Super Trader Backup Bids - unethical?

Grimm13

In the PTS discussion on the trader changes it became evident that some believe in locking out competition by using small guilds with little to no stock. You are mistakenly lumping in the ghost traders into this same group.

While the changes did fix the reseller/ ransom problem, it does nothing to stop anyone from bidding on a trader with no intention to stock it. Nor should there be a means testing to be able to bid beyond the player limit and having the gold. You could raise the player limit to get traders but that will quickly be met by those willing to create enough accounts to met it. It is also easy to fill your guild with new players and with the attrition rate in ESO you don't really have to worry about them sticking around.

A denial of market is not a good business approach but it is a game and some just want to win at any cost. Even if they are really losing gold.

Ackwalan

Burning through the guild gold, then selling crowns for gold just to get a trader...….winning???

marius_buys

Ackwalan wrote: »

Burning through the guild gold, then selling crowns for gold just to get a trader...….winning???

Super traders making half a billion in sales per week feels nada for throwing a million or two to get denial of trade

Urigall

marius_buys wrote: »

Ghost guilds are now basically creating a monopoly for super traders.

If that is correct, it's very unwise.

Players who are gaming the system might be, unintentionally, pushing us towards a global auction house. Think about it. ZoS direct game policy, often to the point of going against popular sentiment. The changes to the bidding system are an example of the latter. Yet, a few players are (seemingly) able to defy ZoS's attempts to stop the abuse of the bidding system. Embarrassing to say the least.

Getting rid of ghost guilds was a positive step. Has that really changed anything? On the one hand, yes - kiosks can no longer be flipped. On the other hand, the proxy guild system (or something of that ilk) is still around.

ZoS do seem to favour the guild system (ZoS described it as a "cornerstone" of the ESO economy) hence their recent changes to reduce the level of trickery. The changes would have tied up staff resources (for no increase in revenue) so ZoS clearly saw an issue they wanted to address. If the changes don't work, or have minimal effect, what's the next step? Global auction house? I hope we don't get a global auction house out of sheer exasperation on ZoS's part. But that's what we might get if a trader monopoly is being created.

If ZoS can't do anything to stop the abuse of the bidding system, what are their options? One of them is to admit defeat. Can't see ZoS doing that. If the abuse is of sufficient magnitude to justify further action, and ZoS refuse to admit defeat, what are their options? One of them might be a global auction house - designed in such a way that it is hard to manipulate.

Major_Lag

Urigall wrote: »

Players who are gaming the system might be, unintentionally, pushing us towards a global auction house.

And that's the best thing that could possibly happen to the trading in ESO.
I for sure would not miss the current trading system if it ever gets deleted from the game.

GAH would be a great thing, as long as the bought items are marked as bound so they can't be resold, OR at least they become non-sellable for a very long time - say, 3...6 months.

Urigall wrote: »

Yet, a few players are (seemingly) able to defy ZoS's attempts to stop the abuse of the bidding system. Embarrassing to say the least.

To be fair, the original problem (ghost guilds holding traders for ransom) has been removed entirely. It's simply not possible anymore.
And since ZOS is clearly willing to work towards eliminating such practices, I'd expect the next major update to introduce a new mechanic to counter this.

Urigall

Major_Lag wrote: »

To be fair, the original problem (ghost guilds holding traders for ransom) has been removed entirely. It's simply not possible anymore.

That was a good move by ZoS - credit where credit is due. There are still guilds with next to no inventory though. Might be the result of factors other than trickery. Hard to say. Still, ZoS did the right thing in removing kiosk flipping.

Major_Lag wrote: »

And since ZOS is clearly willing to work towards eliminating such practices, I'd expect the next major update to introduce a new mechanic to counter this.

That's my hope. After the system has been running for a while, ZoS will get a better understanding of any weaknesses, loopholes and so on. Give it time is probably the best approach.

marius_buys

Now watch were about to go into trader bids on pc eu again and if The Trade Organization Tamriel put in another ghost guild Im making a stink about it.

...and yes they are there again. Utter BS

ecru

I'm the GM of a trade guild who has not won a bid in two weeks due to these issues. I put in a bid about 3 times as much as the highest bid I've ever had to put in for our regular spot, and lost that bid to a guild with a bit over 100 items listed. I also lost every bid around our regular spot with a bid 2 times as much as our previous highest bid. Who took these spots? More tiny guilds with almost nothing listed. A lot of these traders which used to have small guilds who may have had about a thousand items listed are now taken by guilds with almost nothing.

This is basically making it impossible for many guilds to secure a trader. There are proxy guilds which are putting in 7 figure bids on many, many traders, screwing over every single guild who used to get those traders for much much less.

In a major city in one of the DLC zones with 6 spots, there are now only 2 legitimate guilds who hold traders, the other 4 being guilds with almost nothing listed. Before the patch, it was almost always the same small (but still active) trade guilds who held these spots, and now they're basically wasted.

Thanks for making it even easier for larger guilds to push out smaller guilds, I guess.

marius_buys

ecru wrote: »

I'm the GM of a trade guild who has not won a bid in two weeks due to these issues. I put in a bid about 3 times as much as the highest bid I've ever had to put in for our regular spot, and lost that bid to a guild with a bit over 100 items listed. I also lost every bid around our regular spot with a bid 2 times as much as our previous highest bid. Who took these spots? More tiny guilds with almost nothing listed. A lot of these traders which used to have small guilds who may have had about a thousand items listed are now taken by guilds with almost nothing.

This is basically making it impossible for many guilds to secure a trader. There are proxy guilds which are putting in 7 figure bids on many, many traders, screwing over every single guild who used to get those traders for much much less.

In a major city in one of the DLC zones with 6 spots, there are now only 2 legitimate guilds who hold traders, the other 4 being guilds with almost nothing listed. Before the patch, it was almost always the same small (but still active) trade guilds who held these spots, and now they're basically wasted.

Thanks for making it even easier for larger guilds to push out smaller guilds, I guess.

I have ha to double the bid on my SME guild and thr same thing @ZOS are you trying to destroy small guilds? You need to sort this issue out asap

StabbityDoom

ecru wrote: »

I'm the GM of a trade guild who has not won a bid in two weeks due to these issues. I put in a bid about 3 times as much as the highest bid I've ever had to put in for our regular spot, and lost that bid to a guild with a bit over 100 items listed. I also lost every bid around our regular spot with a bid 2 times as much as our previous highest bid. Who took these spots? More tiny guilds with almost nothing listed. A lot of these traders which used to have small guilds who may have had about a thousand items listed are now taken by guilds with almost nothing.

This is basically making it impossible for many guilds to secure a trader. There are proxy guilds which are putting in 7 figure bids on many, many traders, screwing over every single guild who used to get those traders for much much less.

In a major city in one of the DLC zones with 6 spots, there are now only 2 legitimate guilds who hold traders, the other 4 being guilds with almost nothing listed. Before the patch, it was almost always the same small (but still active) trade guilds who held these spots, and now they're basically wasted.

Thanks for making it even easier for larger guilds to push out smaller guilds, I guess.

What platform?

Urigall

Page and a half trader inventories isn't a new phenomenon - the same thing was happening under the old system. The players who grab secondary kiosks are now stuck with them. Under the old system, unsuccessful traders bit the bullet, stumped up, and commenced trading with the kiosk they bought from a kiosk flipper. Can't do that any longer, so the practice of buying secondary kiosks, and then not selling much from those kiosks, is becoming more obvious.

The next step is to address the practice of sparse inventories. Kiosk spots will still change hands, even if the sparse inventory practice can be stopped. But there is no "right" to permanent occupation of a kiosk spot: all that matters is free and open competition. Banning kiosk flipping has taken us a step down that road. Now we need to find a way of taking another step forward.

ZoS might want to introduce a penalty, if the trader fails to sell a percentage of the bidding fee by the next, bidding deadline. Failure to meet the figure means the guild can't bid next week.

Crafty players will simply buy the items back once they grab the kiosk. Good. They'll have to deplete yet more gold to do it; over and above the high price they paid for the kiosk. The more the secondary, kiosk buyers pay for their secondary kiosks, the more they will have to shell out in order to meet the minimum, weekly fee. Set the percentage low enough so it doesn't cause problems for genuine GMs, but is high enough to siphon off a chunk of gold from the secondary, kiosk buyers.

Proscribing kiosk flipping created an obstacle. The next step is to place further costs on buying kiosks and then selling very little. Refer back to ZoS's statement on the changes. One of the issues was "fewer traders populated with goods" I read that as a reference to empty inventories.