Doubling Guild Fees (and more rumors)

barney2525

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 dont think think this is correct. I thought it was bid on 10 spots, receive 1 spot. If thats the case, you only need the amount of gold on hand that would pay for your highest bid.

Now, this does go on the understanding that you do not lose gold bid on spots you did not win. If you lose all the gold you bid regardless of getting the spot, then this whole system is nuts - IMHO

therift

Androconium wrote: »

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.

Quite true.

However, the fee discussion is on console. Consoles have fees because there are no add-ons to compile sales, therefore there are no sales targets.

VaranisArano

barney2525 wrote: »

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 dont think think this is correct. I thought it was bid on 10 spots, receive 1 spot. If thats the case, you only need the amount of gold on hand that would pay for your highest bid.

Now, this does go on the understanding that you do not lose gold bid on spots you did not win. If you lose all the gold you bid regardless of getting the spot, then this whole system is nuts - IMHO

Not quite. You have to bid a separate amount of gold on each of 10 bids, pay one bid, get 9 bids backs. Its not "one bid covers 10 spots."

So you have to pay for ALL your bids separately, i.e. you must have the ready cash for every separate bid you make. You get the gold back, but you must have the ready cash to make the bid in the first place. If you have a main bid of 1 million, and 9 bids of 200k each, you must raise 2.8 million total, so you can see where guilds are hiking their rates, at least for the short term.

Now, its possible that guilds will gather the ready cash for their extra bids in the first weeks and then be able to just reuse that money in later weeks since it gets refunded...but that's dependent on the level of competition for backup bid locations amd the competition faced for the main bid. So its possible that the guild in the above example could gather an extra 1.8 million and just reuse that week after week...until they face competition for their main spot and have to now raise their main bid, or compeition for the backup bids forces them to raise those bids in order to have a shot. If they have to raise their main bid to 1.5 million to defend their location and backup bids to 400k in order to compete if they lose their main spot (and then the guilds in their backup bid locations have to raise their own main bids to defend themselves) you can see where the need for ready cash can escalate.

Personally, I think the rate hikes are probably an overreaction. Most guilds need ready cash for Week 1 bids, but after that they'll mostly be able to reuse that cash from the nids they didnt use. However, that's very much assuming that the market stays fairly stable. If it doesn't, guild bids will start climbing higher in reaction.


Overall, what we see right now is a climate where guilds are going to face greater competition in terms of bids placed, which leads guilds to protect themselves in the only way they can - have more gold on hand to bid big on their main spot, defend against anyone using their main spot as a backup bid, and still have gold left over to make their own backup bids sufficient to win if needed.

This hurts smaller guilds in lower tier locations worse than anyone because their main locations are easy targets for backup bids by guilds who can easily afford larger backup bids. There's no limit to how many guilds can target a single trader, so these smaller guilds either have to defend themselves with a much larger bid or they have to pray there isn't a market shakeup that bumps a larger guild with a higher backup bid down to their main spot (More likely, a domino effect where a large guild displaces a lower tier guild, which wins its backup in an even lower tier, and so on.)

So guilds are raising rates in order to pay for what's essentially a war chest: defending their main spot with a big bid and paying for big backup bids in case they lose. The more market shakeups there are, the more guilds will feel they need even more ready cash to throw into bids.

Its a fantastic gold sink, from ZOS' point of view.

Urigall

OsManiaC wrote: »

You need to bid higher to maintain spot - this means you need more tax/fees.

Agreed OsManiaC.

Double-edged sword though. I'm in a guild with 50k/week minimum sales. Our GM regularly has to kick players who join, then fail to meet the target. The players who are kicked last less than a week because the target is rigorously enforced. I don't blame the GM - the targets are necessary so our guild can to remain competitive at this level.

Bump sales targets up and other traders will be unable (or unwilling) to meet the new target. In some guilds, a trader who was hitting 50k/week could now have to meet 75k/week or 100k/week. (in practice, most of our traders seem able to sell well over 50k/week)

Sales targets/fees rise, more traders are kicked out of the guild. Filling the empty spots is now even harder because the targets are more demanding.

GMs will be aware that higher bids are probably going to be needed - especially in the better spots. Those GMs will know they might have to raise fees/targets. They'll also know raising fees/targets means more traders might have to be kicked and less, new traders will be willing to join because of the new targets. If targets/fees rise high enough, big guilds might end up full of the higher end traders.

Btw, I often see you in the bank. I'll wave next time.

Palidon

This multi guild feature is a big mistake. My trade guild has already doubled it's requirements to be ready for the change. Old 5k in sales or 5k in lottery tickets each week. New 10k sales or 10k lottery tickets each week.

Instead implementing crap like the new Multi Guild Bid system ZOS needs to start working on the many bugs and performance issues plaguing their game.

generalmyrick

@VaranisArano i totally agree and couldn't hit the button enough time for every point i agreed with!

i would like to add a point for dissection!

this patch hurts the SMALLEST guilds!

what the bid does was give everybody 10 chances, so in effect it should see a lot less of,

15 member guilds with 100 items winning x refuge with 11k bids or just 10k

and a lot more of

"a more consistent distribution base upon the amount of gold a guild has to bid with!"

thus your concluding point

a wonderful gold sink! they made it so much more efficient! ahahahahaha

Androconium

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.

How much do you sell per week? Let's hear how you'll be really impacted.

Androconium

something that makes sense.

I joined four EU guilds:

• Trader in Elden Root
• Trader in Vivec
• No Trader.
• Trader in Windhelm

On Friday, I flooded all four with discounted mats and armour. I made close to 500K over the weekend.
I left all four guilds yesterday.
I didn't pay anything other than standard taxes and fees.

Someone mentioned that this was about console play. I don't see that in your post.

Some other facts:
EU traders in Belkarth all insist on 100K sales. If I make 75K by Saturday, I leave. They just put someone else back into my vacated slot. I save them the time of slacker cleanups. No-one cares, they take me back If they have slots.

if you are a casual trader who sells up to 50K per week, but expects a spot in a prime location (not guild) every week just on the chance that you might sell more, then sorry, but 'that's not how it works.
It's not the Guild seeking the best locations, it's the other players.

My guild that had no Trader missed again this week. However, it regularly has a trader in one of the roadside locations. these don't get much traffic, so prices are usually lower there. that's where I go for bargains; I buy off fellow guildies.

You don't sound like you take trading seriously to me.

Androconium

Urigall wrote: »

OsManiaC wrote: »

You need to bid higher to maintain spot - this means you need more tax/fees.

Agreed OsManiaC.

Double-edged sword though. I'm in a guild with 50k/week minimum sales. Our GM regularly has to kick players who join, then fail to meet the target. The players who are kicked last less than a week because the target is rigorously enforced. I don't blame the GM - the targets are necessary so our guild can to remain competitive at this level.

Bump sales targets up and other traders will be unable (or unwilling) to meet the new target. In some guilds, a trader who was hitting 50k/week could now have to meet 75k/week or 100k/week. (in practice, most of our traders seem able to sell well over 50k/week)

Sales targets/fees rise, more traders are kicked out of the guild. Filling the empty spots is now even harder because the targets are more demanding.

GMs will be aware that higher bids are probably going to be needed - especially in the better spots. Those GMs will know they might have to raise fees/targets. They'll also know raising fees/targets means more traders might have to be kicked and less, new traders will be willing to join because of the new targets. If targets/fees rise high enough, big guilds might end up full of the higher end traders.

Btw, I often see you in the bank. I'll wave next time.

This week I noticed all the guilds I join now have memberships of around 460.
That used to be 490s

Just an observation.

VaranisArano

Androconium wrote: »

something that makes sense.

I joined four EU guilds:

• Trader in Elden Root
• Trader in Vivec
• No Trader.
• Trader in Windhelm

On Friday, I flooded all four with discounted mats and armour. I made close to 500K over the weekend.
I left all four guilds yesterday.
I didn't pay anything other than standard taxes and fees.

Someone mentioned that this was about console play. I don't see that in your post.

Some other facts:
EU traders in Belkarth all insist on 100K sales. If I make 75K by Saturday, I leave. They just put someone else back into my vacated slot. I save them the time of slacker cleanups. No-one cares, they take me back If they have slots.

if you are a casual trader who sells up to 50K per week, but expects a spot in a prime location (not guild) every week just on the chance that you might sell more, then sorry, but 'that's not how it works.
It's not the Guild seeking the best locations, it's the other players.

My guild that had no Trader missed again this week. However, it regularly has a trader in one of the roadside locations. these don't get much traffic, so prices are usually lower there. that's where I go for bargains; I buy off fellow guildies.

You don't sound like you take trading seriously to me.

Consoles have a slightly different perspective on this than PC traders for two reasons.

1. Due to the way their accounts work, its much easier on console to make fake guilds to bid on traders, which is one of the reasons ZOS is implementing the multibid feature. ZOS is removing the ability for fake guilds to work at all, but multibid is supppsed to address the reasons why guilds felt the pressue to make fake guilds to bid with in the first place. This was a bigger issue on Console than PC. (Many of the console players we've heard from in other threads like the removal of fake guilds, but don't like multibid.)

2. Console guilds cannot have sales requirements because they lack the add-ons that let PC guild officers aggregate sales data. So Console guilds must fund their trader bids through fees, which is why their guild fees are rising. PC guilds have the option to raise flat fees OR raise sales requirements (which are generally more forgiving for players).


So when we talk about guilds raising their requirements, the impact is more pronounced on console because they don't have add-ons to do sales requirements.

reoskit

Androconium wrote: »

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.

I'm curious who the "you" is that you reference here. Perhaps, with a limited and static inventory, this is true. As a generalism, though, it does not play out.

If you have a large inventory to move, or you're running content that keeps you generating merchandise to sell, then this concept doesn't hold water.

Just know if your inventory is sizable and you continue to need to sell, you're going to have to reconcile the time needed to find a new guild, relist what hasn't sold, lose the listing fees you've already paid, etc. If that's worth it to skirt whatever dues/minimums a guild may have... do you and enjoy your guild hopping.

therift

reoskit wrote: »

Androconium wrote: »

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.

I'm curious who the "you" is that you reference here. Perhaps, with a limited and static inventory, this is true. As a generalism, though, it does not play out.

If you have a large inventory to move, or you're running content that keeps you generating merchandise to sell, then this concept doesn't hold water.

Just know if your inventory is sizable and you continue to need to sell, you're going to have to reconcile the time needed to find a new guild, relist what hasn't sold, lose the listing fees you've already paid, etc. If that's worth it to skirt whatever dues/minimums a guild may have... do you and enjoy your guild hopping.

Androconium posits an interesting strategy that apparently works well for him (?) and any other "burst" seller. From a console standpoint, we've always experienced a small amount of weekly churn. Since members must prepay for trader access, a small or even moderate amount of churn is immaterial. He's correct; his invite application will be accepted regularly if he's established a record of paying dues upon joining, and if there is a slot available.

The key metric is weekly cash flow for bids. Churn can be tolerated as long as cash flow is sufficient. With full rosters and several pending applications, churn is not an issue after a week of increased dues. At some point, if churn becomes an issue, fee payment schedules can be restructured to address this, recruiting can be re-implemented, and the time frame from join to dues payment can be reduced to as little as 24 hours. In the worst cases, the blacklist feature is available.

I appreciate his perspective. It gives me an issue to watch.

Deheart

I have never like the ESO guild and guild store system at all from beta to now as an on and off again casual player. I am only in all 5 guilds in order to sell my stuff.

I have no loyalty to any guild and for the life of me I cant even remember the names of any of the current guilds I am in. If guilds start raising prices like that, I will end up vendoring for convenience and let them kick me.

Honestly the system is a mess.

ezio45

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?

Ghosts as it came to stalls and bidding werent acting according to supply and demand. They are just acting as a filter for lower tier guilds. The supply and demand aspect came in for the actual guilds bidding in that tier. The multi bid system though is increasing the demand. As it is both forcing guilds in the tier above the tier your bidding on into your tier and also essentially doubling the amount of bids placed across the entire market.

As for snipes, you have this backwards. Ghosts werent sniping stalls. They were operating based on based on no guild in that tier bidding on that stall. So Guild (A) and guild (B) both bidding on stall (A) leaving stall (B) without a buyer. This is were a lower tier guild might have go lucky and up bid for a week. Ghost were filtering out those opportunities. All guilds in that tier though have already adjusted tier prices to not get snipped by ghosts. Snipes now directly come into play because if a higher tier loses they can use the money for that higher tier to bid out of a lower tiers price range or suggested price range.

randomkeyhits

Its actually an excuse to raise extra money for the guild.

A guild will only spend the same amount as they always have, the amount of their winning bid.

Any extra failed bids will be returned to them so this becomes an escrow which is carried over from week to week.

Once the escrow amount has been collected then the necessary fundraising is complete.

Now if many intend doubling their main bid...... but I seriously doubt it. Its possible they may start like that but the bids will be scaled back as they find their levels, probably at the existing levels.

VaranisArano

ezio45 wrote: »

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?

Ghosts as it came to stalls and bidding werent acting according to supply and demand. They are just acting as a filter for lower tier guilds. The supply and demand aspect came in for the actual guilds bidding in that tier. The multi bid system though is increasing the demand. As it is both forcing guilds in the tier above the tier your bidding on into your tier and also essentially doubling the amount of bids placed across the entire market.

As for snipes, you have this backwards. Ghosts werent sniping stalls. They were operating based on based on no guild in that tier bidding on that stall. So Guild (A) and guild (B) both bidding on stall (A) leaving stall (B) without a buyer. This is were a lower tier guild might have go lucky and up bid for a week. Ghost were filtering out those opportunities. All guilds in that tier though have already adjusted tier prices to not get snipped by ghosts. Snipes now directly come into play because if a higher tier loses they can use the money for that higher tier to bid out of a lower tiers price range or suggested price range.

Not quite.

With multibidding, you can't lose, then use the money and snipe. If you lose the bid, the money is refunded. But you can't add it to your other existing 9 bids. You have to have the gold upfront in order to make all your bids, no double-dipping.

But the effect of sniping (a higher tier guild out bids a lower tier guild) will still be present.

Say we've got lower tier Guild A, who makes a main bid of 1 million.

Then we've got higher tier Guild B, who makes a main bid of 3 million, and a secondary bid of 1.5 million on the spot of Guild A.

If Guild B loses their main bid, they will get their 3 million refunded in the bank AND win their secondary bid of 1.5 million against Guild A. Guild A has their 1 million refunded and is then pushed into one of their secondary bid spots, if they bid high enough. Neither guild can use that main bid money on a new bid until the next week, though they could buy an empty trader (if they can find one).


So you can't do snipes in exactly the way you described. You have to pay for all your bids upfront and can't double-dip on gold or use your refunded gold to add to a bid.

However, your guild can easily be pushed out by any secondary bid from another guild that's higher than your main bid IF that other guild loses their other main/backup bids.

As a result, lower tier guilds will face more guilds targeting them as their backup bids. It might not have a big impact if there is no market shakeup and everyone stays more or less on their same tier, OR it might be very hard on smaller guilds if a market shakeup forces guilds into their backup tier.

VaranisArano

randomkeyhits wrote: »

Its actually an excuse to raise extra money for the guild.

A guild will only spend the same amount as they always have, the amount of their winning bid.

Any extra failed bids will be returned to them so this becomes an escrow which is carried over from week to week.

Once the escrow amount has been collected then the necessary fundraising is complete.

Now if many intend doubling their main bid...... but I seriously doubt it. Its possible they may start like that but the bids will be scaled back as they find their levels, probably at the existing levels.

If competition stays low and we don't have many market shakeup that force guilds into lower tiers, then yeah, I agree. In a stable market, this should only have to be a one time fundraiser.

But if the market doesnt stay stable and guilds have to increase their main bid to defend their spot against backup bids while increasing their own backup bids...it'll be a mess.

barney2525

VaranisArano wrote: »

barney2525 wrote: »

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 dont think think this is correct. I thought it was bid on 10 spots, receive 1 spot. If thats the case, you only need the amount of gold on hand that would pay for your highest bid.

Now, this does go on the understanding that you do not lose gold bid on spots you did not win. If you lose all the gold you bid regardless of getting the spot, then this whole system is nuts - IMHO

Not quite. You have to bid a separate amount of gold on each of 10 bids, pay one bid, get 9 bids backs. Its not "one bid covers 10 spots."

So you have to pay for ALL your bids separately, i.e. you must have the ready cash for every separate bid you make. You get the gold back, but you must have the ready cash to make the bid in the first place. If you have a main bid of 1 million, and 9 bids of 200k each, you must raise 2.8 million total, so you can see where guilds are hiking their rates, at least for the short term.

Now, its possible that guilds will gather the ready cash for their extra bids in the first weeks and then be able to just reuse that money in later weeks since it gets refunded...but that's dependent on the level of competition for backup bid locations amd the competition faced for the main bid. So its possible that the guild in the above example could gather an extra 1.8 million and just reuse that week after week...until they face competition for their main spot and have to now raise their main bid, or compeition for the backup bids forces them to raise those bids in order to have a shot. If they have to raise their main bid to 1.5 million to defend their location and backup bids to 400k in order to compete if they lose their main spot (and then the guilds in their backup bid locations have to raise their own main bids to defend themselves) you can see where the need for ready cash can escalate.

Personally, I think the rate hikes are probably an overreaction. Most guilds need ready cash for Week 1 bids, but after that they'll mostly be able to reuse that cash from the nids they didnt use. However, that's very much assuming that the market stays fairly stable. If it doesn't, guild bids will start climbing higher in reaction.


Overall, what we see right now is a climate where guilds are going to face greater competition in terms of bids placed, which leads guilds to protect themselves in the only way they can - have more gold on hand to bid big on their main spot, defend against anyone using their main spot as a backup bid, and still have gold left over to make their own backup bids sufficient to win if needed.

This hurts smaller guilds in lower tier locations worse than anyone because their main locations are easy targets for backup bids by guilds who can easily afford larger backup bids. There's no limit to how many guilds can target a single trader, so these smaller guilds either have to defend themselves with a much larger bid or they have to pray there isn't a market shakeup that bumps a larger guild with a higher backup bid down to their main spot (More likely, a domino effect where a large guild displaces a lower tier guild, which wins its backup in an even lower tier, and so on.)

So guilds are raising rates in order to pay for what's essentially a war chest: defending their main spot with a big bid and paying for big backup bids in case they lose. The more market shakeups there are, the more guilds will feel they need even more ready cash to throw into bids.

Its a fantastic gold sink, from ZOS' point of view.

I'm not seeing the gold sink. IMHO a gold sink is paying gold which is then removed from the game - like buying an item from a Vendor. Archeage was rife with gold sink - it cost gold to process mats, to upgrade gear, or to do any number of normal tasks in the game. Even creating tradepacks to sell for gold Costs gold. That gold spent on these things disappears from the economy.

If the gold stays in the game economy its not a sink. Its just moving around and gold generated - such as doing writs everyday - is just increasing the amount of gold available in the economy.

What I'm seeing, with your explanation, is gold that is moved into banks, held by a very select few people. The gold isn't leaving the game, so it's not a sink per se. It's just being stored to be used for Bidding, but not Spending. It covers the bids that are Returned to the Guild.

Which just convinces me even more of my personal opinion - this system is nuts.

IMHO

VaranisArano

barney2525 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

barney2525 wrote: »

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 dont think think this is correct. I thought it was bid on 10 spots, receive 1 spot. If thats the case, you only need the amount of gold on hand that would pay for your highest bid.

Now, this does go on the understanding that you do not lose gold bid on spots you did not win. If you lose all the gold you bid regardless of getting the spot, then this whole system is nuts - IMHO

Not quite. You have to bid a separate amount of gold on each of 10 bids, pay one bid, get 9 bids backs. Its not "one bid covers 10 spots."

So you have to pay for ALL your bids separately, i.e. you must have the ready cash for every separate bid you make. You get the gold back, but you must have the ready cash to make the bid in the first place. If you have a main bid of 1 million, and 9 bids of 200k each, you must raise 2.8 million total, so you can see where guilds are hiking their rates, at least for the short term.

Now, its possible that guilds will gather the ready cash for their extra bids in the first weeks and then be able to just reuse that money in later weeks since it gets refunded...but that's dependent on the level of competition for backup bid locations amd the competition faced for the main bid. So its possible that the guild in the above example could gather an extra 1.8 million and just reuse that week after week...until they face competition for their main spot and have to now raise their main bid, or compeition for the backup bids forces them to raise those bids in order to have a shot. If they have to raise their main bid to 1.5 million to defend their location and backup bids to 400k in order to compete if they lose their main spot (and then the guilds in their backup bid locations have to raise their own main bids to defend themselves) you can see where the need for ready cash can escalate.

Personally, I think the rate hikes are probably an overreaction. Most guilds need ready cash for Week 1 bids, but after that they'll mostly be able to reuse that cash from the nids they didnt use. However, that's very much assuming that the market stays fairly stable. If it doesn't, guild bids will start climbing higher in reaction.


Overall, what we see right now is a climate where guilds are going to face greater competition in terms of bids placed, which leads guilds to protect themselves in the only way they can - have more gold on hand to bid big on their main spot, defend against anyone using their main spot as a backup bid, and still have gold left over to make their own backup bids sufficient to win if needed.

This hurts smaller guilds in lower tier locations worse than anyone because their main locations are easy targets for backup bids by guilds who can easily afford larger backup bids. There's no limit to how many guilds can target a single trader, so these smaller guilds either have to defend themselves with a much larger bid or they have to pray there isn't a market shakeup that bumps a larger guild with a higher backup bid down to their main spot (More likely, a domino effect where a large guild displaces a lower tier guild, which wins its backup in an even lower tier, and so on.)

So guilds are raising rates in order to pay for what's essentially a war chest: defending their main spot with a big bid and paying for big backup bids in case they lose. The more market shakeups there are, the more guilds will feel they need even more ready cash to throw into bids.

Its a fantastic gold sink, from ZOS' point of view.

I'm not seeing the gold sink. IMHO a gold sink is paying gold which is then removed from the game - like buying an item from a Vendor. Archeage was rife with gold sink - it cost gold to process mats, to upgrade gear, or to do any number of normal tasks in the game. Even creating tradepacks to sell for gold Costs gold. That gold spent on these things disappears from the economy.

If the gold stays in the game economy its not a sink. Its just moving around and gold generated - such as doing writs everyday - is just increasing the amount of gold available in the economy.

What I'm seeing, with your explanation, is gold that is moved into banks, held by a very select few people. The gold isn't leaving the game, so it's not a sink per se. It's just being stored to be used for Bidding, but not Spending. It covers the bids that are Returned to the Guild.

Which just convinces me even more of my personal opinion - this system is nuts.

IMHO

The Gold Sink happens when successful Guild Bids are removed from the game. That gold vanishes.

Now, if the market stays stable, and everyone more or less bids the same as ever, there will be no increased gold sink. Extra gold is taken out of circulation to make bids, but guilds won't spend any more than they already do.

However, the expectation is that the market will not stay stable and guilds will increase their bids (and hence increase gold removed through the gold sink AND increase gold pulled out of circulation for bidding) in order to defend and secure a spot, out of fear of losing their trader.

We'll see how it works out on Live, but anytime guilds increase their winning bid, ZOS gets an increased gold sink. Even having gold pulled out of circulation to be used for bidding can serve a similar purpose - its not like the gold generates interest or anything.

therift

"Even having gold pulled out of circulation to be used for bidding can serve a similar purpose - its not like the gold generates interest or anything."

If my commercial lending operation pans out... gold reserves will pay interest. There are oodles of opportunity with multi-bidding

Grimm13

Synnastix wrote: »

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.

This is why some many keep saying that ZOS needs to get the Botting issue under control. The bots keep artificially undercutting players who will have a greater hard time to make a profit.

Grimm13

therift wrote: »

"Even having gold pulled out of circulation to be used for bidding can serve a similar purpose - its not like the gold generates interest or anything."

If my commercial lending operation pans out... gold reserves will pay interest. There are oodles of opportunity with multi-bidding

Good luck with that, 100% risk with no in game enforcement. Just read up on Eve bank as why I and others would not use the service.

therift

Grimm13 wrote: »

therift wrote: »

"Even having gold pulled out of circulation to be used for bidding can serve a similar purpose - its not like the gold generates interest or anything."

If my commercial lending operation pans out... gold reserves will pay interest. There are oodles of opportunity with multi-bidding

Good luck with that, 100% risk with no in game enforcement. Just read up on Eve bank as why I and others would not use the service.

You haven't thought it through. A history of banking will help

Androconium

VaranisArano wrote: »

Androconium wrote: »

something that makes sense.

I joined four EU guilds:

• Trader in Elden Root
• Trader in Vivec
• No Trader.
• Trader in Windhelm

On Friday, I flooded all four with discounted mats and armour. I made close to 500K over the weekend.
I left all four guilds yesterday.
I didn't pay anything other than standard taxes and fees.

Someone mentioned that this was about console play. I don't see that in your post.

Some other facts:
EU traders in Belkarth all insist on 100K sales. If I make 75K by Saturday, I leave. They just put someone else back into my vacated slot. I save them the time of slacker cleanups. No-one cares, they take me back If they have slots.

if you are a casual trader who sells up to 50K per week, but expects a spot in a prime location (not guild) every week just on the chance that you might sell more, then sorry, but 'that's not how it works.
It's not the Guild seeking the best locations, it's the other players.

My guild that had no Trader missed again this week. However, it regularly has a trader in one of the roadside locations. these don't get much traffic, so prices are usually lower there. that's where I go for bargains; I buy off fellow guildies.

You don't sound like you take trading seriously to me.

Consoles have a slightly different perspective on this than PC traders for two reasons.

1. Due to the way their accounts work, its much easier on console to make fake guilds to bid on traders, which is one of the reasons ZOS is implementing the multibid feature. ZOS is removing the ability for fake guilds to work at all, but multibid is supppsed to address the reasons why guilds felt the pressue to make fake guilds to bid with in the first place. This was a bigger issue on Console than PC. (Many of the console players we've heard from in other threads like the removal of fake guilds, but don't like multibid.)

2. Console guilds cannot have sales requirements because they lack the add-ons that let PC guild officers aggregate sales data. So Console guilds must fund their trader bids through fees, which is why their guild fees are rising. PC guilds have the option to raise flat fees OR raise sales requirements (which are generally more forgiving for players).


So when we talk about guilds raising their requirements, the impact is more pronounced on console because they don't have add-ons to do sales requirements.

In my own defence, the OP has not mentioned the console issue in their original post.

Ackwalan

It's all so simple. Guilds are increasing their dues, because people will pay.

Jayman1000

Palidon wrote: »

This multi guild feature is a big mistake. My trade guild has already doubled it's requirements to be ready for the change. Old 5k in sales or 5k in lottery tickets each week. New 10k sales or 10k lottery tickets each week.

Instead implementing crap like the new Multi Guild Bid system ZOS needs to start working on the many bugs and performance issues plaguing their game.

I don't think their development time and resources works like such a trade off.

Androconium

reoskit wrote: »

Androconium wrote: »

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.

I'm curious who the "you" is that you reference here. Perhaps, with a limited and static inventory, this is true. As a generalism, though, it does not play out.

If you have a large inventory to move, or you're running content that keeps you generating merchandise to sell, then this concept doesn't hold water.

Just know if your inventory is sizable and you continue to need to sell, you're going to have to reconcile the time needed to find a new guild, relist what hasn't sold, lose the listing fees you've already paid, etc. If that's worth it to skirt whatever dues/minimums a guild may have... do you and enjoy your guild hopping.

"You" in this context is the OP and anyone else that feels pressured into handing over extra cash to retain a trader.

I have been continuously generating content by collecting mats or creating pots and glyphs. Dedicated trading is cheking in every couple of hours and replacing sold items and removing stock that isn't moving.

I wasn't clear: I leave usually after making my minimum. What I can't and won't do is struggle to keep sales up for one 100K and 2-4 50K guilds. I'd rather sell 50K in a 10K guild.

You say guild-hopping like its a bad thing. My logic is simple enough; if a guild can threaten to kick you, then there's no real loyalty coming from that direction, is there? Live by the sword...

I still cannot find a reason why anyone would need a trader in Belkarth for 52 weeks of the year. Every so often when you want to generate some cash for high end mats or kit, but not every week.

therift

Androconium wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Androconium wrote: »

something that makes sense.

I joined four EU guilds:

• Trader in Elden Root
• Trader in Vivec
• No Trader.
• Trader in Windhelm

On Friday, I flooded all four with discounted mats and armour. I made close to 500K over the weekend.
I left all four guilds yesterday.
I didn't pay anything other than standard taxes and fees.

Someone mentioned that this was about console play. I don't see that in your post.

Some other facts:
EU traders in Belkarth all insist on 100K sales. If I make 75K by Saturday, I leave. They just put someone else back into my vacated slot. I save them the time of slacker cleanups. No-one cares, they take me back If they have slots.

if you are a casual trader who sells up to 50K per week, but expects a spot in a prime location (not guild) every week just on the chance that you might sell more, then sorry, but 'that's not how it works.
It's not the Guild seeking the best locations, it's the other players.

My guild that had no Trader missed again this week. However, it regularly has a trader in one of the roadside locations. these don't get much traffic, so prices are usually lower there. that's where I go for bargains; I buy off fellow guildies.

You don't sound like you take trading seriously to me.

Consoles have a slightly different perspective on this than PC traders for two reasons.

1. Due to the way their accounts work, its much easier on console to make fake guilds to bid on traders, which is one of the reasons ZOS is implementing the multibid feature. ZOS is removing the ability for fake guilds to work at all, but multibid is supppsed to address the reasons why guilds felt the pressue to make fake guilds to bid with in the first place. This was a bigger issue on Console than PC. (Many of the console players we've heard from in other threads like the removal of fake guilds, but don't like multibid.)

2. Console guilds cannot have sales requirements because they lack the add-ons that let PC guild officers aggregate sales data. So Console guilds must fund their trader bids through fees, which is why their guild fees are rising. PC guilds have the option to raise flat fees OR raise sales requirements (which are generally more forgiving for players).


So when we talk about guilds raising their requirements, the impact is more pronounced on console because they don't have add-ons to do sales requirements.

In my own defence, the OP has not mentioned the console issue in their original post.

Quite true.

Androconium

VaranisArano wrote: »

<snip> But if the market doesnt stay stable and guilds have to increase their main bid to defend their spot against backup bids while increasing their own backup bids...it'll be a mess.

It isn't their spot to defend. This 'defence' mechanism is the problem.

Perhaps making it impossible to have the same location for more than one week at a time is the answer.

jainiadral

Just a random aside re gold sinks: The best and most reliable sink is having a good stable of in-game goods worth purchasing from vendor NPCs. Mounts, armor, fun little furnishing doo-dads, pets... Of course, that requires design and development time unlike this