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)
-
Thorvik_Tyrson✭✭✭
A guild can still only win one bid. It doesn't matter how rich that guild is, even if they bid 100 million on every single trader, they still only win one of them.
But there is still not enough trader locations to go around for all of the trading guilds that want a trader. In the trading game of musical chairs, there isnt anywhere close to enough chairs on the floor for everyone that wants to trade. This is the point that I think you are missing. The number of bids doesn't really matter if there aren't enough chairs.1 -
Arrodisia✭✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issues
I agree with almost everything you said here. This bidding update isn't good for any type of guild. I really feel bad that my guilds will be a part of knocking out guilds, who are just trying to get a foothold in the trading system. The only thing I don't see happening much is smaller and/or newer guilds coming back with bigger bids. Since they will not have trading spots to earn more gold to make the necessary higher bids. More than likely, many of those guilds will bleed members when they are without traders, and eventually disband before they can raise more funds. I don't see any fun and/or fairness in this update for any of the guilds though.
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 Arrodisia on July 23, 2019 12:05PM1 -
Jayman1000✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isPlease present your arguments for why 10 bids are too much for you. You just stated 10 bids is too much but gave no explanation. I am definitely for this change. Offering 10 possible bids will ensure that guilds has all the means in the world to ensure a trader next week, even if it will not be their main desired trader, their can make tiered bids that progress from lower to highest. Making sure players wont lose their trader is obviously very good for the guilds and players; I see no negative effects from this. The only argument I have seen is small guilds with less funds getting scared they may lose to bigger guilds with more funds. Well guess what, that's how competition works, and it's been like that at all times. The amount of guilds that want a trader is not going to change either, you are still competing with the same amount of guilds, that wont change.Edited by Jayman1000 on July 23, 2019 2:25PM0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Jayman1000 wrote: »Please present your arguments for why 10 bids are too much for you. You just stated 10 bids is too much but gave no explanation.
I refer you to my previous posts on my Trader's Dilemma analysis and Urigall's discussion of his Bidder's Dilemma conundrum as well as his multiple bid ROI considerations.
In your rush to post your opinion, you skipped over all the arguments you claim were not provided, as well as the math. Please read the thread from the beginning, you will find your 'missing arguments' there.
2 -
Jayman1000✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think it it a great change as is
I refer you to my previous posts on my Trader's Dilemma analysis and Urigall's discussion of his Bidder's Dilemma conundrum as well as his multiple bid ROI considerations.
In your rush to post your opinion, you skipped over all the arguments you claim were not provided, as well as the math. Please read the thread from the beginning, you will find your 'missing arguments' there.
Should put those arguments in the OP. From your comments I have read through the tread I can say that it sounds like your guild is bidding out of your league? Sounds like you have to few funds to compete for your main trader while still securing enough viable secondary bids in case you lose the main one. So yes, of course the guilds with the biggest warchest wins; that's how auctions usually work.Edited by Jayman1000 on July 23, 2019 2:35PM0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Jayman1000 wrote: »
Should put those arguments in the OP. From your comments I have read through the tread I can say that it sounds like your guild is bidding out of your league? Sounds like you have to few funds to compete for your main trader while still securing enough viable secondary bids in case you lose the main one. So yes, of course the guilds with the biggest warchest wins; that's how auctions usually work.
My three trading guilds do very well, thank you. If you had read my comments, you would know that
2 -
Urigall✭✭✭Jayman1000 wrote: »Offering 10 possible bids will ensure that guilds has all the means in the world to ensure a trader next week, even if it will not be their main desired trader, their can make tiered bids that progress from lower to highest.
While I understand your point, I don't think the system will work like that.
The ramifications of the changes might seem obvious. They're not. No offence intended btw.
My hunch is whoever set up this system wasn't looking at short term effects. They were probably thinking a couple of months down the line.
After looking at the way this system could play out, I would call it clever. Fiendishly clever.
Edit to remove a stray comma.Edited by Urigall on July 23, 2019 4:56PM0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭My hunch is whoever set up this system wasn't looking at short term effects. They were probably thinking a couple of months down the line.
After looking at the way this system could play out, I would call it clever. Fiendishly clever.
Now you've got me thinking about more than bigger gold sink. Hmm.0 -
Enemy-of-Coldharbour✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesTerrible change. It hurts new and poor players. One of my guilds has already doubled weekly dues and quadrupled weekly sales requirements.
Silivren (Silly) Thalionwen | Altmer Templar | Magicka | 9-Trait Master Crafter/Jeweler | Master Angler | PVE Main - Killed by U35
Jahsul at-Sahan | Redguard Sorcerer | Stamina | Werewolf - Free Bites | PVP Main
Derrok Gunnolf | Redguard Dragonknight | Stamina | Werewolf - Free Bites
Liliana Littleleaf | 9-Trait Grand Master Crafter/Jeweler (non-combat)
Amber Emberheart | Breton Dragonknight | Stamina | Master Angler
Vlos Anon | Dunmer Nightblade | Magicka | Vampire - Free Bites
Kalina Valos | Dunmer Warden | Magicka | Vampire - Free Bites
Swiftpaws-Moonshadow | Khajiit Nightblade | Stamina
Morgul Vardar | Altmer Necromancer | Magicka
Tithin Geil | Altmer Sorceress | Magicka
Dhryk | Imperial Dragonknight | Stamina
Guild Master - ESO Traders Union
PC/NA - CP 2400+3 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issueswenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »The new up-date is around the corner.
Several threads and PTS feedback thread later, we have only heard one response.
They told us that the new multi-bidding changes are to address ghost guilds, insure availability, etc. The full response is here...SpoilerZOS_PhilipDravenZOS_PhilipDraven
✭✭✭
The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.
The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.
We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.
Once we had "The Council of Nirn", a round table group of GM's that ZoS would communicate with on ideas, etc. ZoS used to listen.
So, this is a last chance effort to show ZoS that IF they are going ahead with the bidding system, that 10 is WAY too many, IMO.
Yes, we want a solution to "ghost guilds", we need more tools for GM's to operate with, but this needs to be looked at BEFORE live.
Just my 2 Drakes.... What are yours?
Huzzah!
ty for posting the spoiler. at least there will be no reselling the slot and hopefully that is what most of them are after, a quick money making sale.0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesA guild can still only win one bid, and a guild can no longer disband and sell their spot, so I don't see the larger guilds buying up multiple spots. The ghost guilds can still buy a spot, but without the ability to sell it, that gold is just gone.
that could have been done long ago. the change should only have been that you couldnt resell your trader. imo, zos should have done that (and way back) and then let it play out from there. then regroup if needed. go simpler first.0 -
Skoomah✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭New players have no chance...
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486900/guild-vendor-cartel-monopoly#latest1 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I vote CakeCake leaves a better taste in the mouth than the present trading system, that's for sure!0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issues
I quoted this
as I will laugh hard when this guy realizes there will be no free kiosk run on sunday
i think by free he means traders not taken
Each guild still only wins one bid. Those two large guild will continue to fight over their preferred spot. Those large guilds rarely lose their primary bid locations. The large guild leaders have unspoken as well as spoken deals.
yes they do.
remember what happened in rawk a few wks ago? the one word names of those guilds spelled out a sentence. i can't remember what it was but i think it led you to believe betrayal in some manner. maybe the others broke one of those deals. i found it interesting. people were freaking and all i could think was: omg how much work and gold did this take to pull off? 1 -
JJBoomer✭✭✭✭✭when guilds become too big to fail, its time to knock em down a few pegs. i'm all for game improvements that do exactly that.0
-
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesUnder 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.
when you bid on a trader now and lose, do you get your gold back? how about after the change? if for some reason you dont get any trader at all with your bids, do you get all the gold back or will zos keep the highest bid?0 -
Urigall✭✭✭when you bid on a trader now and lose, do you get your gold back?
Afaik, unsuccessful bid monies are returned.how about after the change? if for some reason you dont get any trader at all with your bids, do you get all the gold back or will zos keep the highest bid?
That is a question I can't answer. I'd be surprised if bidders lost all their bid monies simply because they didn't win any bids.
0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭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.
and the more guilds that pack it up and retire, the fewer will be bidding on traders
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.
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.
elimination of the middle class.0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesMilwaukeeScott wrote: »Combined with this, I think it's a great idea
i cannot read that.
0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesPizzaCat82 wrote: »
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.
people who want to be in guilds join them. if you join a trader guild, dont expect socializing. it may happen, but dont expect it. i hardly socialize in my trading guilds. i trade. so i dont get why the devs would be mixing up these 2 things and how does giving these guilds so much power translate into getting more people into guilds and socializing? the reason these guilds have such a large warchest is most likely due to being able to sell those trader spots for more than they paid. zos has allowed them to do this for years. someone in this thread said that zos had determined letting them do that was for the best. i would like to see that link cuz i cannot fathom how allowing one guild to take advantage of another like that is for the best. and since when is a guild entitled to a backup slot? bid or go home.
0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issues"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'.
the ghost guilds they have can still win a trader. they just cannot flip it. and some people have lots to sell. i am in 5 trader guilds over 3 accts so i can sell my stuff. so, a bid by a ghost trader filled with main guild members wanting another trader is a possibility. of course this now means that guild is no longer a ghost guild per se, but it can get funds from the mother ship if it needs to as it has the same GL. (my head now hurts)0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesPizzaCat82 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.
not will. will continue to0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issuesThorvik_Tyrson wrote: »
But there is still not enough trader locations to go around for all of the trading guilds that want a trader. In the trading game of musical chairs, there isnt anywhere close to enough chairs on the floor for everyone that wants to trade. This is the point that I think you are missing. The number of bids doesn't really matter if there aren't enough chairs.
zos cannot just put down a trader for everyone who wants one. ideally they could and then just charge a set fee based on the location of the trader. very high for r/w, etc. and cheap for refuges. but, the i think the game can only hold so much "stuff". they might be able to increase traders a decent amt but may need to upgrade their servers and that costs money. just my thoughts.0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
the ghost guilds they have can still win a trader. they just cannot flip it. and some people have lots to sell. i am in 5 trader guilds over 3 accts so i can sell my stuff. so, a bid by a ghost trader filled with main guild members wanting another trader is a possibility. of course this now means that guild is no longer a ghost guild per se, but it can get funds from the mother ship if it needs to as it has the same GL. (my head now hurts)
The portion of my post you quoted that is in quotation marks is actually quoted from another player.
Elsewhere in this thread and the other on the topic, I have provided my take on the change with some math from game theory. I have never issued an opinion on 'ghost traders' other than to acknowledge that they have been a natural offshoot of cooperative bidding, and I agree that since the process of forming disposable guilds will not be erased from players' memory temporary one-week 'blocker' guilds remains a solid strategy.
0 -
Ackwalan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
i think by free he means traders not taken
yes they do.
remember what happened in rawk a few wks ago? the one word names of those guilds spelled out a sentence. i can't remember what it was but i think it led you to believe betrayal in some manner. maybe the others broke one of those deals. i found it interesting. people were freaking and all i could think was: omg how much work and gold did this take to pull off?
It took a lot of both. That's why in 5 years it has only happened once.
0 -
Iarao✭✭✭✭No, scrape whole idea and find another way to deal with said issues
The portion of my post you quoted that is in quotation marks is actually quoted from another player.
Elsewhere in this thread and the other on the topic, I have provided my take on the change with some math from game theory. I have never issued an opinion on 'ghost traders' other than to acknowledge that they have been a natural offshoot of cooperative bidding, and I agree that since the process of forming disposable guilds will not be erased from players' memory temporary one-week 'blocker' guilds remains a solid strategy.
sorry about that. sometimes when i reply i can't tell who is writing what if it is kinda long. i did read your math thing and found it interesting.0 -
Heyodude✭✭✭I vote CakeExpecting ZOS to achieve a better economy model is about as useful as taking viagra to attend a funeral. remember you all, we are just getting multicrafting after five years in light of an addon that had accomplished the same function with 4 lines of modified code. you should be expecting a useful overhaul of ESO's guild trader by 2056.1
-
NBrookus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭For each guild that loses all of the trader bids they posted, a dice roll puts a random 5 together in the capital city outlaws refuge if the alliance they claim, paying the highest bid they placed.
NOW those traders might be worth the 2 or 3 load screens for buyers to visit, and small guilds don't get shut out entirely from trying to participate in the system.0 -
agegarton✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I think it it a great change as isThere is no mathematical reason to be worried about large and powerful guilds being able to bid on 10 kiosks. No reason based in common sense either.
1. Subjectively, no one will bid on 10 kiosks. For a start it’s too much effort, but it’s also a very expensive process. It’s hard enough for a GM to manage bids for a single premium spot. We might see some large guilds bidding over 3-4 spots, but let’s be honest: big guilds want their primary bid to win, and they want an insurance policy if it doesn’t. If they’re only winning their 4th or 5th placed bid, they are doing something very wrong. That isn’t sustainable.
2. Objectively, only a single bid will win per guild, wiping out the rest of any bids placed. So, let’s say I bid 1m for my 1st option, and 800k for my 2nd option...... if my first bid wins, the 800k bid on the second kiosk is null and void - it’s as if I never placed that bid. And so on if I placed a third, fourth, fifth bid. Given how established the bid process is, it’s super unlikely that the new amendments to process will have any negative impact. In fact, as far as I can tell, its only impact will be positive for smaller guilds who want to get a foot on the first rung of the kiosk ladder, but right now get quickly frustrated as they can only bid once per week, often lose, and often quickly give up.
So in summary, I agree that the ability to place up to 10 bids seems OTT, but it’s nothing to be concerned about. I wonder if ZoS chose that number based on some future changes they might make. A kind of in-built future-proofing.0