Doubling Guild Fees (and more rumors)

generalmyrick

Help me out here...how does the upcoming 10x bid + no disbanding a ghost guild result in the following "rumors?" i have heard?

PLEASE USE MATH AND/OR LOGIC/ ECONOMICS or something that makes sense.

1. Doubling of guild fees? why?
2. i think @bmnoble said that some guild was raising dues to 100k? or something like that? so how/why would a guild do that or charge that? and why would a population base even entertain that?

its as if the entire game has gone nuts over a change, as what this game does every time there is a big change, but chill out!

however, i stand ready and honestly to read the intelligent justifications for doubling guild fees or raising them to 100k a week.

VaranisArano

The reason any guild would increase fees and/or requirements in that they need more ready cash.

Why do they need more ready cash?

1. To use the new multi-bid feature.
2. To defend their spot against other guilds using the new multi-bid feature.

First, guilds can bid up to 10 times...but they must have the gold to make those bids. So a guild who was bidding 3 million on their regular spot now must raise even more gold to bid on backup spots.

Second, other guilds can now use their spot as a backup bid. So take a guild who normally bids 500k for a lower tier city spot. Now, they face competition from more wealthy guilds who might be able to easily beat their regular bid with their backup. So in the event of the wealthier guilds getting shaken out of their regular spot, the lower-paying guilds risk losing to a wealthier guild's backup bid. So that guild might decide to increase their 500k bid in order to ward off wealthier guilds' backup bids in the event of a market shakeup.

therift

Dues are being raised by competitive guilds to (1) defend against risk-free snipe bids and (2) place a second competitive bid since there will be no resale kiosks available.

Simple logic. Mathematical gymnastics not required. If you would like a logician's analysis, I refer you to my "Trader's Dilemma" game theory posts in the other threads on the subject.

FlopsyPrince

And some still think this is a wonderful system.

This shows how "wonderful" it really is.

therift

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

And some still think this is a wonderful system.

This shows how "wonderful" it really is.

I do. I and my guildies raise enough cash to bid and win where we please. If there were a central trader, I'd have 24/7/365 coverage to cherrypick the best items to flip.

Either way, I win.

therift

generalmyrick wrote: »

Help me out here...how does the upcoming 10x bid + no disbanding a ghost guild result in the following "rumors?" i have heard?

PLEASE USE MATH AND/OR LOGIC/ ECONOMICS or something that makes sense.

1. Doubling of guild fees? why?
2. i think @bmnoble said that some guild was raising dues to 100k? or something like that? so how/why would a guild do that or charge that? and why would a population base even entertain that?

its as if the entire game has gone nuts over a change, as what this game does every time there is a big change, but chill out!

however, i stand ready and honestly to read the intelligent justifications for doubling guild fees or raising them to 100k a week.

You misread bmnoble's post.

He did not state the his guild was raising fees to 100k. He stated that in a healthy, competitive guild, some members donate far and above the minimum. He used "100k to one million" as an example. Amongst my three competitive trade guilds, I see several such deposits every week. This is made possible by hiring a kiosk in a high-traffic location as opposed to say, an outlaw refuge.

OsManiaC

generalmyrick wrote: »

PLEASE USE MATH AND/OR LOGIC/ ECONOMICS or something that makes sense.

You do not need math or economics. Simple thinking is enough.

1. For your regular spot - if it is good - now there will be 10x more competitors.
2. Most of these competitors will be losers of upper tier spot fights - which all have more money than you
3. You need to bid higher to maintain spot - this means you need more tax/fees.

Synnastix

Rising guild dues make me consider bowing out of the market in general. At some point you probably just aren’t going to make enough money to justify the fees unless you are doing huge volume sales or get really lucky on drops. Maybe the idea is that at some point enough people will bow out that the market will naturally come back down.

I and many others in trade guilds just aren’t active enough to keep up with 100k / week sales, which makes it really hard to justify 20k+ / week dues. My last few weeks I may have actually lost money in trade guilds, but I justify the loss by saying I pay for guild hall access to crafting stations and such.

ArchMikem

Sounds like this just hurts the average joe player.

kargen27

VaranisArano wrote: »

The reason any guild would increase fees and/or requirements in that they need more ready cash.

Why do they need more ready cash?

1. To use the new multi-bid feature.
2. To defend their spot against other guilds using the new multi-bid feature.

First, guilds can bid up to 10 times...but they must have the gold to make those bids. So a guild who was bidding 3 million on their regular spot now must raise even more gold to bid on backup spots.

Second, other guilds can now use their spot as a backup bid. So take a guild who normally bids 500k for a lower tier city spot. Now, they face competition from more wealthy guilds who might be able to easily beat their regular bid with their backup. So in the event of the wealthier guilds getting shaken out of their regular spot, the lower-paying guilds risk losing to a wealthier guild's backup bid. So that guild might decide to increase their 500k bid in order to ward off wealthier guilds' backup bids in the event of a market shakeup.

I don't see the top spots being much different than they are now. Maybe for a couple of weeks the guilds in the top spots will want to bid more to fend off a few hopefuls. Then after a couple of weeks things will settle back down. The top guilds probably are not going to be bidding on more than one top spot. They will bid on their primary location then bid on locations other than those in top spots. These locations will see a price increase but again I think after a few weeks the price will settle back down. When the top guilds get their prime location what they bid on the other locations doesn't matter.

It will be a frenzy for a while but things will settle in. The guilds that will be hurt are the ones that rely on getting a low cost spot. Competition for the out of the way traders will increase. It won't be the top guilds fighting for them though.

generalmyrick

im just imagining 300 people hailing 200 taxis to get to the hospital and if you miss on your first you dont go to the hospital...

versus

300 people hailing 200 taxis to get to the hospital and if you miss on your first you get 9 more tries to go to the hospital...

WE NEED A MINI GAME to practice.

Urigall

generalmyrick wrote: »

WE NEED A MINI GAME to practice.

There is one curve ball that throws a spanner in the works (apologies to the Society for the Prevention of Over Use of Metaphors) - some guilds placing really big bids on only one or two spots. No-one, except one guild, will know which kiosk spots might be targeted that way. The possibility of shots out of left field is going to make multi-bidding unpredictable.

Top kiosk prices will possibly rise in the short term. No big guild will want to drop within sniping range of guilds a little bit down the order. At the top, the big guilds have enough firepower to fend off all but their closest competitors. Informal agreements make sniping even less of a risk at the top.

Drop a big guild down 2-3 levels (as measured by kiosk price) and there are now a lot more enemies with enough firepower to have, at least, some chance of winning.

Cortimi

I don't really see much changing. You have central traders which are monopolized by a few guilds. Is what it is.

Then you have remote traders that smaller guilds grab.

No top trader is going to spend millions on a remote trader bid to screw over a little guy.

Why?

Because they will win the bid, and be stuck with having spent a million gold on a 50k spot.

Also, this is going to be pulling more gold off the server. If all trade bids magically doubled, then that is twice the amount of currency taken out of circulation.

The scarcity of currency simply won't support the inflation any more and prices will drop.

The other thing is, the trader system is a luxury at the end of the day. If it begins to implode, people will just stick to selling in zones.

Urigall

Cortimi wrote: »

No top trader is going to spend millions on a remote trader bid to screw over a little guy.

That's my guess. Not only will they be stuck with a low revenue guild for a huge outlay: they are then fighting - potentially -everyone next week. Their risk has just gone up several orders of magnitude.

GMs will want to try to keep the number of potential challengers to a minimum. That's why I think top kiosk bids will rise.

ezio45

generalmyrick wrote: »

Help me out here...how does the upcoming 10x bid + no disbanding a ghost guild result in the following "rumors?" i have heard?

PLEASE USE MATH AND/OR LOGIC/ ECONOMICS or something that makes sense.

1. Doubling of guild fees? why?
2. i think @bmnoble said that some guild was raising dues to 100k? or something like that? so how/why would a guild do that or charge that? and why would a population base even entertain that?

its as if the entire game has gone nuts over a change, as what this game does every time there is a big change, but chill out!

however, i stand ready and honestly to read the intelligent justifications for doubling guild fees or raising them to 100k a week.

Ok, so if we just had the ghost guilds gone, overall prices would stay the same or be lower. Reason being is that ghosts are no longer setting the minimum market prices. If ghost guild (A) was bidding 5m, we (say guild (B) and guild (C)) would have to match that as an "minimum entry bid". Then the actual competition with non ghost traders would being. With the ghost traders the competition would be set in a more natural and flexible fashion as opposed to being in a more fixed minimum spot.

The problem is the multi bid system is like the ghost guilds on steroids. Where the ghost guilds were matching the local competition of the area they were bidding in or bidding lower than that tier. The multi bidding system is making us match the prices in the tier above where were bidding, so we arnt sniped from guilds in that tier backups. Basically all tiers prices just got there minimum entry bid bumped up by 1 tier

therift

ezio45 wrote: »

The problem is the multi bid system is like the ghost guilds on steroids. Where the ghost guilds were matching the local competition of the area they were bidding in or bidding lower than that tier. The multi bidding system is making us match the prices in the tier above where were bidding, so we arnt sniped from guilds in that tier backups. Basically all tiers prices just got there minimum entry bid bumped up by 1 tier

I agree. This analysis is supported by game theory.

Jhalin

I’m willing to bet the dues are not jumping to 100k, I would however believe that sales req.s are jumping to 100k in some places where they might have been much lower before. Some players absolurely contribute more than that just through sales tax and the sheer amount they bid with in in-guild auctions and raffles.

generalmyrick

therift wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

The problem is the multi bid system is like the ghost guilds on steroids. Where the ghost guilds were matching the local competition of the area they were bidding in or bidding lower than that tier. The multi bidding system is making us match the prices in the tier above where were bidding, so we arnt sniped from guilds in that tier backups. Basically all tiers prices just got there minimum entry bid bumped up by 1 tier

I agree. This analysis is supported by game theory.

The ghost guilds cut people out of the market...by basically acting as an extra bid for a guild that could afford them...now everybody has extra bids.

In effect, the game now has less players because they can't snipe and disband...so there's no point.

Less players for same amount spots means...less demand for same supply?

ChunkyCat

My main trade guild updated its fees. Raffle fees went up to 20k from 10k. Sales fees went up from 25k per week to 75k per week.

Time to find a new one.

therift

generalmyrick wrote: »

therift wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

The problem is the multi bid system is like the ghost guilds on steroids. Where the ghost guilds were matching the local competition of the area they were bidding in or bidding lower than that tier. The multi bidding system is making us match the prices in the tier above where were bidding, so we arnt sniped from guilds in that tier backups. Basically all tiers prices just got there minimum entry bid bumped up by 1 tier

I agree. This analysis is supported by game theory.

The ghost guilds cut people out of the market...by basically acting as an extra bid for a guild that could afford them...now everybody has extra bids.

In effect, the game now has less players because they can't snipe and disband...so there's no point.

Less players for same amount spots means...less demand for same supply?

Actually, 'ghost guilds' did not create 'extra players' in the bidding game. The 'ghost guild' acted as a mechanism for one supplanted guild (lost bid to competitor) to take the kiosk which the 'ghost guild' won by displacing a third guild.

'Ghost guilds' were neutral actors; they neither added to nor took away kiosks from actual trading guilds in the aggregate, unless they set the resale price too high for the market. In that situation, (example: Lilmoth release week 1 on PS4NA), 'ghost guilds' actually reduced the number of bidding players by tying up those kiosks. The demonstrated effect is the opposite of your conclusion.

The effect of multi-bidding will primarily be to encourage higher bid budgets and fundraising with a consequential permanent increase in the bid amounts at all tiers precisely because the removal of the kiosk resale option and the ability to place risk-free snipe bids gives a tremendous advantage to the guilds with the biggest, continual war chests. This is clearly supported by game theory.


edit: added adjective phrase for clarity

generalmyrick

0_o

Ummmm...

So...people that set up guilds to snipe them from big guilds so they can then sell them to big guilds at higher prices...are not players in the game?

These non payers sold to poor guilds for discounts?

Is that air I'm breathing?

Idk rift....

Bexy

My guild is adding a flat fee while keeping the weekly sales requirement. Fortunately, I'm only in 1 trading guild so it's not too bad. I'm just a noob, not a guild leader and I don't know much about bidding for traders but these changes sound bad.

Wolfpaw

therift wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

And some still think this is a wonderful system.

This shows how "wonderful" it really is.

I do. I and my guildies raise enough cash to bid and win where we please. If there were a central trader, I'd have 24/7/365 coverage to cherrypick the best items to flip.

Either way, I win.

Idk why players automatically assume a central trader won't have account limit & restrictions, also worth a mention, I doubt you would be the only player picking the cherries available to everyone.

therift

generalmyrick wrote: »

0_o

Ummmm...

So...people that set up guilds to snipe them from big guilds so they can then sell them to big guilds at higher prices...are not players in the game?

These non payers sold to poor guilds for discounts?

Is that air I'm breathing?

Idk rift....

Yes, that is correct. A 'ghost guild' was a temporary kiosk holder. Your theory was that 'ghost guilds' added players to the bidding game, and your conclusion from your theory is that removal of kiosk reselling will reduce the number of bidding players, thereby shifting the demand/supply curves in favor of supply, which in turn should reduce bid amounts.

Since 'ghost guilds' were temporary kiosk holders, they had no net effect on the number of bidding game players. Therefore, your conclusions are erroneous.

There is an exception, which I noted above, which also contradicted your conclusion that 'ghost guilds' added bidding game players. The actual effect is a reduction in supply, which had the opposite effect from your conclusion as well.

Logic, my man. Supported by observation of actual results in the game.

bmnoble

therift wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Help me out here...how does the upcoming 10x bid + no disbanding a ghost guild result in the following "rumors?" i have heard?

PLEASE USE MATH AND/OR LOGIC/ ECONOMICS or something that makes sense.

1. Doubling of guild fees? why?
2. i think @bmnoble said that some guild was raising dues to 100k? or something like that? so how/why would a guild do that or charge that? and why would a population base even entertain that?

its as if the entire game has gone nuts over a change, as what this game does every time there is a big change, but chill out!

however, i stand ready and honestly to read the intelligent justifications for doubling guild fees or raising them to 100k a week.

You misread bmnoble's post.

He did not state the his guild was raising fees to 100k. He stated that in a healthy, competitive guild, some members donate far and above the minimum. He used "100k to one million" as an example. Amongst my three competitive trade guilds, I see several such deposits every week. This is made possible by hiring a kiosk in a high-traffic location as opposed to say, an outlaw refuge.

While that is true, not sure if it was in that post or one other, had a lot of these discussions about the bidding changes lately.

I know of at-least one guild that raised its weekly min to 100K a week, because we had 6 new members join one of the guilds I am in while I was online, who left that guild to join us and mentioned it in guild chat.

I never bothered asking which guild it was since I am already in 5 and just wasn't overly interested, all I know is it was one of the other guilds in Mournhold, that was some time ago after the bidding changes were announced, so not sure if they sustained those higher min dues or have since lowered it.

The big guild I am in, raised their min from 10K a week to 25K a week shortly after the bidding changes were announced, we lost some members at first but still close to full most of the time since then.

The other guilds I am in are smaller/mid sized and haven't changed a thing in terms of min weekly dues. Been a lot more auctions lately though in one of them.

generalmyrick

A group of people bid on a kiosk and win it. Then sell it to another guild. How are they not a player in the game?

Just by taking action and those actions resulting in more transactions...that resulting in the very changes we are talking about. No net effect....I see a very large one. This thread, the kiosk changes...etc.

therift

generalmyrick wrote: »

A group of people bid on a kiosk and win it. Then sell it to another guild. How are they not a player in the game?

Just by taking action and those actions resulting in more transactions...that resulting in the very changes we are talking about. No net effect....I see a very large one. This thread, the kiosk changes...etc.

I'm not going parse basic English for you.

I've concluded from the multiple threads you've started on this topic that you are less interested in information than in spreading rumors and propaganda. You are wedded to your viewpoint; facts and logic will not dissuade you.

Androconium

The LOGIC response:

No guild is owed a regular spot.
No player is forced to pay dues.

You can join any guild in a decent location now, with the guild finder.
You can sell most of your inventory in three days of dedicated trading.
You can leave that guild after three days with no penalty; or wait to be kicked.

Anything else is you, panicking.

generalmyrick

Parse basic English...

Okay. Let's block each other so my stupidity doesn't rub up against your invincible logic!

---

Moving on,

Medium and small guilds have stated over and over that they are tapped out of funds, they are not in big guilds for lots of reasons, etc etc. Bottom line is that fees aren't there thing and the little bids is all they can scrape together.

So, big guilds are raising fees to fight with each other...given that if they lose their first bid they have 9 insurance policies while working with their partners.

So, once again it does seem that a temporary fee increase would make sense if they are building a bidding pool.

However, anything long-term wouldn't make sense to this flimsy brain...

Tipsy

How about guilds being able to share a spot ?
The mayor owner gets fee reduction for each guild that is prepared to join their kiosk.
With a maximum of 3 guildtraders at one kiosk (max 3 guilds ;the mayor one and 2 guest guids)
Maybe their could be some kind of loyalty/partnership boon too

Androconium

generalmyrick wrote: »

Parse basic English...

Okay. Let's block each other so my stupidity doesn't rub up against your invincible logic!

---

Moving on,

Medium and small guilds have stated over and over that they are tapped out of funds, they are not in big guilds for lots of reasons, etc etc. Bottom line is that fees aren't there thing and the little bids is all they can scrape together.

So, big guilds are raising fees to fight with each other...given that if they lose their first bid they have 9 insurance policies while working with their partners.

So, once again it does seem that a temporary fee increase would make sense if they are building a bidding pool.

However, anything long-term wouldn't make sense to this flimsy brain...

YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO PAY ANYTHING

If you do, it's because YOU CHOOSE to. It's really nothing more complicated than that.
I have never paid guild fees. I either meets the sales target; or leave. It isn't that complicated.