Up-Coming Multi-bidding Changes
Maintenance for the week of March 24:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 24, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• Playstation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 24, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• Playstation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
-
Pevey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesGandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »
Fairly sure there were screenies of it in the PTS Multi-Bidding thread.
All The Best
That only shows your own bids, up to 10. Showing other guilds' bids would be a separate change that would likely generate even more commentary.1 -
Ackwalan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
let me fix that.
Big guilds will now always wins the bid. Those two large guilds will continue to fight over their preferred spot. Those large guilds rarely lose their primary bid locations. Even they lose, they will win a next good thing. The large guild leaders have unspoken as well as spoken deals. now they also now every area every point.
Small guilds will now rarely win the bid, as they now have more competitors - not the ones on their level, now the losers of middle levels.
This change has no good side for small guilds, and if I was a big guild, I thank ZOS for this- with this, it probably eliminates %5 chance big guilds losing spots.
They can only win one bid. When they get their preferred spot all their other bids are canceled. The smaller guilds will still win their spots for the same price they have been paying.0 -
Urigall✭✭✭Under the new system, think about what a top guild might have to do if it loses its top spot and wins a lower tier spot one week, but only by submitting well over the going rate. Wealthier guilds are the ones most likely to try this mechanism - covering as many bids as possible.
How does the demoted guild then deploy its capital next week? If the guild doesn't have enough gold to try bidding for its old spot AND be sure of securing its existing spot as a guaranteed second choice, decisions will have to be made. Risk throwing everything behind a bid to take back the old spot? (do we risk it?) Keep paying well over the going rate to, more or less, guarantee the lower tier spot? (how long can we afford to keep this up if weekly sales are now far lower?) Bid highish on lower tier spots as fallbacks? If gold is tight, that means less gold is available for the bigger bids. Is diluting the available gold prudent, given the risk that a competitor guild might then win the spot that we won this week? And, at the lower end of the kiosk market, there will be many guilds with just enough gold to mount a challenge. Unless, that is, the wealthier guild bids big money - thus paying well over the odds - to make sure of securing an even lower tier spot. Next week, that guild then faces the same dilemma of how to bid. How do we spread the bids to minimise the risk of being left with nothing?
As long as the demoted guild has plenty of capital to deploy, bids on the lost spot (the biggie) and the secondary spot (the one that cost well over market value) will be possible. But ONLY as long as the gold to keep doing so is available. If kiosk prices rise, revenue declines, and capital depletes too far, a top guild that finds itself demoted to a lower tier spot might, eventually, find itself facing difficult, strategy choices. Get it wrong and a demoted, top guild could end up with no kiosk some weeks.
Ten bids are now allowed, any one of which could be enough to remove the safety net of a lower tier spot, kiosks can't be resold and ghost guilds are gone. The demoted guild needs to get it right every time, all the time. A competitor only needs to get lucky once.
Yes, all guilds will be affected by the changes. Equally, some wealthier guilds might, eventually, find themselves faced with the dilemma of either trying to get their top spot back, or playing it safe by consistently paying over the odds for their lower tier spot. If a demoted guild is paying 2-3 million over the going rate every week, for a spot that generates lowish sales, how long can it keep that up? Only for as long as there is enough capital to fund the losses. Given a long enough timeline, the revenue and capital lines will cross over. This effect is going to suck a lot of gold out of the ESO economy.2 -
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I Don't Care, as long as my guild has a traderSo many people have weighed in that the PTS thread had long since been the length of TL;DR for the devs.
It's coming, we just have to deal. That what the devs are NOT outright saying: "suck it up".
Only more manipulation of the system, or empty guild stores, or some gross unintentional side effect, will get them to act now. And that'll be months down the line after the new system has had it's shakedown.
3 -
EllieBlue✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesI've resigned to the fact that this change will go ahead no matter what has been said. Right now, the only thing that weighs heavily on my heart is the financial burden that I will have to pass down to my guildies. They will be the one that will really feel the impact of this change. As the bid price rises weekly, the financial burden will be shouldered by guild members. Fees and donations will increase. There is no other way to raise gold in a legit way. Top tier location will carry top tier fees/donations. Maintaining a top tier location will be a very pricey exercise as we will be defending every single week against the unknown number of guilds. Please don't blame your GM and guild management for the increased fees/donations as this is the system that ZOS has given us and we have to do what we must in order to survive. The other option is we pack up our bag and retire.Nirn Traders GM (est 2015)
PC EU
Semi-retired. Playing games for fun. Super casual.8 -
Arrodisia✭✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesI've resigned to the fact that this change will go ahead no matter what has been said. Right now, the only thing that weighs heavily on my heart is the financial burden that I will have to pass down to my guildies. They will be the one that will really feel the impact of this change. As the bid price rises weekly, the financial burden will be shouldered by guild members. Fees and donations will increase. There is no other way to raise gold in a legit way. Top tier location will carry top tier fees/donations. Maintaining a top tier location will be a very pricey exercise as we will be defending every single week against the unknown number of guilds. Please don't blame your GM and guild management for the increased fees/donations as this is the system that ZOS has given us and we have to do what we must in order to survive. The other option is we pack up our bag and retire.
This is exactly one of the bigger problems with the 10x bidding change. Small, medium, and newer guilds will get steamed rolled into really bad spots, if they can even get a spot at all. Bids will go up across the board. Every guild new and old will try too guarantee themselves a spot, since any spot is better than none. Small, mid sized and newer guilds are already emptying their banks each week for bids. Where will all this gold come from when they now need to bid against many more guilds? Snagging a low key trader for a bargain price will be a thing of the past.
I really dislike the consequences of 10x's bidding as a whole. Just thinking about one of my guilds snagging up some other guild's spot, who could barely afford one bid, while we have 5 or 10 bids out there on each of our guilds, is horrible. It's like stealing candy from a baby. They're defenseless in this new system. It isn't fair or fun for the smaller, mid sized and newer guilds being pushed out, or for the larger guilds being forced to push them out of the trading system. ZOS is creating a system of them or us with this change, which is a player base disadvantage, as well as a disadvantage for ZOS. This is an MMO, we should all be playing the game together to achieve common goals, not being pushed into a situation to destroy trade guilds smaller than us, by bleeding them dry imho. I just don't see the fun in that for any side of this equation.
Unfortunately, imo the fundamental problem still exists after this change goes live. We have a lot trade guilds, and too little vendor kiosks in the game. 3x's, 5x's or 10x's bidding won't fix that. Since the kiosk system is here to stay, maybe ZOS could add a few more vendors to many of the existing trade areas, or near them, and more to all newer areas being added to the game as well imho. Anyway, I do hope. ZOS will reconsider to put a hold on the bidding changes until a better solution can be found.
I wish you all a pleasant day of gaming. Cheers.Edited by Arrodisia on July 22, 2019 10:35AM1 -
Arrodisia✭✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issues
They can only win one bid. When they get their preferred spot all their other bids are canceled. The smaller guilds will still win their spots for the same price they have been paying.
The bid gets canceled, "if" they got a spot somewhere else, but a guild still would have to outbid all of the remaining bids from the other guilds, who have no spot and chose to bid on that specific location. There are more guilds than spots already, and each new dlc brings new trade guilds into the mix. So, we're not short one spot only.
Each week many guilds run around looking for a spot after they lose their bids. So, there will be somewhat of a trickle down effect, and prices are unlikely to stay the same. Plus, the chance to lose a bid increases with more guilds bidding all over the place. A guild of any kind, even the larger ones, will take a spot in a lower traveled area before they end up with no spot at all. Unfortunately, we must also consider. Smaller, mid sized and newer guilds can't afford the luxury of bidding on more than one vendor. This bidding system will suck the life and enjoyment out of their trade guilds, when they should be having fun trading and growing together.
We also don't really need a larger gold sink within the trade system for the small percent of the richest players on the servers, if it will bleed the rest of the server members dry imho. If ZOS wants to implement a gold sink for those people, maybe they could offer more things for gold and crowns that interest those players instead of selling crown only items and upgrades. They could basically add any other gold sink that doesn't bankrupt the non super rich average players.
Best wishes and have fun in game. Cheers.
Edited by Arrodisia on July 22, 2019 11:40AM1 -
Streega✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, 10 is too many. How about 2-3
oh really? a guild can still only one bid? .... seriously? wow mind blown
do you know what is chain reaction or domino effect? so since you clearly missing a point lets compare today and future.
Today's status- X and Y fights over rawl, Z bids in Grahtwood, Q bids in greenshade
- X wins the bid in rawl, Y loses and waits for a next week, Z and Q is happy as they won
Future status- X and Y fights over rawl, X and Y also bids grahtwood, Z bids in Grahtwood and greenshade, Q bids in greenshade
- X wins the bid in rawl, Y loses but since he has power to bid in rawl, z in grahtwood will be no match
- Y wins grahtwood, good thing z knows this and wins against greenshade
- Q loses and goes QQ as it is a small guild now no one cares
Sorry, but today's status is more like:
X and Y fight over Rawl, each of them has at least 1 "fake" guild to secure a backup spot in Graht and Greenshade (which is also the Q and Z goal); X wins Rawl plus "fake", Y wins his backup, Q and Z got nothing.⊂(￣(工)￣)⊃ Don't-Care-Bear ⊂(￣(工)￣)⊃PC EU "House Tertia" - Friendly Guild for Mature Folks (housetertia.com)
PC EU "Priests of Hircine" - Awesome Guild for Friendly Werewolves (free bites!)
Master Angler2 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭We're already starting to raise more money. We must place one monstrously large bid and have enough capital reserve for at least one large, competitive secondary bid. There is no other choice. The guilds with the biggest war chests will win.
1 -
xxthir13enxx✭✭✭✭✭
✭I vote Cake
Aww...you beat me...lol
First thing I thought of when I saw the option...lol0 -
Marginis✭✭✭✭✭OtherI don't think that this will be the last change to guild traders, as the issue with bidding isn't something I think can be solved in one fell swoop this easily. Chances are, even if this fixes the problems ZOS wants to address now, players will find ways to exploit the system later. This is an iterative process. However, it also behooves us to see the practical consequences of this change on a wide scale (on live) before dismissing it out of hand I think. Something like this is hard to judge based on theory alone, as it involves more player psychology than raw number comparisons.@Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I don't think that this will be the last change to guild traders, as the issue with bidding isn't something I think can be solved in one fell swoop this easily. Chances are, even if this fixes the problems ZOS wants to address now, players will find ways to exploit the system later. This is an iterative process. However, it also behooves us to see the practical consequences of this change on a wide scale (on live) before dismissing it out of hand I think. Something like this is hard to judge based on theory alone, as it involves more player psychology than raw number comparisons.
The field of Game Theory was built upon logical solutions to a scenario that shares the same conditions imposed by trader multi-bidding. There is no mystery as to what will happen when this goes Live. Examine the solutions to the mathematics of the decision matrix, and you have a precise prediction of behavior on Live.,
The intuitive predictions of the majority are backed by science.
0 -
MornaBaine✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I vote CakeThe entire system is incredibly unfriendly to buyers/shoppers. If they are determined to keep it then what they SHOULD do is triple the amount of "prime location" trader areas by adding these new traders to other wayshrine areas that don't currently have them or, even better, expanding the "prime" areas that already exist. Stop making us run all over Nirn just to shop dammit ZOS!PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!3 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Repost of mine from another thread:
"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."
Over the weekend, I set up a decision matrix for Trader's Dilemma. My matrix examined a co-op of five guilds coordinating a primary bid in one preferred capitol city and a secondary coordinated bid in an alternate capitol city. Each outcome cell had a dependent matrix to examine defection from the co-op.
A second matrix was set up for Week 2 to examine changes to bid strategy in the event one or more bids were lost by the co-op in the primary city.
In short, the strategy for Week 1 that generates the largest number of successful outcomes is
1) Do not defect from the co-op
2) If three guilds win the preferred capitol, share resources in Week 2 to eliminate the interloping guild(s)
3) If three guilds win the alternate capitol, set the alternate as 'preferred' and restart
4) There must be twice as much bid capital as has been historically successful in the preferred capitol.
5) Bids 3-10 dilute resources; placing more than two bids, when working cooperatively, serves only to increase risk.
* Bid coordination dramatically improves success by permitting concentration of bid capital
* Sharing of capital enables retaliation against defectors and interlopers
* Multiple Bid structure encourages formation of a cooperative capital reserve.
Trader's Dilemma is a puzzle of logic with reliably predictable results. Get four guild friends, bid big, bid twice.1 -
Urigall✭✭✭Repost of mine from another thread
i read your analysis with interest when you first posted it. Read it a few times then started trying to see how both the level and the location of bids might have to be carefully chosen. It your your post that got me thinking about risk scenarios.
The need for co-operation will probably apply at the top end of the bidding tree. Once we get to mid-low levels of kiosks, the outcomes are too unpredictable to facilitate success through co-operation. At these levels, many guilds will be able to concentrate their firepower on one or two bids. Those guilds only want a chance to get A kiosk - they won't be bidding to cover the spread of risk.
And the bigger guilds might have to ignore the lower levels to focus on decent spots. But that introduces an element of risk too. The risk element will really kick in if a top guild gets bumped down to a lower tier. That's when what I call "the bidding dilemma" will be an important driver of next week's bid.
1 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
i read your analysis with interest when you first posted it. Read it a few times then started trying to see how both the level and the location of bids might have to be carefully chosen. It your your post that got me thinking about risk scenarios.
The need for co-operation will probably apply at the top end of the bidding tree. Once we get to mid-low levels of kiosks, the outcomes are too unpredictable to facilitate success through co-operation. At these levels, many guilds will be able to concentrate their firepower on one or two bids. Those guilds only want a chance to get A kiosk - they won't be bidding to cover the spread of risk.
And the bigger guilds might have to ignore the lower levels to focus on decent spots. But that introduces an element of risk too. The risk element will really kick in if a top guild gets bumped down to a lower tier. That's when what I call "the bidding dilemma" will be an important driver of next week's bid.
I agree.
I'm working from the perspective of a big budget guild competing for the most desirable handful of kiosks.
Further down the ladder of kiosk desirability, I think the number of potential competitors, the variance in bid budgets, and the difficulty in forming a cohesive co-op means Trader's Dilemma may generate too many outcomes to identify a dominant superior strategy - in short, small budget guilds may do best by going alone with a single win-or-lose bid, much as they have now... but with added, unmitigable risk from larger budget guilds placing a hedge bid on their kiosk.
I think you are spot on with your Bidder's Dilemma reactions in subsequent bids. Some small budget guilds will lose out to larger budget guilds which lost their primary bids. Both of these results creates more uncertainty, since the losing small guild must reevalute bid and location, while the larger budget guild must decide to play safe, repeat a losing strategy, or reevaluate bid and kiosk. Bidde's Dilemma will be particularly challenging for both these players.
I concur with the intuition of smaller budget GMs: the change adds risk without adding mitigation for them.Edited by therift on July 22, 2019 3:43PM0 -
PizzaCat82✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isNo one's going to be fighting over Outlaw Refuge guild traders. If it was safe before this change, chances are its safe after.
The main capital cities are going to have more bids. Their prices will go up. 20M-30M will be the new norm (at least on PS4 NA) Guilds are already getting their warchests ready, raising dues and holding raffles, donation drives, etc.
What will happen is that some guild will be able to use 3, 4, or 5 bids to secure a spot. Others will have 1 or 2 bids to do.. most will still only do one, or opt for 2-3 off capital trading spots.
Do we need 10? Eh, I don't think 10 will hurt. No one will lose out to someone's 10th spot, and its probably pretty rare that someone loses 9/10 of their bids and is forced into that 10th one. That's if they even use 10. Its an upper limit, which is fine.
The question is: How does this help? It stops ghost guilds, but makes multi-bids manditory. It increases the amount of $$$ we now need to secure a trader, but it stops one or two guilds winning two spots just to have a backup.
I don't see it as good or bad overall, but it is nice to not have to beg for someone's backup ghost guild spot.0 -
PizzaCat82✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isRepost of mine from another thread:
"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."
Over the weekend, I set up a decision matrix for Trader's Dilemma. My matrix examined a co-op of five guilds coordinating a primary bid in one preferred capitol city and a secondary coordinated bid in an alternate capitol city. Each outcome cell had a dependent matrix to examine defection from the co-op.
A second matrix was set up for Week 2 to examine changes to bid strategy in the event one or more bids were lost by the co-op in the primary city.
In short, the strategy for Week 1 that generates the largest number of successful outcomes is
1) Do not defect from the co-op
2) If three guilds win the preferred capitol, share resources in Week 2 to eliminate the interloping guild(s)
3) If three guilds win the alternate capitol, set the alternate as 'preferred' and restart
4) There must be twice as much bid capital as has been historically successful in the preferred capitol.
5) Bids 3-10 dilute resources; placing more than two bids, when working cooperatively, serves only to increase risk.
* Bid coordination dramatically improves success by permitting concentration of bid capital
* Sharing of capital enables retaliation against defectors and interlopers
* Multiple Bid structure encourages formation of a cooperative capital reserve.
Trader's Dilemma is a puzzle of logic with reliably predictable results. Get four guild friends, bid big, bid twice.
Mafia's are already set up and routinely sell ghost traders.
0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭PizzaCat82 wrote: »
Mafia's are already set up and routinely sell ghost traders.
Your post is somewhat vague on purpose.
My posts apply to Update 23. With Update 23, reselling of kiosks ceases to exist.
If you are alluding to the effect of being able to purchase a kiosk if a bid is lost under Updates 22 and earlier; as I stated in another thread, ZoS condoned this activity as beneficial until they were able to implement multiple bidding.
If you are merely recognizing the fact that some guilds have historically cooperated on bids, then multiple bidding will, in effect, reinforce that cooperation.
If you are upset by bid coordination, as I assume you are by the use of 'mafia' (there is no apostrophe in the plural form 'mafias'), then you must prepare yourself for an even greater level of multiple guild cooperation. Those who do will succeed, those who refuse due to pointless moralistic quibbling will not.
edit: typoEdited by therift on July 22, 2019 4:14PM0 -
reoskit✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesI've resigned to the fact that this change will go ahead no matter what has been said. Right now, the only thing that weighs heavily on my heart is the financial burden that I will have to pass down to my guildies. They will be the one that will really feel the impact of this change. As the bid price rises weekly, the financial burden will be shouldered by guild members. Fees and donations will increase. There is no other way to raise gold in a legit way. Top tier location will carry top tier fees/donations. Maintaining a top tier location will be a very pricey exercise as we will be defending every single week against the unknown number of guilds. Please don't blame your GM and guild management for the increased fees/donations as this is the system that ZOS has given us and we have to do what we must in order to survive. The other option is we pack up our bag and retire.
QFT. I agree with everything said here.
FYI - Before anyone tries to give multibidding credit for fixing kiosk ransoming (a form of ghosting), I'd like to point out that those two mechanics are independent of each other. Fixing the disbanding exploit is a standalone issue, which just so happens to be going live at the same time as multibidding.
ETA: You know, I've been thinking about this whole issue from top down and down up. Big guilds = huuuuge increase in bid prices. Small guilds = getting knocked out by the domino effect. But, even after weeks of thinking about this change, it hasn't really sunk in for me that middle tier guilds are taking it from both sides. From the top, we'll be using middle tiers as backups (and we've got the gold to win, my absolutely sincere apologies in advance) and from the bottom up, the reaching smaller guilds will keep knocking on the door with increasing bids until they figure it out. Legit, no one wins with this system.
Edited by reoskit on July 22, 2019 4:36PM7 -
MilwaukeeScott✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isCombined with this, I think it's a great idea
PS4NA
All I see is hate and rage from people who don't understand how to.....1 -
DragonRacer✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ETA: You know, I've been thinking about this whole issue from top down and down up. Big guilds = huuuuge increase in bid prices. Small guilds = getting knocked out by the domino effect. But, even after weeks of thinking about this change, it hasn't really sunk in for me that middle tier guilds are taking it from both sides. From the top, we'll be using middle tiers as backups (and we've got the gold to win, my absolutely sincere apologies in advance) and from the bottom up, the reaching smaller guilds will keep knocking on the door with increasing bids until they figure it out. Legit, no one wins with this system.
And as what is probably considered a middle tier guild since we're not swinging with the capital big boys but not starving in the Outlaw Refuges... yeah, I've already been mentally preparing myself for weeks for getting screwed from all ends of the angle as my new way of life in this game. *faceplam*
Gonna sign up for Amazon Prime to get free shipping on all my advanced orders of https://amazon.com/Ideal-31-2143-Drum-ClearGlide-Lubricant/dp/B00OMY2PT4
PS5 NA. GM of The PTK's - a free trading guild (CP 500+). Also a werewolf, bites are free when they're available. PSN = DragonRacer132 -
generalmyrick✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think it it a great change as is
Yes, ROI. Important implications arise from paying over the odds for a few weeks in a row.
And there's more to it than that. There are strategy issues arising from bidding, even with a budget of 60 million.
At first sight it looked like 10 bids would spell doom for small guilds. I'm not so sure. Initially, yes. Later no - might not be so clear cut as it seems to be.
10 bids could create problems for top guilds too. Not initially, but somewhere down the line.
Work out the bidding permutations, the need to cover bets (at cost) and the capital depletion effect of ROI...it gets less clear cut than we might think.
Here has been my experience for about 3 years bidding on the spots I bid on regularly.
I have lost bid of more than 500K
I have won bids of 100k! RARE
With a bid of 250k i can get lucky about 1 out of 3 times.
There is ALMOST ALWAYS A SPOT YOU CAN GET FOR 10K if you hurry and get lucky and where you choose to warp to.
Im not going to deep here, but couldn't someone just take 500k divide it 10 ways and bid on the bottom of the barrel spots?
I could tell my guild, (for we are small and patient and not thirsty for a trader EVERY week), that we are going to take a week or 2 off to build a bank roll to bid with...say build it to 2.5 million, then you could 250k every week on 10x spots.
This is good for big guilds too, they just don't know it, they are in the panic to change phase still. :-)"The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are a popular cultural meme, a metaphor representing the choice between:
Knowledge, freedom, uncertainty and the brutal truths of reality (red pill)
Security, happiness, beauty, and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill)"
Insight to Agree to Awesome Ratio = 1:6.04:2.76 as of 1/25/2019
Compared to people that I've ignored = I am 18% more insightful, 20% less agreeable, and 88% more awesome.0 -
Urigall✭✭✭generalmyrick wrote: »Im not going to deep here, but couldn't someone just take 500k divide it 10 ways and bid on the bottom of the barrel spots?
I thought that too, until I looked at the risk scenarios. It's worth reading The Rift's post (see above) to get an idea of the implications of risk in a multi-bidding system.
Bottom of the barrel spots as in totally crap might not be a problem for 10 x 50k bids. But any spot that sort of sells might become the equivalent of any port in a storm and thus factor into bigger guilds' strategies.
I thought this through for big guilds with a 60 million budget. It's possible that even bigger guilds might become a factor in lower tier bids. I'll try to type up my febrile thoughts later.
0 -
PizzaCat82✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as is
Your post is somewhat vague on purpose.
My posts apply to Update 23. With Update 23, reselling of kiosks ceases to exist.
If you are alluding to the effect of being able to purchase a kiosk if a bid is lost under Updates 22 and earlier; as I stated in another thread, ZoS condoned this activity as beneficial until they were able to implement multiple bidding.
If you are merely recognizing the fact that some guilds have historically cooperated on bids, then multiple bidding will, in effect, reinforce that cooperation.
If you are upset by bid coordination, as I assume you are by the use of 'mafia' (there is no apostrophe in the plural form 'mafias'), then you must prepare yourself for an even greater level of multiple guild cooperation. Those who do will succeed, those who refuse due to pointless moralistic quibbling will not.
edit: typo
Cooperative bidding and organization tends to concentrate power in the hands of very few individuals, and god forbid you are on the wrong side of those individuals. The only reason the devs are giving these guilds so much power is because the devs want more people in guilds and to be social in the game, equal opportunity be damned.
I don't condone ghost traders for the same reason, it tends to make powerful guilds even more powerful as it actively denies another trader a spot.
ZOS has stated they wanted to prevent that, which isn't condoning the practice, but what they wanted to encourage was guilds having a second slot. So they wanted people to have backups, but didn't want ghost traders to do it. So they said the bad part of that was bad, and they are fixing that. No one did anything illegal or against the rules. Just unsportsmanlike on one part of it.
There are some people who love the idea of guild cooperation but in the end its a zero sum game. If all the mafia gets their spots then those not part of those guilds go to off-capital spots. Its not a better situation for everyone. The mafia will always win at the cost of other players.
Trading isn't supposed to be PVP, but right now it most certainly is.0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭"There are some people who love the idea of guild cooperation but in the end its a zero sum game. If [guilds which cooperate] gets their spots then those [which do not] go to off-capital spots. Its not a better situation for everyone. [Cooperative guilds] will always win at the cost of [solo guilds]."
I modified your statement to remove bias in order to help you understand the egalitarian opportunity introduced by multiple bids and the elimination of reselling kiosks of disbanded guilds. The opportunity arises because by eliminating kiosk reselling, a wealthy guild is limited to winning a single kiosk, rather than winning two or more through 'ghost guilds'.
You are correct that kiosk bidding is a zero sum game, which makes it easy to apply game theory to develop a strategy. You are also somewhat correct that ZoS encourages cooperative play, but not in the nefarious way you imagine. My PvP guild, for example, has 500 active players, yet does not participate in hiring kiosks. So the argument that 'concentrating power' to encourage guild membership by providing trade guilds an advantage is support neither by logic nor by fact.
The ability for any guild to place at least two bids, of which only one may win, levels the playing field somewhat, since winning a kiosk now becomes more of a function of fundraising and less of a function of winning extra kiosks. Raw fundraising power is still a consideration, of course, but this can be enhanced by coordination among guilds via (1) non-compete agreements and (2) sharing of resources. Since more than one bid may be placed, cooperation is encouraged due to reduced risk from defection from the co-op. This is a move towards egalitarianism, not the move away that you incorrectly assumed.
Reduction of risk through a second hedge bid helps guilds of all budgets to varying degree. Cooperation enhances this. As you said, it is a zero sum game, since there is a limited number of useful kiosks.
Therefore applying strategy based on sound game theory analysis and building cooperation is the best course of action to take. Some guilds will lose just as they do now. Wealthy guild co-ops will continue to dominate; however, those wealthy co-ops now face risks from competing co-ops that may take risk-free shots at dislodging them. These outcomes are clear in a solid Trader's Dilemma matrix; it's not hard to map that out.
0 -
Urigall✭✭✭generalmyrick wrote: »Im not going to deep here, but couldn't someone just take 500k divide it 10 ways and bid on the bottom of the barrel spots?
As promised.
Hypothetical, bidding spread with a nominal guild budget of 30 million and possible ramifications for the wee guys. Assume the new system has been in operation for a few weeks, your guild won a top spot for 10 million and is drawing up the bids for next week. All figures are illustrative only. Ignore the arbitrary choice of 30 million: I'm talking about strategy.
Preferred kiosk - 10 million minimum. Secondary bids on 2 preferred back up kiosks - 8 million each. Residue for bidding on up to another 7 kiosks - 4 million.
Bid around 550k for each of the other 7 kiosks, or a variable amount to cover the potential for competing bids for some lower spots? Even spread seems best. No...wait...it's risky. Bid high on 2-3 lower tier kiosks. Which ones? Hell, let's really hedge our bets and bid 550k on 7 of the lowest tier spots.
Very low tier spots might become "any port in a storm" fallbacks. The amount being bid for them could be much higher than a small guild can afford. The risk of a big guild being forced to consider a lowest tier spot is - probably - low. However, it might have to be considered. If so, it's possible that the bigger guilds will place a comparatively high bid on lowest tier spots, just in case the worst scenario of losing the 3 preferred bids plays out. If the bigger guild decides to spread a lot of money across the other 7 bids, and loses its main bids, some small guilds won't get a look in. The latter is even more likely if several, big guilds decide to bet a very high amount on 2-3 lowest tier guilds...just in case.
I suspect the spread will be a lot more sophisticated the one I've laid out and the sums will vary. But the principles are the same: big guilds have the clout to displace the wee guys. Even if a wee guild bids 350k, a bigger guild could easily nab the lower tier spots with a 550k bid...because it's either that or risk having no spot that week.3 -
PizzaCat82✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isI modified your statement to remove bias in order to help you understand the egalitarian opportunity introduced by multiple bids and the elimination of reselling kiosks of disbanded guilds. The opportunity arises because by eliminating kiosk reselling, a wealthy guild is limited to winning a single kiosk, rather than winning two or more through 'ghost guilds'.
The "cooperation of multiple guilds" will still control who sells in the capital trader, and those with less money will continue to get less money elsewhere.
The power will reside in the hands of very few.1 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭PizzaCat82 wrote: »
The "cooperation of multiple guilds" will still control who sells in the capital trader, and those with less money will continue to get less money elsewhere.
The power will reside in the hands of very few.
I don't disagree, but I believe there will be a better chance to dislodge a co-op. It will take a well-funded co-op do so, however, so perhaps the net effect will be the same as you say.
*shrugs* It will be interesting to see how this plays out.0
https://youtu.be/rmuudxyM0t4