PS4 NA guild traders raising weekly fee to 20k

therift · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

DragonRacer wrote: »

Wolfpaw wrote: »

DragonRacer wrote: »

Wolfpaw wrote: »

DragonRacer wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

If the trading guild I’m in raises the weekly rate to 20k from 15k, I may have to quit trading guilds altogether and just try to survive on writ income. I’m a nurse IRL and I work 12-13 hr shifts, clocking in at 36-48 hrs every week, so I simply don’t have the free time to farm mats and keep my trader slots full 24/7. I’d rather spend my time in game doing what I enjoy (PVP). As it is, I’m barely making enough gold to justify the weekly 15k I’m putting in. I like my trading guild on a social level and would miss our awesome guild house, but... come on. 20k every week just to have the luxury of selling items in high traffic locations?

I’m increasingly starting to hate this trading system. WTB global AH.

I'll reiterate that dues-free/donation-based trading guilds exist. They could be a good option for you.

It's an option, not necessarily a good one.

Many players have a life outside of a video game, & don't have 50+ hours a week to waste away on a video game.

Career, family, school, etc...10-15h a week to play is a lot of hours for many of these players, & excluding this demographic from participating successfully in a system to sell their goods they earned in a "small" allotted play time is a bad system, & a poor business strategy.

I don't disagree, but I fail to see how copy-pasting your reply from the other thread had much to do with my suggestion?

A guild that does not charge dues and has a trader is at least an OPTION, right? I was merely suggesting it rather than the all-or-nothing approach of "pay 20k weekly dues" or "never sell anything ever again".

By the way, I am one of those people. I work a 40+ hour job and have a family and run my dues-free/donation-based guild. trust me, I understand what it means to have precious little gaming time and not be rolling around in personal in-game wealth.

We have two threads discussing same topic.

Yes your right, it's an option, not a good one though.

I don't think being in-game wealthy is much of an issue here, it's about a poor system that offers little to none as it locks many players out from participating successfully.

Agreed on most points.

But in the current system, why is joining a dues-free/donation-based guild not a "good" option? Those exist with traders secured not in the coveted capitals, yes, but many of them exist in cities better than just "we could only afford Outlaws Refuge".

Unless you mean if a guild isn't stationed at a trader in a capital, it's not a good option.

Free/donation based trading guilds (especially on console) seldom get traffic. It’s not even worth putting items up for sale in those guilds. Trust me, I used to be in a few until I started ponying up the cash for donation-based guilds in major cities.

markulrich1966 wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

If the trading guild I’m in raises the weekly rate to 20k from 15k, I may have to quit trading guilds altogether and just try to survive on writ income. I’m a nurse IRL and I work 12-13 hr shifts, clocking in at 36-48 hrs every week, so I simply don’t have the free time to farm mats and keep my trader slots full 24/7. I’d rather spend my time in game doing what I enjoy (PVP). As it is, I’m barely making enough gold to justify the weekly 15k I’m putting in. I like my trading guild on a social level and would miss our awesome guild house, but... come on. 20k every week just to have the luxury of selling items in high traffic locations?

I’m increasingly starting to hate this trading system. WTB global AH.

well, you were strongly supporting a faction lock, that kicks out many players from cyrodiil, instead of finding a solution that suits everyone.

Now don't complain about the results.

Since I almost no longer can play Cyro, I profesionalized in trading.
Increased my sales from 20k before to 100k a day. Time I spent before with PVP, I now use to hunt dragons and doing dailies, selling motifs and furniture crafted with ingredients you get as reward.

We lately have a clear increase of very professional traders on xbox EU, hence it is logical that this change is reflected somehow in the PVE world, like increasing trading fees on NA systems in order to attract quality traders and keep off casual ones at the best locations.

Don't complain, enjoy your PVP instead, now that your wishes have been fullfilled.

(Btw. with the millions of AP you gain there, you can buy a lot of gold jewelry, Mothers Sorrow is listed for 200k in guildstores, so 20k are really peanuts).

LOL, you seem pretty obsessed with my faction lock stance @markulrich1966 , as you seem determined to bring it up in any thread I post in. Get over it, and stay on topic instead of trying to shoehorn faction locking into completely unrelated threads.

Location is not as big a deal some believe it is. I have sold over a million in a week at the worst locations in small trade guilds more times than I can now remember.

I have done it precisely to prove the point inventory/stock bundled and priced correctly is the real secret.

It is on console. Without addons to find deals, people seldom go to little out of the way traders in the middle of nowhere. Like I said, I was in a few free trading guilds in the past that had traders out in the boonies, and it wasn’t worth the time or effort. Even when I priced stuff well below the city trader costs, items used to sit in the listings for weeks. You’re better off peddling your wares in /zone. I’ve never played an MMO with a more frustrating trading/item selling system.

Gotta give you this one. Definitely on console location is a bigger deal if you want bulk sales for high end profit at a newly purchased trader.

I still think on console if a guild establishes a poor location as a good place for high value items at good prices it will do just as well as any main hub. Just need to brand the location and advertise to get it established.

This is a distinct possibility, but it would require a dedicated team throughout the game to post an effective advertisement in zone chat, and it may possibly require marketing support in offline channels, such as the FB trading pages I've heard about but never bothered to find.

Two caveats:

1) There is a hard 'cost' to establish an out of the way location: loadscreen time for travel to and from the location. One of the main reasons why capitol city kiosks are high traffic locations is the presence of multiple kiosks just steps away from a transit shrine that are also in close proximity to crafting stations, banking/guild bank access, and Undaunted dailies.

2) Any marketing effort that utilizes zone chat runs the risk of being perceived as disruptive spam and thus annoying potential customers. A rigorous standard would be required to avoid perception of spam coupled with a feedback mechanism to measure effectiveness of the ad and determine limits of proper posting frequency... which means that marketing team would really need to be well-coordinated and dedicated.

Good thought, though.

Tsar_Gekkou · July 2019

Xbox NA has had Mournhold traders go up to 20K months ago with the exception of one or two 10K guilds. I've heard that some of them have gotten sniped with bids as low as 6 mil even though they say they have to bid 15 mil minimum, because of a certain guy who's been blackmailing them since they reportedly sell the excess gold for a lot of real-world money. But for those guilds that aren't selling gold, they're scared of other guilds trying to take their spot and have raised dues as a buffer. It's like a game of chess where if you take your eyes off the board, your opponent hits you over the head with it and then rearranges the pieces in their favor before you regain consciousness.

reoskit · July 2019

^ Hyperbole aside, this is the brave new world we'll be looking at every week with multibidding, the sort of bid raising that will hit everyone.

Hold on to your butts.

generalmyrick · July 2019

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

Are we the only server having this issue? 20k a week is absurd to pay for a trading guild. The only ones with enough gold to take the top trading spots on a weekly basis are themselves so who are they raising the prices in fear of?

This is blatant greed at this point. It's already well know alot of the profits get pocketed but now you're just making it obvious.

This is why Zos needs to rework the trading system. Zone chat is free remember.

leave the guild?

Fiktius · July 2019

I'm not surprised at all. Those guilds which are currently standing on competitive location and are intending to keep it, they need to adjust for what is coming (multi-bidding) and members are gonna notice it very quickly at first hand.
And what do they get out of this? Increased sale requirements/weekly fees to pay (depending of the guild/trader location/server platform) and of course some sort of "comfort" from the thought that their guild GM might be able to secure a bid from alternative location, if primary bid will be lost.

This is only a beginning. I'm pretty sure that several guild leaders are considering what kind of requirements would be required to keep up with estimated cost increases and eventually sooner or later more and more guilds will also increase their requirements, unless they want to start burning gold from guild bank/GM's wallet/rely much more on other kind of funding tactics. (Lottery and etc.)

It's simple: this question is about "adapt or die" and as a response of guilds we will see increased requirements everywhere.

therift · July 2019

For those of you who might be interested in a mathematical reason why trade guilds feel obligated to increase their bid pools, the Prisoner's Dilemma problem, which served as a basis for the development of Game Theory, may shed some light on Trader's Dilemma.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Substitute "Maintain Status Quo" for "Cooperate"
Substitute "Raise more capital for a 2nd bid" for "Defect"

Substitute "Win same kiosk" for "Serve 1 year"
Substitute "Win better kiosk" for "Go free"
Substitute "Win 2nd choice kiosk" for "Serve 2 years"
Substitute "Lose kiosk" for "Serve 3 years"

All the other rules of Prisoner's Dilemma match or closely parallel Trader's Dilemma, with the exception that Trade guilds have the capability to coordinate before the game is played (ie, place bids). Coordination, however, introduces its own dependent Dilemma matrices.

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

I don't think game theory is a frequent topic of conversation with video game developers. In my mind "that sounds cool" is the typical analysis supporting decision-making.

reoskit · July 2019

therift wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.

When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.

Edit: to tag @ZOS_PhilipDraven. Please see what @therift posted above. This is the very heart of the financial concerns raised regarding multibidding. Please remember that while the gold is fake, the time required to raise it is very real.

therift · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.

When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.

Agree.

GMs seem to have intuitively determined the correct strategy is to raise more bid capital, and that intuition is supported by math. Or logic. I guess Game Theory could be placed in either school. It's been many years since I had Game Theory class (an excellent elective for econ or MBA degrees), but it remains one of my favorite. I'm glad you find it interesting

Skwor · July 2019

therift wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.

When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.

Agree.

GMs seem to have intuitively determined the correct strategy is to raise more bid capital, and that intuition is supported by math. Or logic. I guess Game Theory could be placed in either school. It's been many years since I had Game Theory class (an excellent elective for econ or MBA degrees), but it remains one of my favorite. I'm glad you find it interesting

And for me the question often in my mind is why are changes implemented, so often in ESO, with a stated intent obviously in contradiction to establised and tested theories. This is especially true in the economic field as it applies to ESO.

therift · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

therift wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.

When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.

Agree.

GMs seem to have intuitively determined the correct strategy is to raise more bid capital, and that intuition is supported by math. Or logic. I guess Game Theory could be placed in either school. It's been many years since I had Game Theory class (an excellent elective for econ or MBA degrees), but it remains one of my favorite. I'm glad you find it interesting

And for me the question often in my mind is why are changes implemented, so often in ESO, with a stated intent obviously in contradiction to establised and tested theories. This is especially true in the economic field as it applies to ESO.

I've come to the conclusion that the video game industry largely runs on business principles that were in vogue in the 19th century. They start out as small studios of people who are expert in code writing and design, and if successful, rapidly expand those two disciplines or sell to a holding company. Somehow, video game companies never seem to go through the stage at which most companies hire experts in product management, marketing, and communications. Those duties often seem to be picked up by the 'gamer' founders, who have little to no experience or training in those fields. These positions persist long after the studio has grown into the multimillion dollar revenue behemoth that absolutely requires expert corporate management, not kids who are learning as they go.

Thus we wind up with ballrooms full of people expecting to see a new desktop release, based on the studio's marketing, but wind up seeing a release for mobile, and are ridiculed for being disappointed. Because a 'gamer' was in charge of marcom.

reoskit · July 2019

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

DragonRacer · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

My assumption would be yes.

I kinda always felt that way about dues. Whether your guild bank starts at 0k because no dues or everyone's starts at 7.5 mil (assuming 15k weekly x 500 members), you are all still starting from the same playing field. The difference comes from guilds who either charge higher or lower dues (but most of the competitive ones all seem to charge the same, and change at the same time) or who puts on better raffles/auctions or who has richer donors. The dues don't make the difference. All the other stuff does.

So, now it's an arms race of raising dues again... but if everyone is raising dues to the same level... is anyone really stockpiling more money for competitive advantage? The answer is no, not simply on the weekly dues alone and not with your fellow capital competitors who are all doing the exact same thing.

therift · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

I should have chosen a better word than 'advantage' since it implies an improvement over status quo. That is not accurate if bid pools are increased or if 2nd choice kiosks are won, since both outcomes are less desirable than status quo.

I would done better if I had explained the options like this:

While Maintain Status Quo is the least cost strategy, it carries a risk of obtaining the least desired outcome, since it only takes one guild to pursue the alternate Raise More Capital strategy to result in Kiosk Lost.

Assuming that at least one competitor will adopt the Raise More Capital strategy, then adopting the same strategy becomes the most 'advantageous' one, since the worst possible outcome is Win 2nd Choice while leaving open the possibility that the Win Same Kiosk outcome may also result.

That's the simple analysis, but the actual Dilemma matrix is much more complicated. We have far more possible bidders than the two Prisoners in the matrix I adapted, we many possible kiosk bid locations that ate more or less equal in desirability, and I ignored bid Choices 3-10, which could all be placed on 'prime' kiosks, meaning that there may be little distinction between winning 1st Choice versus 7th Choice.

This makes our actual Trader's Dilemma matrix for game theorizing far more complicated than the 2x2 matrix of Prisoner's Dilemma. We would need a spreadsheet, lol. And each matrix cell could have its own 'dependent' matrix representing the decision tree if any guilds coordinate thier bids.

So... the 'advantage' to which I alluded is an 'advantage' from placing more than one bid, in case 1st Choice is lost, because that is better than losing a single bid win-or-lose strategy.

At least... that's my thinking on my Trader's Dilemma game

therift · July 2019

You know, @reoskit, you can play Trader's Dilemma within your guild using in game e-mail to see how it might play out.

Here are the rules:

1) No limit on the number of participants. This simulates the variable number of bidders.

2) Each player has a budget of 10mill PlayerBucks. Each player may divide that budget however they wish, on as many bids as they wish, up to the game cap of 10.

3) Each player must submit his/her bid(s) to you in a single in-game email listing the location(s) and bid amount(s). For simplicity, ignore specific kiosk names. Location should suffice. For locations with multiple kiosks, permit players to submit multiple bids on that location up to the number of actual kiosks (eg 5 for Rawl'kha).

4) Set the deadline one hour after the game starts. This permits time to simulate behind the scenes bid coordination.

5) The top bid on a location from any player wins. For locations with multiple kiosks, award wins for the top bids on that location up to the number of actual kiosks (eg top 5 bids win on Rawl'kha). Ties are broken by the order in which emails are received.

Give a participation prize to each winning bidder

I think I'll try this over the weekend with my guilds. The results may prove enlightening (and interesting)

therift · July 2019

DragonRacer wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

My assumption would be yes.

I kinda always felt that way about dues. Whether your guild bank starts at 0k because no dues or everyone's starts at 7.5 mil (assuming 15k weekly x 500 members), you are all still starting from the same playing field. The difference comes from guilds who either charge higher or lower dues (but most of the competitive ones all seem to charge the same, and change at the same time) or who puts on better raffles/auctions or who has richer donors. The dues don't make the difference. All the other stuff does.

So, now it's an arms race of raising dues again... but if everyone is raising dues to the same level... is anyone really stockpiling more money for competitive advantage? The answer is no, not simply on the weekly dues alone and not with your fellow capital competitors who are all doing the exact same thing.

They are raising dues to stockpile more gold for at least a second bid that is reasonably competitive, especially now that ZoS is removing the fall-back 'ghost guild' option.

There is no way to enforce a consensus on not raising dues or not placing multiple bids, because it only takes one guild to defect from the consensus to snipe a guild adhering to consensus. The ability to place multiple bids combined with the removal of buying a kiosk if a bid is lost practically compels all competitive guilds to defect from consensus.

Those guilds which choose to maintain status quo with a single, win-or-lose bid are at a greater risk of losing a kiosk completely than before, since any guild which raises enough capital through increased dues/fundraising can take a risk-free shot of knocking the 'status quo' guild out of the game for at least a week.

And that guild may really suffer for the loss, since Guild Finder makes it easy for unhappy members to apply for membership in the guild that won the location. Those losing guilds will bleed members as if they were hit by Master Axes and Rending Slashes.

Multiple Bids
No 'ghost guild' fall back
Guild Finder

It's a triple whammy to the old way of running a trade guild.

GreenhaloX · July 2019

Given the track of history with ESO, 25K weekly should be around the corner. ESO (Mounhold) mafia guilds still going strong, I see.. ha ha ha

generalmyrick · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

also a fave game theory game of mine is "2/3 average"

short version = i have 5 dollars and the person who gets closest to {2/3 of the average of the numbers of the class} wins...
*pass out papers
*everybody puts a number they think will be closest to 2/3 average of everybody.
*turn papers in
*winner declared.

following logical extension = the best guess in the game is ZERO, because the players quickly surmise that their guess (average) was too low so start undercutting, the eventual result of everybody undercutting is reducing the guess to 0, (negative numbers now allowed)

HOW IT APPLIES HERE

AUCTIONS = BID WARS
fees and bids will ALWAYS go up because that's what we are in, a modified blind auction for guild spots. the only way to get better and/or win and/or play defense is to get more gold. we could have 1 bid or 100 million bids...the results are the same...

============
i am just curious what breaks or buckles first,
1. players throw their hands up and give up on guilds with crazy fees and therefore the system
2. or ZOS changes the system in a major way

therift · July 2019

generalmyrick wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

therift wrote: »

The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.

@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?

Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:

If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?

Edit: typo. tgif.

also a fave game theory game of mine is "2/3 average"

short version = i have 5 dollars and the person who gets closest to {2/3 of the average of the numbers of the class} wins...
*pass out papers
*everybody puts a number they think will be closest to 2/3 average of everybody.
*turn papers in
*winner declared.

following logical extension = the best guess in the game is ZERO, because the players quickly surmise that their guess (average) was too low so start undercutting, the eventual result of everybody undercutting is reducing the guess to 0, (negative numbers now allowed)

HOW IT APPLIES HERE
AUCTIONS = BID WARS
fees and bids will ALWAYS go up because that's what we are in, a modified blind auction for guild spots. the only way to get better and/or win and/or play defense is to get more gold. we could have 1 bid or 100 million bids...the results are the same...

============
i am just curious what breaks or buckles first,
1. players throw their hands up and give up on guilds with crazy fees and therefore the system
2. or ZOS changes the system in a major way

I would guess Option 1.

Every time guilds raise fees, that creates an opportunity for other guilds to offer a comparative kiosk for lower requirements and thereby siphon members from the higher requirement guild. Guild Finder makes this easier than before. The upper limit on fees is a function on the number of kiosks that may be locked up by top-fee guilds, the number of players active enough in trading to support fees, and the number of guilds that may win comparative locations on lower fees.

My thinking is there will be greater advantage than before to form cartels of guilds which agree to impose sufficient fees to ensure locking up as many of the top kiosks as possible. So long as the top cities are held, and as long as that fee revenue continues, the ability of lower-fee guilds to break the cartel by winning kiosks/defecting members is significantly curtailed.

If such a cartel were to be successful for a lengthy period of time, then option 2 might happen... at the glacial pace that ZoS responds to such issues.