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

Iarao

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

those rich guilds have minion guilds i am quite sure. those minions can still bid and obtain those spots as usual and then not sell anything in them. so unless they were controlling bids at more than 10 locations (and i have heard that some control 20 trader bids to zap competition) they wont lose anything this way at all. as usual, you will find traders with nothing to sell. sure sign of a minion guild.

Iarao

Starlock wrote: »

While I am in a few trading guilds, I have little to no knowledge of how things run behind the scenes with bids and all that. Even so, common sense leads me to conclude that this is not a good change. Only the large multi-guild consortiums will have the funds to plop down multiple competitive bids. If this is some weird way the developers are trying to make a new gold sink or something, this... is really not a fair way to go about it.

they will get the guild of their highest winning bid i think. money is then refunded on the rest of the bids. i do wonder, tho, if a guild bids on just 1 trader and loses, do they get their gold back? do they get it back now if they lose?

Iarao

reoskit wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

If this is some weird way the developers are trying to make a new gold sink or something, this... is really not a fair way to go about it.

It's wild to keep having the same conversations in the forums as in our Discord.

That was my thought, too. With kiosk bids relatively predicable (except for DLCs & turf wars), and the fact that new, large houses are only ever sold for crowns, the major gold sinks are gone.

How do you create more of a gold sink? Rock the kiosk boat.

Oh, god, our normal kiosk IS a literal boat...

if someone wants to buy a large house for gold they can. they find someone who will sell them enough crowns in game for gold.

Iarao

Iarao wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

If this is some weird way the developers are trying to make a new gold sink or something, this... is really not a fair way to go about it.

It's wild to keep having the same conversations in the forums as in our Discord.

That was my thought, too. With kiosk bids relatively predicable (except for DLCs & turf wars), and the fact that new, large houses are only ever sold for crowns, the major gold sinks are gone.

How do you create more of a gold sink? Rock the kiosk boat.

Oh, god, our normal kiosk IS a literal boat...

or let us buy those large houses for gold. lots of gold sinking there.

KerinKor

Kagukan wrote: »

Broken auction system...The end.

Let's hope so.

Iarao

Tandor wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

ZOS knows what they are doing, even if we don’t like it. This will at least double the amount of guild sunk every week on bids. Guilds in long-term, established spots who roll the dice most weeks with low bids in the hope that no one will be bidding against them will no longer be able to get away with that.

This has nothing to do with the ghost trader issue on console. That will continue. The people who do that freely admit they don’t do it as a backup. They do it as a source of additional revenue. This change will only make it easier for them to operate. The issue will not go away. And I don’t think it was the intent of ZOS, at least with this update, to make that issue go away. Maybe they will address it later, maybe not at all. Who knows, because their communication is atrocious.

Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?

LOL can be understood 2 ways. guild sunk as in no longer being able to be a trading guild or he meant gold sink will double.

Iarao

Pevey wrote: »

ZOS knows what they are doing, even if we don’t like it. This will at least double the amount of gold sunk every week on bids. Guilds in long-term, established spots who roll the dice most weeks with low bids in the hope that no one will be bidding against them will no longer be able to get away with that.

This has nothing to do with the ghost trader issue on console. That will continue. The people who do that freely admit they don’t do it as a backup. They do it as a source of additional revenue. This change will only make it easier for them to operate. The issue will not go away. And I don’t think it was the intent of ZOS, at least with this update, to make that issue go away. Maybe they will address it later, maybe not at all. Who knows, because their communication is atrocious.

double gold sink? how? dont they get their gold back on losing bids? or will zos keep the highest bid even if they dont get the trader and refund all the other up to 9 bids? how does that work now? if you bid on a trader and lose do you get your gold back?

Iarao

chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »

HAHA this is an epic gold sink. I am imagining week one it is so broken there are guilds on two kiosks and such and then they tweak it and all the pre-bids are permanently swallowed resetting the economy.

On a serious note, I think this is a bad decision.

It will give significantly more stress to some established GM's and will likely force a break up of a lot of mid-size guilds until things settle which could take 3-6 months.

Member loyalty will soften over time as every Sunday more and more location dependant Players will shop around to move to a Trade Guild that occupies the kiosks they want.

or maybe there will be NO slots available in those guilds.

Iarao

reoskit wrote: »

chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »

HAHA this is an epic gold sink. I am imagining week one it is so broken there are guilds on two kiosks and such and then they tweak it and all the pre-bids are permanently swallowed resetting the economy.

Like when they introduced One Tamriel and overwrote all of Craglorn, including the kiosks and their current owners, thereby putting the kiosks up for the first hire? Smh.

???????

Iarao

VaranisArano wrote: »

Guild A is a large prosperous trading guild that uses the shadow guild bidding system.

Current Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A creates shadow Guild B to make the bid on a backup trader with money from Guild A.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.

New Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A bids on their backup trader with whatever money they previous gave to their shadow Guild B.
Guild A potentially bids a little bit on a few more backup traders now that they don't have to get 50 people to join a shadow guild.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.



So in other words, ZOS kept the system working exactly the same way, just that now Guild A gets to do it all without going through the hassle of creating a shadow Guild?

Interesting.

at least one of those top tier guilds was shadow bidding on 19 additional traders at one time (and maybe still today). at least as per someone claiming to have been in it and he posted it here couple yrs ago. he said there is a way for zos to stop it, but they dont (which makes me wonder if devs/dev friends/zos people of some sort are the defacto gms of it/them). after the bids, those traders sit empty, but owned so they cannot be grabbed by another for the standard weekly rental of ?200k? this is why you find traders with NOTHING to sell or very little. these are the shadow bidded traders. they were looking not only for a backup, but to squash the competition of 19 other guilds. and yes, it can be done. just think hard on how.

Iarao

VaranisArano wrote: »

Guild A is a large prosperous trading guild that uses the shadow guild bidding system.

Current Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A creates shadow Guild B to make the bid on a backup trader with money from Guild A.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.

New Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A bids on their backup trader with whatever money they previous gave to their shadow Guild B.
Guild A potentially bids a little bit on a few more backup traders now that they don't have to get 50 people to join a shadow guild.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.



So in other words, ZOS kept the system working exactly the same way, just that now Guild A gets to do it all without going through the hassle of creating a shadow Guild?

Interesting.

they wont need 50 members to bid on a trader with this next big release??? how many members??? and why not create shadow guilds to bid on even more traders, and if won, you take out the competition for that week??? because they WILL want a backup location so that means at least ONE shadow guild.

Iarao

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Guild A is a large prosperous trading guild that uses the shadow guild bidding system.

Current Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A creates shadow Guild B to make the bid on a backup trader with money from Guild A.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.

New Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A bids on their backup trader with whatever money they previous gave to their shadow Guild B.
Guild A potentially bids a little bit on a few more backup traders now that they don't have to get 50 people to join a shadow guild.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.



So in other words, ZOS kept the system working exactly the same way, just that now Guild A gets to do it all without going through the hassle of creating a shadow Guild?

Interesting.

no. not 1 Shadow guild. it's 10! ten bids!! they will use some to bid against the guilds right next to them unless they all collude together not and actually keep their word.

10 bids PER shadow guild!!! and they have the shadow guilds all set up right now cuz they are shadow bidding multiple traders NOW. and tying them up so no one else can use them. these traders have basically NOTHING to sell. that is how you recognize them. someone once posted here that the guild he was in bid out 19 (or maybe more?) additional traders and won them weekly. that is not about a backup location. that is about cutting out the competition. and garnet, for some reason i think you were posting in that whole thread 2-3 yrs ago. maybe not. but i know your name from somewhere. not saying YOU were the one claiming to be in that guild cuz i dont think so.

GarnetFire17 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Guild A is a large prosperous trading guild that uses the shadow guild bidding system.

Current Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A creates shadow Guild B to make the bid on a backup trader with money from Guild A.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.

New Scenario:
Guild A bids on their desired trader.
Guild A bids on their backup trader with whatever money they previous gave to their shadow Guild B.
Guild A potentially bids a little bit on a few more backup traders now that they don't have to get 50 people to join a shadow guild.
Guild A gets the trader from a successful bid and gets back the money from any failed bids.



So in other words, ZOS kept the system working exactly the same way, just that now Guild A gets to do it all without going through the hassle of creating a shadow Guild?

Interesting.

no. not 1 Shadow guild its 10! ten bids!! they will use some to bid against the guilds right next to them unless they all collude together not and actually keep their word.

10 bids PER shadow guild!!! and they have the shadow guilds all set up right now cuz they are shadow bidding multiple traders NOW. and tying them up so no one else can use them. these traders have basically NOTHING to sell. that is how you recognize them. someone once posted here that the guild he was in bid out 19 (or maybe more?) additional traders and won them weekly. that is not about a backup location. that is about cutting out the competition. and garnet, for some reason i think you were posting in that whole thread 2-3 yrs ago. maybe not. but i know your name from somewhere. not saying YOU were the one claiming to be in that guild cuz i dont think so.

Iarao

f047ys3v3n wrote: »

Not sure why people are pissed about this or why they don't think the change will help small guilds.

The effects should be:

1) Smaller guilds will rarely loose their spot to a big dog since the big dogs will no longer have to buy up secondary spots on weeks they don't loose their primary and they rarely loose their primary.

2) Overall trader costs will lower as there are now fewer total guilds bidding for a spot (this is because you just removed all those shadow guilds of the big dogs.) Simple supply and demand here.


you dont remove the shadow guilds at all. they will EACH HAVE 10 BIDS!


3) Week to week prices for specific traders will become more consistent and possibly also lower because the severe negative effect of loosing your bid (no trader at all) has been removed. You will now likely still get a lesser trader. (A secondary effect of this will be that spying will offer less advantages than it previously did.)


just what we need, more traveling traders. bad enough now when you use ttc after trader bid and thru monday or so and you go and that guild is no longer there! how many actually update their ttc right after they change traders?


4) Guilds trader locations will move more often because, with a less disastrous worst case scenario, guilds will take more chances on bids to save money and will also take more chances on improving their location. This should be really pronounced right after the change as guilds currently have little data on how much location effects their sales and at least some of them will be adventuresome enough to want to find out if a move up or down in location is more profitable.

5) I expect the competition between guilds to become more dynamic and involve less cartel behavior (ie. getting other guilds leaders banned right before the bid to prevent them from bidding). In effect, being able to explore multiple options for trader locations based on price should bring the market closer to free market ideals and decrease the benefits of anti-competitive behavior. It certainly greatly lowers the barriers to entry to start and especially to grow a trade guild.


GL banned how? for what? oh and others besides the GL can bid. any competent trading guild should have multiple people there and ready to bid in case they are the only one to do it.


In short, I think the changes will make things dramatically better for almost all players in the market and that they should completely solve the problem of shadow trade guilds.


wont make it better for buyers who find the guild they expect isnt at that trader. the shadow guilds exist right now. THEY will also have 10 bids EACH. these big guilds have MULTIPLE shadow guilds they use to squash the competition by winning the bid and listing NOTHING. it was never their intent to list anything, just to prevent another guild from doing so.


Some advice to many of you who have posted.... Just put your investments in index funds IRL. The lack of basic understanding about how markets work in here is just staggering.

oh and as for irl, get out of the market altogether. one word: derivatives.

Iarao

Pevey wrote: »

f047ys3v3n wrote: »

Not sure why people are pissed about this or why they don't think the change will help small guilds.

The effects should be:

1) Smaller guilds will rarely loose their spot to a big dog since the big dogs will no longer have to buy up secondary spots on weeks they don't loose their primary and they rarely loose their primary.

2) Overall trader costs will lower as there are now fewer total guilds bidding for a spot (this is because you just removed all those shadow guilds of the big dogs.) Simple supply and demand here.

3) Week to week prices for specific traders will become more consistent and possibly also lower because the severe negative effect of loosing your bid (no trader at all) has been removed. You will now likely still get a lesser trader. (A secondary effect of this will be that spying will offer less advantages than it previously did.)

4) Guilds trader locations will move more often because, with a less disastrous worst case scenario, guilds will take more chances on bids to save money and will also take more chances on improving their location. This should be really pronounced right after the change as guilds currently have little data on how much location effects their sales and at least some of them will be adventuresome enough to want to find out if a move up or down in location is more profitable.

5) I expect the competition between guilds to become more dynamic and involve less cartel behavior (ie. getting other guilds leaders banned right before the bid to prevent them from bidding). In effect, being able to explore multiple options for trader locations based on price should bring the market closer to free market ideals and decrease the benefits of anti-competitive behavior. It certainly greatly lowers the barriers to entry to start and especially to grow a trade guild.

In short, I think the changes will make things dramatically better for almost all players in the market and that they should completely solve the problem of shadow trade guilds.

Some advice to many of you who have posted.... Just put your investments in index funds IRL. The lack of basic understanding about how markets work in here is just staggering.

Logic is flawed. This does not address shadow guild issue. Shadow guilds are mainly created for additional revenue.

maybe some, yes. but some are created for control. those are the empty traders belonging to a guild. that guild is a shadow guild keeping others out.

Iarao

ezio45 wrote: »

Not a fan of this idea.

Ya this gives ways for guilds to have backup. Problem is the guilds with enough money to do this already have a way to get backups and its also gives them money if they dont need the backups. Thats how they are getting the money to make there bid and how they cover there backup spots and how they would have enough to use this.

The main problem is the shell guilds that are being used as backups and also profit from the larger guild. The ones that are selling stalls for 1.5-2 times what they payed for it.

Guild traders arnt actually profitable for most guilds. Only the ones selling stalls are making any profit to put back into the "business". Elden root is like 14ish mil and guilds are pulling in 2m from sales. Most guilds are going to 0 gold in bank each week, even if there not they still arnt going to have money to bid on another stall. The guilds selling stalls arnt going to use this new system either. There system guarantees them a stall and makes them profit.

If Zos really wants to help improve the trader system, they should make it so you cant sell stalls anymore. Each guild would be on even footing at that point not exploiting smaller guilds to make there bid for them. Even then I dont think this system there planning to put into place wont be helpful. Splitting your money between bids is just not something guilds are interested in. You bid where you have raised funds for and already feels safe and confident bidding on.

@ZOS_RobGarrett , i assume this is your department?

oh yeah, i had forgotten about this aspect. they flip some of them. i remember all this being discussed here 2-3 yrs ago.
and yeah that was the simple solution offered at the time and zos wouldnt do it. so that means they condone it. which now makes you wonder what all this trader thingy is really about.

martinhpb16_ESO

What I have seen so far on PC EU as a consequence of multi-bidding

1. Flat fees are being introduced in many guilds e.g 10k
2. Sales quotas are going up in some guilds
3. GMs thinking about stepping down and actually stepping down
4. Bickering between some GM's, as some are trying to avoid bidding against people and others are planning to spread bids
5. Big alliances are strategically planning
6. People have been leaving guilds
7. The priority is shifting towards income rather than community

Way to go Zos, what was already a high pressure environment has gotten even more salty.

DragonRacer

Iarao wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

While I am in a few trading guilds, I have little to no knowledge of how things run behind the scenes with bids and all that. Even so, common sense leads me to conclude that this is not a good change. Only the large multi-guild consortiums will have the funds to plop down multiple competitive bids. If this is some weird way the developers are trying to make a new gold sink or something, this... is really not a fair way to go about it.

they will get the guild of their highest winning bid i think. money is then refunded on the rest of the bids. i do wonder, tho, if a guild bids on just 1 trader and loses, do they get their gold back? do they get it back now if they lose?

Yes and yes. Any bid that loses - now or after multi-bidding starts - is refunded to the guild bank. That is how it has always operated and how it will continue to operate.

Iarao wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

If this is some weird way the developers are trying to make a new gold sink or something, this... is really not a fair way to go about it.

It's wild to keep having the same conversations in the forums as in our Discord.

That was my thought, too. With kiosk bids relatively predicable (except for DLCs & turf wars), and the fact that new, large houses are only ever sold for crowns, the major gold sinks are gone.

How do you create more of a gold sink? Rock the kiosk boat.

Oh, god, our normal kiosk IS a literal boat...

if someone wants to buy a large house for gold they can. they find someone who will sell them enough crowns in game for gold.

No, they cannot. Houses are NOT a giftable item in the Crown Store. Most things in the Crown Store are giftable, but a few thing are not and houses are one of those items that MUST be bought, by the actual buyer, with the buyer's own Crowns.

Pevey

Holy crap, I’ve never seen so many responses at once that added so little to a discussion. @larao, try reading the posts you are responding to a little more closely? Your responses miss the mark.

OsManiaC

It is over. Most guilds already increased fees and sale requirements. It is a bad day not because they will implement this system.

It is bad because they refuse to listen to GMs who were dedicated/experts to trading or the GMs who try their best for trading ( I am in the second team) who were against this idea.

Even I don't think they listen to the ones who agree on this topic, I understand them and agree on some points if I see in their point of view, but ZOS ? I am not sure they read your comments as I did. So in the end, both sides are on the same team for me.

I only judge due to my experience with bosmer losing stealth and this multi-bidding. I know ZOS is working and trying to listen with lots of things. This topic is just not their priority, maybe they have a list that they put points to most important to less (as it should be due to resources), maybe they change in future. But for today I learned trading is in meh topics.