assigned one person to be in charge of all things guild related. That it is handled as an after thought with multiple departs adding in without a single direction of guidance. So no one at ZOS knows who should be responding now.

The other line of thought is they do know but refuse to answer or provide insight because it is because they just want to increase the gold sink on bids. This is not a good reason to up end the trading community with a bad system. If it's gold sinks you want we can provide ideas, some much greater than this change. Here are a few, all payable by gold only i.e.

1) Introduce to the current housing format a monthly rental option to increase the item limit.

2) a monthly rental for extra outfit slots

3) Add unique Costume Style Pages to the Luxury Vendor exclusive to the Lux Vendor. Breaking the item into parts as functionality that people may be willing to pay more than a single piece costume.

Please break the silence and prove me wrong. Give us insight into why you want to rework the system, what do you hope to achieve, what is the problems you are trying to correct.

GarnetFire17

kargen27 wrote: »

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.

It doesn't matter. People are allowed to define what is acceptable to them or not. Not just trade guild leaders but their members as well. The leaders care about the level of their location and so do the ones selling in the guild. The Trade guilds have goals, and if they can't meet those goals because they system very unfarily disadvantages them, which the already does but will be many times worse, why should they continue? They MAY accept having worse spot what they want to but they don't have to. Talking about entitlement; why are super-rich guilds entitled to have their way all the time and all the advantages ZOS keeps giving them while, the ones that are not sitting on a huge hoard of gold from years of holding the best spots are entitled to just "accept it." That is a terrible way to look at the situation.

The only mobility that is happen is the kind of mobility that is not going to make anyone happy just annoyed and upset. The only mobility will be downward and sideways, upward mobility will nearly impossible at a certain point due to the huge increase of bid costs and the line to be able to crack through will be even lower.

GarnetFire17

ZOS it thinking behind this is pretty obious:

ZOS: If we let the guilds bid on ten spots then they won't bid as much on their favorite spot because they they have so many other bids out there and they can still have a trader even if it's is worse spot. And then everyone will be happy because their guild got a spot even if it wasn't their first choice.


- That is NOT how the Trade guild leaders think. It is completely wrong.


Trade Guild Leader: I have 100M gold I can use for bids. I can bid what I usually bid on my favorite spot, then I can bid one gold less on a spot that is basically just as good, and then so on an so on an have 10 high bids on ten really good spots. It doesn't matter bc any bid that doesn't win the trader we get all those millions of gold back for it.

It's a bad decision bc:
1. It's a decision that is being made that is out of touch with how the trade guild strategies are used in ESO.
2. Not all the guilds will get spots. It doesn't matter how many bid they allow. There are only so many spots, The casual guilds that don't charge dues and have quotas will be priced out of trader location and basically pricing casual seller and new sellers out of guilds that don't have quotas and dues if they want a guild with a trader. That is bad for the new player experience.
3. More guilds will be displaced each week and more guilds will fold because they aren't "try-harding" it enough or are not willing to. Or just get wiped out by guilds that put up an absurdly high bid for the location but still lost their primary bid.
4. All adding up to bunch of unhappy ESO Players, sick of how cut-throat the economy has become in it's new "Guild Wars" system.

This is going to make the economy way to cut-throat for the majority of the player base to be enjoyable.

FlopsyPrince

Another "great thing" about the guild vendor system!

Really sad.

reoskit

ICYMI:

ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »

The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.

The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.

We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.

Maxx7410

We will see a good system must offer prices stability and an easy way to acces the market (no loosing trader every other week

GarnetFire17

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! 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!

That is like saying if you don't like ESO because they just made the game worse quit. Which is a bad attitude because times that is exactly what happens and it's the attitude that kills games. If you have not run a trader guild that has attempted to hold one of the pricey locations for a while. You don't understand the people that join those guilds and what they want from it, and what they appreciate, and what they are willing to put up with to get it. Guild the Leaders are trying not let their members down because they have expectations.

This why ZOS should consult as many trade guild leaders of all levels as possible about this before making a final decision. They have my game mail and my email.

GarnetFire17

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

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 :

.....

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.

This guy really doesn't get it. The top 2 hubs in PC NA are 1. Rawl'kha 2. Mournhold.

He complains that a lot of the guilds have been in the same spot for a long time. - okay sure. Is it a problem? maybe. But some guy has been taking over spots in Rawl'kha since the Elsweyr pactch and has done it again, so it is possible. It's not so much that it can't be done it's a matter of not worth getting into a bidding war for a higher spot if you are satisfied with your location. But's been proven those spots can be had if someone really wants them in the current system. If you have enough gold to beat out ETU one week, you aren't likely beat them the next week but you can target Black Brior Co. or Angry Unicorns the next week and just be in Rawl'kha pretty much every week until you can afford to compete on a regular basis with them, If you REALLY wanted to do all that. OR if you just want to troll the top guilds for petty reasons. That doesn't change with the patch. That can and will probably still happen. The difference is that effects the guilds under them negatively.

But what difference does it make if one Angry Unicorns is in one spot one week and the next week they are in the next spot over or in Mournhold? The top trade guilds are only going to be minorly inconvenienced by this and they will be okay with it because the KNOW they will be in Rawl'kha or Mournhold or at least some other good trader spot. They STILL are going to be holding up all the good spots in the game every week but it's just more assured so long as there isn't some hostile take over by some ESO anarchist. Even if they do. The those top guilds are still in the best spots because, They are actual trade guilds with stuff in their stores so the best spot now becomes where they are for that week. But those kind of take overs rarely happen.

But guilds do sometimes win and sometimes lose and they do bid against each other in the current system. ZOS hasn't really shown they want instability. They the are helping the top richest guilds deal with instability. They are AIDING the hierarchy by allowing them to be more flexible within the top spots in the game. What they devs don't seem to get is that the guilds under them are not going to be okay with it if they get bumped down to lower guilds because some guild with 50 times the gold they have needed that spot that week.

Also, this is not an opportunity to thwart, non-aggression alliances. If they exist they will continue to do so. If friendly guilds are just operating under silent agreement then more formalized agreements are more likely to form as to not step on each others toes.

Urigall

reoskit wrote: »

ICYMI:

ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »

The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.

The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.

We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.

Thanks for posting this reoskit. First time I've seen it. Where was it posted?

Well well, the ghost guilds are going to be exorcised after all.

ezio45

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

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

Perhaps they need to place bidders based on first choices. Then they consider the second choices for all stalls that are still empty. Then third choices. And so on. Basically, backup bids will only be considered if no one bid on a stall.

I am partial to a less volatile system than the one being described as being active on PTS where the ripple effects could lead to all stalls changing hands from one week to the next. I prefer a system where a guild can choose what tier of trade guild it will be and members can know what to expect. The new system's potential ripple effects can cause instability in all guilds.

If the restriction was put in place that the back up would only take effect if the stall wasnt any guilds highest bid I might be on board with that. if they also fix the shell guild issue.

Thorvik_Tyrson

Grimm13 wrote: »

It is very disturbing that this is a major retooling of the Trader Bidding system yet we have been given no Dev insight as to why or what they are expecting to achieve. We have been asking for over a week now and still there is not one response from ZOS.

It makes me suspect that ZOS has not assigned one person to be in charge of all things guild related. That it is handled as an after thought with multiple departs adding in without a single direction of guidance. So no one at ZOS knows who should be responding now.

The other line of thought is they do know but refuse to answer or provide insight because it is because they just want to increase the gold sink on bids. This is not a good reason to up end the trading community with a bad system. If it's gold sinks you want we can provide ideas, some much greater than this change. Here are a few, all payable by gold only i.e.

1) Introduce to the current housing format a monthly rental option to increase the item limit.

2) a monthly rental for extra outfit slots

3) Add unique Costume Style Pages to the Luxury Vendor exclusive to the Lux Vendor. Breaking the item into parts as functionality that people may be willing to pay more than a single piece costume.

Please break the silence and prove me wrong. Give us insight into why you want to rework the system, what do you hope to achieve, what is the problems you are trying to correct.

I would add onto this list of ways to increase the gold sink:
Increase the number of traders available to be bid on. (I would say double the amount from current numbers.) This will increase the overall amount of gold sink as more traders means more bids taken in and that will increase the number of players that are included into the selling part of the trading economy.

The winner in all this would be the buyer as there would be potentially 2x the number of listings available for purchase

FlopsyPrince

I never figured this out when I asked before, but what value is getting a guild vendor in the middle of nowhere? You are unlikely to sell much since few people will visit and I have never found a bargain on one, even though I am sure they exist.

I would love to be enlightened about why they are great.

I would favor more guild vendors in key areas, even if it took some juggling to add them near the others. I have preferred Alinor since crafting is so easy there, but other places are seen as better I am sure.

Grimm13

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

It is very disturbing that this is a major retooling of the Trader Bidding system yet we have been given no Dev insight as to why or what they are expecting to achieve. We have been asking for over a week now and still there is not one response from ZOS.

It makes me suspect that ZOS has not assigned one person to be in charge of all things guild related. That it is handled as an after thought with multiple departs adding in without a single direction of guidance. So no one at ZOS knows who should be responding now.

The other line of thought is they do know but refuse to answer or provide insight because it is because they just want to increase the gold sink on bids. This is not a good reason to up end the trading community with a bad system. If it's gold sinks you want we can provide ideas, some much greater than this change. Here are a few, all payable by gold only i.e.

1) Introduce to the current housing format a monthly rental option to increase the item limit.

2) a monthly rental for extra outfit slots

3) Add unique Costume Style Pages to the Luxury Vendor exclusive to the Lux Vendor. Breaking the item into parts as functionality that people may be willing to pay more than a single piece costume.

Please break the silence and prove me wrong. Give us insight into why you want to rework the system, what do you hope to achieve, what is the problems you are trying to correct.

I would add onto this list of ways to increase the gold sink:
Increase the number of traders available to be bid on. (I would say double the amount from current numbers.) This will increase the overall amount of gold sink as more traders means more bids taken in and that will increase the number of players that are included into the selling part of the trading economy.

The winner in all this would be the buyer as there would be potentially 2x the number of listings available for purchase

I was pressed for time when I posted and that had been one of my earlier thoughts I forgot about. I do think we need six more traders per zone. These should be added not to the major hub of each zone but those outlaying trader locations. This will make those spots more desirable as players have more choices at locations to choose from, making it more likely they will check them. Having 5 -6 traders in a spot is part of what makes major hubs popular to buyers, that and easy access from a wayshrine. This adds roughly 126 Traders bringing it to 336 Traders per platform, say roughly as going from memory that there are 21 zones.

kringled_1

Urigall wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

ICYMI:

ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »

The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.

The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.

We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.

Thanks for posting this reoskit. First time I've seen it. Where was it posted?

Well well, the ghost guilds are going to be exorcised after all.

That was posted in the PTS forums on a thread about multi-bidding.

Urigall

kringled_1 wrote: »

That was posted in the PTS forums on a thread about multi-bidding.

Thanks for the info.

Grimm13

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

Also, this is not an opportunity to thwart, non-aggression alliances. If they exist they will continue to do so. If friendly guilds are just operating under silent agreement then more formalized agreements are more likely to form as to not step on each others toes.

Most trade guild GM's have their 5 available guilds as trade. You don't want to cut your own throat by bidding against a guild you belong to. It's nothing formalized or agreed upon, just practical.

Not saying your statement is wrong. It just needs to take this point into account as a contributing factor.

Urigall wrote: »

kringled_1 wrote: »

That was posted in the PTS forums on a thread about multi-bidding.

Thanks for the info.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/484090/pts-update-23-feedback-thread-for-multi-bidding#latest

page three

lordhakai

SirAndy wrote: »

ZOS???

How is this going to help anyone except the large trading guilds? Seriously?

My main guild only has about 500k to bid each week which is rarely enough to get a trader. We would need 5 million gold to cover 10 spots. That is insane!

Good to know your guilds finances. But as a bigger guild i am upset by this too 10 is stupid and ill-concieved.

Arrodisia

reoskit wrote: »

ICYMI:

ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »

The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.

The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.

We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.

Thank you for sharing this with us. I'm glad. They're attempting to fix some of the issues with shadow guilds. It depends on how they implement the change, if the shadow guilds will really be gone or not. However, at the same time, I'm still confused as to why they think 10x bidding will help the smaller, mid sized, and startup guilds in some way. They just don't have the funds to compete. I hope. ZOS considers to add more vendors to already existing trade locations. So, players have no need to search for the next exploit.

FlopsyPrince

Grimm13 wrote: »

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

It is very disturbing that this is a major retooling of the Trader Bidding system yet we have been given no Dev insight as to why or what they are expecting to achieve. We have been asking for over a week now and still there is not one response from ZOS.

It makes me suspect that ZOS has not assigned one person to be in charge of all things guild related. That it is handled as an after thought with multiple departs adding in without a single direction of guidance. So no one at ZOS knows who should be responding now.

The other line of thought is they do know but refuse to answer or provide insight because it is because they just want to increase the gold sink on bids. This is not a good reason to up end the trading community with a bad system. If it's gold sinks you want we can provide ideas, some much greater than this change. Here are a few, all payable by gold only i.e.

1) Introduce to the current housing format a monthly rental option to increase the item limit.

2) a monthly rental for extra outfit slots

3) Add unique Costume Style Pages to the Luxury Vendor exclusive to the Lux Vendor. Breaking the item into parts as functionality that people may be willing to pay more than a single piece costume.

Please break the silence and prove me wrong. Give us insight into why you want to rework the system, what do you hope to achieve, what is the problems you are trying to correct.

I would add onto this list of ways to increase the gold sink:
Increase the number of traders available to be bid on. (I would say double the amount from current numbers.) This will increase the overall amount of gold sink as more traders means more bids taken in and that will increase the number of players that are included into the selling part of the trading economy.

The winner in all this would be the buyer as there would be potentially 2x the number of listings available for purchase

I was pressed for time when I posted and that had been one of my earlier thoughts I forgot about. I do think we need six more traders per zone. These should be added not to the major hub of each zone but those outlaying trader locations. This will make those spots more desirable as players have more choices at locations to choose from, making it more likely they will check them. Having 5 -6 traders in a spot is part of what makes major hubs popular to buyers, that and easy access from a wayshrine. This adds roughly 126 Traders bringing it to 336 Traders per platform, say roughly as going from memory that there are 21 zones.

Why would someone want a guild trader in the middle of nowhere? What is the point of that beyond saying "we have a trader"?

I want people to be close when I am selling. I want to find places with minimal wasted time when I am trying to buy.

(That is why I despise the current system, but it is what we have.)

MandyMae

This will be fun! ^-^

Iarao

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

This is gamebreaking. tho I could agree and live with 2 or 3 spots, but 10 is massive. It gives a huge advantage to superrich and established guilds, since those are the only ones able to bid 10 times 5 till 10 millions. while that its also a massive goldsink for those, who are keen to defend specific spots or hubs and will increase donations and requirements massively.

edit: someone later reminded me of staying strong. this is no topic for compromises.

up to 10 not required to bid on 10.