martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Dont_do_drugs wrote: »But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.
No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.
No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.
At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.
The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.
So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?
Market value is set by supply and demand. One of the principles of supply and demand is this:
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price
Not going to repeat myself. I'll just link https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6213805/#Comment_6213805How does that relate to the topic at hand? I don't see how multi-bidding translates to increased demand. 1 trader kiosk (supply) satisfies the demand of 1 guild, regardless of how many bids they placed.
martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Dont_do_drugs wrote: »But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.
No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.
No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.
At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.
The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.
So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?
silvereyes wrote: »Of all the bad options, in my opinion, a 2-bid limit would be the best. The dynamic changes significantly if each guild has to decide whether to take a risk on locating their single backup bid in a strong hub, or target a weaker hub. The chances of rippling disruptions are also significantly reduced.
martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Dont_do_drugs wrote: »But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.
No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.
No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.
At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.
The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.
So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?
Market value is set by supply and demand. One of the principles of supply and demand is this:
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price
How does that relate to the topic at hand? I don't see how multi-bidding translates to increased demand. 1 trader kiosk (supply) satisfies the demand of 1 guild, regardless of how many bids they placed.
I would think as one who has played this game a while, you would be well acquainted with settling for lesser evils.girlpoison wrote: »I agree with this, but I don't think we should have to settle for a lesser evil.
silvereyes wrote: »Introducing no-risk backup bids increases the chances of being targeted by new kinds of bids:
- Backup bids from a higher tier
- Probe bids with ever increasing amounts each week
- Troll/grief bids with ever increasing amounts each week
- Bids from lower tiers that can only afford to win higher tiers periodically by saving up
It only takes a week or two of loosing your preferred kiosk to these kind of bids before you start increasing your primary bid, or move elsewhere.
chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »Update 23 and the multi bidding is a wonderful addition to the game. I am sure it will need some tweaking as 10 is a bit much. 4-5 seems ample but I suspect you will make that change before it goes live. If not no biggy as no one is forced to bid on 10 spots each week.
This very positive inclusion will help me in some ways and adversely affect me in others but it is VERY good for the game as a way to protect hardworking guilds from trolls and other nefarious sniping that goes on and enable newer hard working Guilds to get a foot on the ladder.
I would like the ability as I have previously said to amend a bid down or delete it, in case of erroneous extra digit and also amend permissions so all my members that now pay fees or just donate in Guilds that still use the voluntary system, can see them without exposing the Guilds bid.
Thx ZoS for introducing this system. The first few weeks and months maybe crazy but once the excess gold starts to get drawn from the game it should be wonderful.
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.
Fees will be introduced to many guilds to increase their income so they can compete with larger bids which over time will force strong deflationary pressure on the economy. My advice is unload your craft bags whilst they hold their value.
Certain players who shall remain nameless will buy even more gold either legitimately through crown gifts or other suspicious methods and use it to break the economy by bidding way higher than the quality of their Guild deserves. Which will be fun for a few weeks but then they will realise they are throwing significant monies down the toilet.
Quality trade hubs will diminish as guilds with less stock will win more often which means everyone will take longer to shop around and the absolute top tier mega rich guilds will see even more traffic as it will be a safe place for Customers who value their time.
I'm sure the dust will settle ... but with higher prices.
- Backup bids from a higher tier -- these only come into play after higher tiers lose their bids. Do you think they will be consistently losing their bids en masse, or will the dust settle?
Many growing guilds are funded by independently wealthy traders that have gold from a bigger guild hub. They can afford to probe with their personal funds. Also, while a guild raises minimums to increase their current location bid, they may end up with more gold than they need for their current spot and start building a war chest for feeling out better spots.
- Probe bids -- if you feel increased pressure on your spot, the last thing you want to do is put some money aside to probe a better spot.
A lower tier spot that the displaced higher tier guild may or may not have bid on, and likewise for whatever guild they displace with their backup bids.
- Bids from lower tiers that can only afford to win higher tiers periodically by saving up -- that's some dedication, more power to them! Also notice how they freed a lower tier spot.
chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »Update 23 and the multi bidding is a wonderful addition to the game. I am sure it will need some tweaking as 10 is a bit much. 4-5 seems ample but I suspect you will make that change before it goes live. If not no biggy as no one is forced to bid on 10 spots each week.
This very positive inclusion will help me in some ways and adversely affect me in others but it is VERY good for the game as a way to protect hardworking guilds from trolls and other nefarious sniping that goes on and enable newer hard working Guilds to get a foot on the ladder.
I would like the ability as I have previously said to amend a bid down or delete it, in case of erroneous extra digit and also amend permissions so all my members that now pay fees or just donate in Guilds that still use the voluntary system, can see them without exposing the Guilds bid.
Thx ZoS for introducing this system. The first few weeks and months maybe crazy but once the excess gold starts to get drawn from the game it should be wonderful.
There is proof that this will benefit the rich and powerful. The faction this Grand Vizier faces is not shy about the most deceptive behavior when it comes to transactions. With multi-bidder he hope that x 10.
SteamKitten01 wrote: »I was doing some playing around on the PTS with the multi-bidding system and testing out placing more than one bid and noticed when placing identical bids, the order I bid in is not necessarily the order they show up on the bid list. Take the example below with bids # 4-7 for the guild in the image below. All 4 have the same bid but they are not listed in the order the bids were placed. I placed the Alinor bids first and then ported to Belkarth to place bids on traders there. I encountered the same issue when bidding for all 3 of my guilds that bids were not listed in the order they were placed. If I went back and added 1 gold to a bid, the correct bid would jump to the top, but if bids are exactly the same, it seemed to be random which bid was listed at the top of the list.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »SteamKitten01 wrote: »I was doing some playing around on the PTS with the multi-bidding system and testing out placing more than one bid and noticed when placing identical bids, the order I bid in is not necessarily the order they show up on the bid list. Take the example below with bids # 4-7 for the guild in the image below. All 4 have the same bid but they are not listed in the order the bids were placed. I placed the Alinor bids first and then ported to Belkarth to place bids on traders there. I encountered the same issue when bidding for all 3 of my guilds that bids were not listed in the order they were placed. If I went back and added 1 gold to a bid, the correct bid would jump to the top, but if bids are exactly the same, it seemed to be random which bid was listed at the top of the list.
Question?
Where or how did you access that screen? I am on PC/NA, non steam. I looked for that screen on PTS but didn't see it.
What am I missing?
Thank you & Huzzah!
silvereyes wrote: »To play a bit of devil's advocate here, there's one benefit of multi-bidding that I haven't seen mentioned before, and that's the ability to test lower bids.
On live today, there's no way to experiment with lowering one's bid without risking losing your trader entirely. That risk ensures that once prices are high, they stay high.
If there's a backup bid system in place, you can experiment with lowering bids while keeping a strong secondary backup bid in the next tier down and another safety net bid in a weak hub.
Thoughts? Is that something that any GMs might actually consider doing?
I think it might take longer than a few weeks for things to stabilize, if they ever do. That's only three rounds of info gathering, and the first two will probably be like this:chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »silvereyes - That will 100% happen but I would strongly advise against it in the first few weeks
silvereyes wrote: »To play a bit of devil's advocate here, there's one benefit of multi-bidding that I haven't seen mentioned before, and that's the ability to test lower bids.
On live today, there's no way to experiment with lowering one's bid without risking losing your trader entirely. That risk ensures that once prices are high, they stay high.
If there's a backup bid system in place, you can experiment with lowering bids while keeping a strong secondary backup bid in the next tier down and another safety net bid in a weak hub.
Thoughts? Is that something that any GMs might actually consider doing?
In today's market, I'd guess there aren't lots of people standing in line to bid on our standard kiosk. They're busy locking in with their one bid on a kiosk they think they can win.
In tomorrow's market where everyone has X backup bids and can poke a ton of kiosks without risk? Nope. I'm not dropping my bid.
In hindsight, it's kind of a silly question. Nobody who plans to test dropping their bid is going to admit it on a public forum, lol. :facepalm:In tomorrow's market where everyone has X backup bids and can poke a ton of kiosks without risk? Nope. I'm not dropping my bid.
Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »And that in an of itself is indicative that there is a massive problem with the current system.
Why are they recruiting 100% of the time?
But, as they say, there's none so blind as those who refuse to look.
I am recruiting all the time as there is a constant stream of players that stop playing. I am up front about cutting inactives after 21 days, used to be 30 days but I still see about 10 - 16 players a week stop playing ESO. Past year I have had about 10 players come back after a 3+ month hiatus.
Why is there 60 - 80 players stop playing eso in a months time? I am not even counting on those that come in during free eso trials. I do see an increase of quits around updates first announced, tapers off then again when Updates released then tapers off again.
With the guild finder I now have hundreds of apps to instantly replace the attrition. I no longer have to go bug zone chat with ads for hours of my play time trying to be in the right place at the right time.
I would really love to see the game attrition rate and find out why ESO has a problem with player retention.
Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »And that in an of itself is indicative that there is a massive problem with the current system.
Why are they recruiting 100% of the time?
But, as they say, there's none so blind as those who refuse to look.
I am recruiting all the time as there is a constant stream of players that stop playing. I am up front about cutting inactives after 21 days, used to be 30 days but I still see about 10 - 16 players a week stop playing ESO. Past year I have had about 10 players come back after a 3+ month hiatus.
Why is there 60 - 80 players stop playing eso in a months time? I am not even counting on those that come in during free eso trials. I do see an increase of quits around updates first announced, tapers off then again when Updates released then tapers off again.
With the guild finder I now have hundreds of apps to instantly replace the attrition. I no longer have to go bug zone chat with ads for hours of my play time trying to be in the right place at the right time.
I would really love to see the game attrition rate and find out why ESO has a problem with player retention.
Call me old fashioned. A Guild is a place Members go to to feel "at home" no matter what game style they prefer, no matter how frequently they are active. A place for them to be among friends.
The idea of dumping someone from a GAMING guild because they "don't pull their weight" is, I am not at all ashamed to admit, 100% totally alien to me.
I can log into my LOTRO Guild right now - a game I have up to date but have not played for 6 months or more - and know I will be immediately welcomed back, asked how I am doing, and advised what planned content we have coming up so I can sign up to it if I choose to.
There are people in that guild who have not logged in for 2 or 3 years who will receive the exact same treatment when they do log back in.
Because we are all friends, made exclusively in-game, but friends nonetheless.
No one would even dream of ejecting a Member, a friend, if they hadn't logged in for 21 days, or hadn't posted goods to the AH for 21 days. It simply would not happen.
That is does in ESO, and that it is seen as acceptable is in my opinion testament to just how badly designed the Guild System is.
Because you can be in 5 guilds most players really don't care that much about any of them, so they don't feel the need to give them any loyalty, and in return the Guild offers no loyalty back.
Change it so each Account can only be in one guild, and people will commit to it, make it work, not just for themselves but for the rest of their friends too.
And when each Account can only be in one Guild, and so only take listing slots on ONE Kiosk you'll find more kiosks available for medium and lower tier guilds.
All The Best
Dusk_Coven wrote: »ZOS is trying to increase convenience (getting a trader if your first choice fails) and reduce or remove bid manipulation.
If the ability of smaller guilds to secure a trader is critical, or if guilds are worried about retaining a trader, we could try to reduce the impact of not having a Trader at all https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/485284/guild-stores-proposal-to-help-smaller-guilds-refunding-the-listing-fee