Multi-bidding so far - GM & Officers how is it for you?

jainiadral

reoskit wrote: »

Bam_Bam wrote: »

Interesting article on the trading system....

https://massivelyop.com/2019/09/11/tamriel-infinium-the-elder-scrolls-onlines-economy-needs-a-casual-friendly-option/

Interesting read. The article ends with the same refrain I keep seeing in the forums; can we talk about the "rich get richer" concept? I wholeheartedly agree with the "poor get poorer" part - no doubt. The shin-kick to small/mid tier trade guilds was the top of my day-one list of why multibidding is a terrible system.

I'm mystified, though, by this misconception that multibidding is somehow lining the pockets of top tier guilds.

Across the board, bids have skyrocketed. That includes, very much so, the top trading hubs. I can't speak for other guilds, but I know my bids in Mournhold are significantly higher than pre-multibidding.

Yes, top tiers may have the funds to bid strong on backups. But, I can't really recall many of us (at least on PCNA) losing our bids prior to multibidding; now, we're just paying more for the same kiosk retention rate.

Remember: just because we're spending more on our bids doesn't mean our sales are any stronger. I said it over and over again in the PTS feedback - no one wins with this system. We (all?) are spending more for our kiosks without the benefit of increased sales.

Are top tiers in the best position with multibidding? With a solid warchest and significantly increased fundraising, sure. That doesn't actually make this system a win for us.

One thing I've noticed with every massive overhaul is that everyone against it makes bogus assertions about another group benefitting from it. If a change hurts casuals, it must be good for the elites, right? And vice-versa. No one is ever comfortable with the concept that a change can be good for absolutely nobody.

Which mostly seems to be the case with multi-bidding.

dvonpm

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

dvonpm wrote: »

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

Fiktius wrote: »

'''

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

Love it, we are now winning a trader every week.

skyrim red shirts or what guild?

My guild is Skyrim Red Shirts, you can find us on our website and in the Daggerfall Outlaw's Refuge this week.

so u bragg with getting a guild trader each week while ur signature tells, that your guild isnt even about trading, not even as a side aspect, its not even mentioned that u trade in the last spot of the things u do....

Yes, how DARE those guilds, not even created as trading guilds, not even managed as trading guilds, not even labeled as trading guilds, and, most of all, not approved by the big conglomerates, how DARE they speak up, how DARE they bid on a guild trader, how DARE they operate at loss as long as they can, how DARE they step on your lawn. HOW DARE THEY ?
Because, this is your lawn, right ? Not your personal lawn, DDD, but the exclusive lawn of big, established, rich, powerful and influential trading guilds. Oh no, not even that. Not the guilds, but their GMs and officers (because of course, the normal peasant knows nothing about anything regarding bidding and trading). And how DARE ZOS implement changes to the system without seeking your approval first. How DARE THEY ? People these days...

It's about a time to take a chill pill.

Look, there is a massive difference in the perspective where these guilds are looking the situation.
I will use a few examples, so it should be easier to understand what I try to say with this:

Guild A: Big trading guild in A tier location.

Guild B: Medium sized trading guild in B tier location.

Guild C: Small sized trading guild in C tier location.

Guild D: A guild which is not focused on trading, yet do try to hire a trader weekly basis for providing a guild trader for their community on the side.

Now let's put a Sherlock hat on and consider which guilds are most impacted:

Does Guild A suffer most?
- Nope. They've existed for years. Most of them got strong & experienced guild cores with massive weekly sale numbers.
Not to mention existing warchest, which they've gathered during several years they've existed.
Do they have to bid higher? Very high likely. They may loose their prime spot if they bid too low, but their back up bids are high enough to deal with this inconvenience they have to deal with if they get pushed to secondary location. Otherwise they are quite fine and that's very unlikely to change.

Does Guild B suffer most?
- Probably not the most, but Guild B is now in the sandwich situation: Opportunist smaller guilds got a risk removed.
They are free to try to outbid another guild as primary bid and still place secondary bid at their previous spot at smaller tier zone. Meanwhile if guild A somehow manages to drop on secondary location, Guild B is more likely going to loose a spot and get knocked to secondary location. And guess in what kind of location back ups of this kind of guilds are located at?

Does Guild C suffer most?
- There, this tier is the one who will have to take the bullet. Small trade guilds which just try to have a trader somewhere, but have no serious way to deal with a competition, which comes from above via domino chain. Such a good place to be, right?
ZOS do not give a flying cow either, so weeks are turning out to be miserable for Guild C more often.

How about Guild D then?
- They are often bidding on location, which is not desired by actual trade guilds more often, so it's easier to win a trader in location like Outlaw Refugees. Multi-bidding is very good thing for guilds like this, so no wonder why they do like the change.

TL:DR summary:

Your guild type and location does have a massive impact how guild GMs are viewing multi-bidding results.
It's easier to be self-centered and just focus on own guild and their success, but when you take an objective look around you, multi-bidding might not be one of the brightest ideas developers had during this year.

You forgot about type E

Type E Guild

Typical everyday PVE social guild who get a trader at a loss for the good of their members (so far like type D), however they have access to almost unlimited funds to teach Type A a badly needed lesson in humility by removing them from their top spot for as long as they see fit if they forget that this is just a game and start coming on here throwing their imaginary weight around.

TL/DR
It's not advised to pick a fight with someone when you have no idea what they have on their back bar!

You mean troll guilds.

I think it's bizarre that you think intentionally making the game suck for hundreds or even thousands of people is teaching them a lesson in humility.

The troll guilds could keep the spots if they worked for it. They don't. It's not about humility, it's about the momentary high of a power trip. In other words, trolls.

You need to read the post that this was a response to.

I did. I've read every post in this thread.

wavingblue

reoskit wrote: »

Bam_Bam wrote: »

Interesting article on the trading system....

https://massivelyop.com/2019/09/11/tamriel-infinium-the-elder-scrolls-onlines-economy-needs-a-casual-friendly-option/

Remember: just because we're spending more on our bids doesn't mean our sales are any stronger. I said it over and over again in the PTS feedback - no one wins with this system. We (all?) are spending more for our kiosks without the benefit of increased sales.

Are top tiers in the best position with multibidding? With a solid warchest and significantly increased fundraising, sure. That doesn't actually make this system a win for us.

Maybe the whole goal was to get a lot more gold out of the game.

dvonpm

jainiadral wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Bam_Bam wrote: »

Interesting article on the trading system....

https://massivelyop.com/2019/09/11/tamriel-infinium-the-elder-scrolls-onlines-economy-needs-a-casual-friendly-option/

Interesting read. The article ends with the same refrain I keep seeing in the forums; can we talk about the "rich get richer" concept? I wholeheartedly agree with the "poor get poorer" part - no doubt. The shin-kick to small/mid tier trade guilds was the top of my day-one list of why multibidding is a terrible system.

I'm mystified, though, by this misconception that multibidding is somehow lining the pockets of top tier guilds.

Across the board, bids have skyrocketed. That includes, very much so, the top trading hubs. I can't speak for other guilds, but I know my bids in Mournhold are significantly higher than pre-multibidding.

Yes, top tiers may have the funds to bid strong on backups. But, I can't really recall many of us (at least on PCNA) losing our bids prior to multibidding; now, we're just paying more for the same kiosk retention rate.

Remember: just because we're spending more on our bids doesn't mean our sales are any stronger. I said it over and over again in the PTS feedback - no one wins with this system. We (all?) are spending more for our kiosks without the benefit of increased sales.

Are top tiers in the best position with multibidding? With a solid warchest and significantly increased fundraising, sure. That doesn't actually make this system a win for us.

One thing I've noticed with every massive overhaul is that everyone against it makes bogus assertions about another group benefitting from it. If a change hurts casuals, it must be good for the elites, right? And vice-versa. No one is ever comfortable with the concept that a change can be good for absolutely nobody.

Which mostly seems to be the case with multi-bidding.

Right now I see it as a system of forced punching down. Things will settle, but ultimately it won't be top tier and bottom tier guilds getting screwed out of spots the most. It won't be great for most of us, but I do think it will be harder for some of us more than others.

ETA: It really feels like the hunger games lol.

PizzaCat82

Honestly they just need to double the amount of traders in capital cities, remove the ability to be in more than one trader guild, and only allow trading guilds the ability to use the guild traders.

Prices on traders would go down really fast, which is what we all want.

StabbityDoom

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

Love it, we are now winning a trader every week.

skyrim red shirts or what guild?

My guild is Skyrim Red Shirts, you can find us on our website and in the Daggerfall Outlaw's Refuge this week.

so u bragg with getting a guild trader each week while ur signature tells, that your guild isnt even about trading, not even as a side aspect, its not even mentioned that u trade in the last spot of the things u do....

Yes, how DARE those guilds, not even created as trading guilds, not even managed as trading guilds, not even labeled as trading guilds, and, most of all, not approved by the big conglomerates, how DARE they speak up, how DARE they bid on a guild trader, how DARE they operate at loss as long as they can, how DARE they step on your lawn. HOW DARE THEY ?
Because, this is your lawn, right ? Not your personal lawn, DDD, but the exclusive lawn of big, established, rich, powerful and influential trading guilds. Oh no, not even that. Not the guilds, but their GMs and officers (because of course, the normal peasant knows nothing about anything regarding bidding and trading). And how DARE ZOS implement changes to the system without seeking your approval first. How DARE THEY ? People these days...

its not what i am on about. the problem is a more general one. how are people supposed to start exploring also other hubs outside the big conglomerates hubs and trading guilds there, if guilds which arent about trading push into those and decrease the offer of those hubs over and over again. people already complain enough, that there are too many guilds around which have barely something to sell. a serious beginner friendly trading guild is making maybe 500k or 1m in taxes with a nice offer and still cant defend against people beeing bored.

DDD, I don't usually disagree with you here, but they are taking up the daggerfall Thieves Den. That's not a good spot for any guild wanting to be a serious trading guild. Even the ones out in Dune or Lilmoth would be better. They aren't pushing people out of spots when taking the dens - heck, most weeks the dens don't even HAVE a trader because of bugs for the first day or two.

StabbityDoom

Iarao wrote: »

StabbityDoom wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

dvonpm wrote: »

I don't, and I hate it. I can't even use the words to describe how frustrated I am. We are getting it from those trying to move up and those getting pushed out of their usual spots.

Isn't this simply competition? The competition did better than you. How annoying it may be is it not simply a case of they won, you lost?

No it is simply competition x 10, which is a bad thing. We had simply competition x 1 before multi-bidding when you could bid on one spot

Now with multi-bidding, especially mid to low tiers have more competition coming at them from above, below and sideways - which is a bad thing.

Multi-bidding has meant that guilds have to pay more, bid more, work more etc.

Its not simple competition like pvp its real people experiencing more admin, more work and stress with the same crappy tools.

Look at trade hub such as Rawl-k (sp?) the Five Guilds holding the spots are pretty much in separate coalitions, of about 5 guilds each. Each one can coordinate their group to bid on 50 spots with no overlap within the group out of the 135 trader spots in the game. Each five coalition is doing the same thing but are gonna try to spread out, so collectively they have 250 bids.

Before they would concentrate on two maybe three zones but not all win. Now They can control 5 hubs if they bid correctly and because of the bankroll the 25 will win instead of having to sit out without a trader.

No matter well you dress it up and try to make it pretty. It's still a pig of a system. Too many of the games population is cut out of the possibility of selling outside of their guild much less as a lone player.

Discloser, I do favor a AH but think regional ones would be accepted better by the Stockholm Knights defending the current system. I also wonder if ZOS did not decide to screw things up so bad then say well you asked for an AH instead so that they save face. The one Dev response on PTS seemed to elude that they had more changes down the road, but again they are not talking.

Guild and Trader issues still needs to a discussion home on the forums. When will ZOS decide that it's finally time to do what they should have years ago and just make a section for us?

Yeah, no they aren't. Three of them have A sister guild, there is no coalition, there is no group of 5 guilds. And there's overlap. And they don't all bid all 10 bids. You're just spreading misinformation.

i am pretty sure of this as i have seen them advertise for members: one has dark in it's name and the other has spicy in it's name. i would lean to 5 guilds owned by the same gm. pretty sure they all trade at different levels, as in maybe 1 with no req dues and then progressing up. spicy is in mournhold i do believe. one of the darks used to be in coldharbour, maybe still is. then there is the torchbug alliance. oh and the cat named one. they each have min of 2 and i think more. oh and hi doomity

No, there's just Spicy and Spicy Life (I am in both). The darks all seem to have died out, the coldharbour one hasn't been there in months. The only one that remains is in Bal Foyen. The cat ones have Good/Great. Like I said, two at most.

Arrodisia

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

I mean as a community, on the whole, we strive for a common good right? We want the best for as many people as possible don't we?

LoL.
If you think what you so generously call the "mid-tier to low-tiers" guilds are struggling (which I believe they do) then let THEM speak and do not speak FOR THEM.
We just had one of them expressing how happy he was with the new system. Among a couple of others who say the opposite, but still.
I, too, think of the common good, and multibidding will be a great asset for those guilds in the long term (and remove this oversilly hierarchy of "tiered guilds and tiered spots").

They are speaking and the evidence is there. When we speak we are trying to explain it to you Anita.

We had a tier D person say it was good for him because he got an outlaw refuge. I gave him an insightful.

I prefer to form opinions based on evidence. At the moment top tier get stronger. Lower tiers get weaker. Nothing is likely to change this.

Good your voice is heard. You think this will be a good system in the "long run". Why you feel the need to keep picking up on others I don't know.

What I do know is hat whenever you enter this thread there is a flurry of conflict.

Have a good day.

That comment was spot on. Thank you. The lower, mid and higher tiers have spoken in countless threads. The higher tiers don't want this any more than the mid and lower tiers. Pushing smaller guilds out of their spots isn't fun. Many weeks later, the bids are still inflating, and they aren't going down. Each week it gets worse. GM's are doing everything they can to offset the costs to keep prices stable, but the system will burst soon enough, and it won't be in favor of any type of player. We're still seeing bored people sitting on a tier one spot with approx. 59 guild members and very little wares. Large guilds, allianced and non alliianced, who bid 3 times the kiosk's previous highest value still lose their spots, which knocks other guilds out of their already overpriced spots, and increases their vendor prices again too. It's a never ending system of constant bid inflation in all areas, and it's bad for the game economy, and bad for the game itself in the long term. Imho,the amount of multibidding needs a much lower cap say 2 or 3 bids. Honestly, this all could've been avoided, if there were an increase of vendors in hubs with enough room. It would go a long way towards fixing the problem. We have quite a few hubs in some easy access areas, with more than ample space, which could house double their current kiosks available without overpowering the game's original beauty.

Best Regards all

anitajoneb17_ESO

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

The higher tiers don't want this any more than the mid and lower tiers.

No, "higher-tiers" guilds want this LESS than any other guilds. Noone sitting on the top of leaderboards like to see the rules changed and the leaderboards wiped. But plenty of smaller gulds see it as an opportunity (of course they won't say it here).

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Pushing smaller guilds out of their spots isn't fun.

There is no such thing as "their spot" anymore. Noone "owns" a spot and that's the very good thing about multibidding. You're just very, very slow at understanding it.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Many weeks later,

Many weeks later ? It's been 4 weeks, maybe 5 ? When it's obvious that the results, trends and balance of the new system can only be proven and evaluated in the long term ? This is by no mean "many weeks later", and this formulation simply shows how biased, manipulative and centered around your own interests you are.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the bids are still inflating, and they aren't going down. Each week it gets worse.

Well, I am in 2 guilds, (a big one and a smaller one) and BOTH of them have won their usual spot again last night, and BOTH of them have reported that their (winning) bid was significantly lower than the week before. So, either I'm just in the best guilds ever with the most clever GMs in the entire server (which might well be the case), OR you're flatout lying here. Or you're again taking your own personal case as a generality. Take your pick.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the system will burst soon enough, and it won't be in favor of any type of player.

Burst ? What do you mean by "burst" ? I understand you want to scare everyone with catastrophy prediction, but what do you think will happen concretely ? I think guilds which will adapt will find their way and others won't, and they will be replaced by other guilds. I don't see any "burst" or catastrophy in that, and I don't see it causing any prejudice to the players in general.

Mannix1958

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Many weeks later ? It's been 4 weeks, maybe 5 ? When it's obvious that the results, trends and balance of the new system can only be proven and evaluated in the long term ? This is by no mean "many weeks later", and this formulation simply shows how biased, manipulative and centered around your own interests you are.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the bids are still inflating, and they aren't going down. Each week it gets worse.

Well, I am in 2 guilds, (a big one and a smaller one) and BOTH of them have won their usual spot again last night, and BOTH of them have reported that their (winning) bid was significantly lower than the week before. So, either I'm just in the best guilds ever with the most clever GMs in the entire server (which might well be the case), OR you're flatout lying here. Or you're again taking your own personal case as a generality. Take your pick.

Hmmm so its not enough data to show trends without being " biased, manipulative and centered around your own interest" as you stated but then you make the claim about your 2 guilds and draw conclusions about those countering you using that same data for your own purpose. What does that say about you and your own arguments in your very own words?

dvonpm

StabbityDoom wrote: »

Iarao wrote: »

StabbityDoom wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

dvonpm wrote: »

I don't, and I hate it. I can't even use the words to describe how frustrated I am. We are getting it from those trying to move up and those getting pushed out of their usual spots.

Isn't this simply competition? The competition did better than you. How annoying it may be is it not simply a case of they won, you lost?

No it is simply competition x 10, which is a bad thing. We had simply competition x 1 before multi-bidding when you could bid on one spot

Now with multi-bidding, especially mid to low tiers have more competition coming at them from above, below and sideways - which is a bad thing.

Multi-bidding has meant that guilds have to pay more, bid more, work more etc.

Its not simple competition like pvp its real people experiencing more admin, more work and stress with the same crappy tools.

Look at trade hub such as Rawl-k (sp?) the Five Guilds holding the spots are pretty much in separate coalitions, of about 5 guilds each. Each one can coordinate their group to bid on 50 spots with no overlap within the group out of the 135 trader spots in the game. Each five coalition is doing the same thing but are gonna try to spread out, so collectively they have 250 bids.

Before they would concentrate on two maybe three zones but not all win. Now They can control 5 hubs if they bid correctly and because of the bankroll the 25 will win instead of having to sit out without a trader.

No matter well you dress it up and try to make it pretty. It's still a pig of a system. Too many of the games population is cut out of the possibility of selling outside of their guild much less as a lone player.

Discloser, I do favor a AH but think regional ones would be accepted better by the Stockholm Knights defending the current system. I also wonder if ZOS did not decide to screw things up so bad then say well you asked for an AH instead so that they save face. The one Dev response on PTS seemed to elude that they had more changes down the road, but again they are not talking.

Guild and Trader issues still needs to a discussion home on the forums. When will ZOS decide that it's finally time to do what they should have years ago and just make a section for us?

Yeah, no they aren't. Three of them have A sister guild, there is no coalition, there is no group of 5 guilds. And there's overlap. And they don't all bid all 10 bids. You're just spreading misinformation.

i am pretty sure of this as i have seen them advertise for members: one has dark in it's name and the other has spicy in it's name. i would lean to 5 guilds owned by the same gm. pretty sure they all trade at different levels, as in maybe 1 with no req dues and then progressing up. spicy is in mournhold i do believe. one of the darks used to be in coldharbour, maybe still is. then there is the torchbug alliance. oh and the cat named one. they each have min of 2 and i think more. oh and hi doomity

No, there's just Spicy and Spicy Life (I am in both). The darks all seem to have died out, the coldharbour one hasn't been there in months. The only one that remains is in Bal Foyen. The cat ones have Good/Great. Like I said, two at most.

No, they have not died out.

BansheeVT

The only people I know who like the multi-bidding system are GMs of big trading guilds. All GMs I've talked to who lead smaller guilds say that they are struggling a lot. I also think that the bids on good spots have increased.. I don't want to say I "know", there's not enough data for that yet. But those increased bids and just usual sales make it pretty hard for every guild that isn't established yet or just doesn't have as much gold as the big guilds and I understand that many people are not happy with the changes ZOS made

anitajoneb17_ESO

Mannix1958 wrote: »

Hmmm so its not enough data to show trends without being " biased, manipulative and centered around your own interest" as you stated but then you make the claim about your 2 guilds and draw conclusions about those countering you using that same data for your own purpose. What does that say about you and your own arguments in your very own words?

I did not come here and write a post about bid prices going down just because it was the case for my two guilds.
Jutta came here and claimed that bid prices are rising for everyone (and will go on doing so until the inevitable apocalypse).
That's the difference. I'm not making my case a generality, I counter-argue her view that she makes sound like a universal truth.
Got it ?

dvonpm

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Many weeks later,

Many weeks later ? It's been 4 weeks, maybe 5 ? When it's obvious that the results, trends and balance of the new system can only be proven and evaluated in the long term ? This is by no mean "many weeks later", and this formulation simply shows how biased, manipulative and centered around your own interests you are.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the bids are still inflating, and they aren't going down. Each week it gets worse.

Well, I am in 2 guilds, (a big one and a smaller one) and BOTH of them have won their usual spot again last night, and BOTH of them have reported that their (winning) bid was significantly lower than the week before. So, either I'm just in the best guilds ever with the most clever GMs in the entire server (which might well be the case), OR you're flatout lying here. Or you're again taking your own personal case as a generality....

ETA oops.

Just as an fyi, PC NA Elden Root kiosks, at least two of them, current winning bids are 5x higher and only increasing. There is a bidding war, but it's not going back down to what it was. And can't fall that much because as soon as those guilds try to bid lower they'll lose.

I don't know what Rawl and Mournhold spots cost, but I would guess at or less then 5x Elden Root. This is week 4. It is not showing signs of abating yet. In fact, bids are still going up.

Reverb

Banshee1505 wrote: »

The only people I know who like the multi-bidding system are GMs of big trading guilds. All GMs I've talked to who lead smaller guilds say that they are struggling a lot. I also think that the bids on good spots have increased.. I don't want to say I "know", there's not enough data for that yet. But those increased bids and just usual sales make it pretty hard for every guild that isn't established yet or just doesn't have as much gold as the big guilds and I understand that many people are not happy with the changes ZOS made

No, the GMs of the big trading guilds do not like the multibidding system. I don’t know where you got that bit of misinformation, but it wasn’t from actually talking with any of the people you’re trying to vilify.

BansheeVT

Reverb wrote: »

No, the GMs of the big trading guilds do not like the multibidding system. I don’t know where you got that bit of misinformation, but it wasn’t from actually talking with any of the people you’re trying to vilify.

"vilify"? xD I'm not trying to vilify anyone. I'm just saying that the GMs of bigger guilds that I have talked to liked the system or were ok with it and just wanted some small adjustments, the GMs of smaller guilds were pretty much all complaining

Mannix1958

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Mannix1958 wrote: »

Hmmm so its not enough data to show trends without being " biased, manipulative and centered around your own interest" as you stated but then you make the claim about your 2 guilds and draw conclusions about those countering you using that same data for your own purpose. What does that say about you and your own arguments in your very own words?

I did not come here and write a post about bid prices going down just because it was the case for my two guilds.
Jutta came here and claimed that bid prices are rising for everyone (and will go on doing so until the inevitable apocalypse).
That's the difference. I'm not making my case a generality, I counter-argue her view that she makes sound like a universal truth.
Got it ?

But you do generalize when you imply that either you are in the best guild ever with the most clever GMs or that they are lying or that they are taking their own personal case as a generality. Your counter argument is exactly what you complain of. You can't say in one case there's not enough evidence then make a claim based on even less.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Mannix1958 wrote: »

But you do generalize when you imply that either you are in the best guild ever with the most clever GMs or that they are lying or that they are taking their own personal case as a generality. Your counter argument is exactly what you complain of. You can't say in one case there's not enough evidence then make a claim based on even less.

You didn't get it.
Someone comes up and says "all trees are sick".
I come up and say "nope, my trees aren't sick. But maybe that's because I'm a better gardener, and therefore an exception. But you're lying if you say that all trees are sick because mine aren't".
I did not say "all trees are healthy", therefore I did not make my case a generality.
Now if you can't understand logic as simple as this, I cannot help you any further.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Banshee1505 wrote: »

"vilify"? xD I'm not trying to vilify anyone. I'm just saying that the GMs of bigger guilds that I have talked to liked the system or were ok with it and just wanted some small adjustments, the GMs of smaller guilds were pretty much all complaining

LoL Don't worry, most of the anti-multibidding crowd here think they know everyone, know what everyone thinks, have spoken to everyone. Because they're "part of it", you see, they're GMs, and so la la. They also think that anyone disagreeing with them is "evil". That's how constructive and open-minded this discussion has become (or always has been).

I'm glad you mention that some GMs are OK with multibidding (whether happy about it or simply dealing with it). This proves again that opinions are far more diverse than some people in these threads make them sound.

BansheeVT

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm glad you mention that some GMs are OK with multibidding (whether happy about it or simply dealing with it). This proves again that opinions are far more diverse than some people in these threads make them sound.

Of course opinions are far more diverse and I also didn't talk to every GM in this game so there's a high possibility that some big GMs hate the new system or some smaller ones love it, there's no black and white. Just sharing my (limited) experience

Mannix1958

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Mannix1958 wrote: »

But you do generalize when you imply that either you are in the best guild ever with the most clever GMs or that they are lying or that they are taking their own personal case as a generality. Your counter argument is exactly what you complain of. You can't say in one case there's not enough evidence then make a claim based on even less.

You didn't get it.
Someone comes up and says "all trees are sick".
I come up and say "nope, my trees aren't sick. But maybe that's because I'm a better gardener, and therefore an exception. But you're lying if you say that all trees are sick because mine aren't".
I did not say "all trees are healthy", therefore I did not make my case a generality.
Now if you can't understand logic as simple as this, I cannot help you any further.

I do understand logic...but you didn't stop at your guild traders. Its how you framed what came after. The use of the word lying. A very poor logical argument when in this case one can be mistaken. Also, you obviously want to imply your case is universal with all of your other responses throughout the thread. I also belong to 2 guilds and the larger one has only once gotten its prime location and lost it every other bid despite making larger bids than before the new system. So are you lying? My small evidence supports her wild claim.

I get where you are coming from & have since the beginning. I happen to think the new process is still working itself out and there is a chicken little factor in some reactions but to say it has not caused a cost increase for some trade guilds and uncertainty is overstating the case.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Mannix1958 wrote: »

[to say it has not caused a cost increase for some trade guilds and uncertainty is overstating the case.

... but I've never said that.
I'm just countering people saying that it's increased for everyone and will go on increasing forever until the soon to come end of time. All based on their personal little piece of evidence !
It's simply too soon to make a reliable evaluation, and that's what I've always said. Yet some here still want to carry on whining and whining based on short term, individual pieces of data.

reoskit

Banshee1505 wrote: »

The only people I know who like the multi-bidding system are GMs of big trading guilds. All GMs I've talked to who lead smaller guilds say that they are struggling a lot. I also think that the bids on good spots have increased.. I don't want to say I "know", there's not enough data for that yet. But those increased bids and just usual sales make it pretty hard for every guild that isn't established yet or just doesn't have as much gold as the big guilds and I understand that many people are not happy with the changes ZOS made

*waves* GM of a large trade guild here; I'm fully against the system.

wavingblue wrote: »

<snip>
Maybe the whole goal was to get a lot more gold out of the game.

Of course it was. I (and many others here) have been saying the only winner in this system is the gold sink.

I've never had a problem with trade guild bids being the #1 gold sink in the game. I do take umbrage with the fact that they couldn't come up with any other clever gold sinks, so they just lazily put more of the burden on us and our guildies. Best new gold sink? Allow players to buy crown store items with gold, in addition to crowns. Hell, make it exorbitant; doesn't matter. Gold will bleed out of the system beautifully.

anitajoneb17_ESO

reoskit wrote: »

Best new gold sink? Allow players to buy crown store items with gold, in addition to crowns. Hell, make it exorbitant; doesn't matter. Gold will bleed out of the system beautifully.

That's what the golden/luxury furniture vendors are for.
Should they increase what those NPC sell... ? Compete with their own crown store ? Maybe, probably.... but the inventory limitations (on our characters and on our houses) make it less attractive. Maybe they will once they've solved the performance issues ? Yes, I'm being optimistic here, I know.

As much as I'm in favor of multibidding, I agree with you that the gold sink purpose was the main purpose of ZOS with this system, and I agree that it is a bit unfair for trading guilds. But that's also where the main piles of saved up gold sit in ESO : in the trading guilds and their members.

But is there really a better option for pumping gold out of the game ? Maybe they could add houses for gold. I don't think houses involve a lot of manhours. But there again, they compete with their own crown store.

This gold sink issue is not an easy one. How is it done in other games ?

generalmyrick

SINCE THIS HAS GONE LIVE ON PS4 MY SMALL GUILD HAS LOST

ZERO bids!

1st Sunday of 10 bid we lost our first 4 bids and got the fifth
2nd Sunday of 10 bids we lost our first 9 and got the tenth!
3rd Sunday of 10 bids we lost our first 2 and got our third!

I COULD surmise that my guild would have zero traders for 3 weeks but instead we now have had a streak going.
==============

Grimm13

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

This gold sink issue is not an easy one. How is it done in other games ?

Each posting to the AH is a Gold Sink with the possibility of every player being able to list items as well.

Item degradation so that equipment has to be replaced from time to time. Repair kits are not given freely so you pay for them or the repairs.

Actively searching & eliminating bot/ gold seller accounts.



Those are the biggest three that comes to mind right now. Notice how the first two spreads the sink out across the entire player populations more.

DragonRacer

generalmyrick wrote: »

SINCE THIS HAS GONE LIVE ON PS4 MY SMALL GUILD HAS LOST

ZERO bids!

1st Sunday of 10 bid we lost our first 4 bids and got the fifth
2nd Sunday of 10 bids we lost our first 9 and got the tenth!
3rd Sunday of 10 bids we lost our first 2 and got our third!

I COULD surmise that my guild would have zero traders for 3 weeks but instead we now have had a streak going.
==============

Opposite boat, but same basic scenario so far.

Large donation-based guild... have lost zero bids, technically.

1st Sunday - won primary bid
2nd Sunday - won primary bid
3rd Sunday - lost first and 2nd bids (and knew it might happen, was being exploratory in pricing), won 3rd and so landed in a decent town. Not great, and a few rumbles from guildies for not being where we were recently, but can make course correction for next week, most likely.

So, multi-bidding saved my bacon from potentially not having a trader at all, while allowing me to explore floors and ceilings in various areas.

Arrodisia

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

The higher tiers don't want this any more than the mid and lower tiers.

No, "higher-tiers" guilds want this LESS than any other guilds. Noone sitting on the top of leaderboards like to see the rules changed and the leaderboards wiped. But plenty of smaller gulds see it as an opportunity (of course they won't say it here).

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Pushing smaller guilds out of their spots isn't fun.

There is no such thing as "their spot" anymore. Noone "owns" a spot and that's the very good thing about multibidding. You're just very, very slow at understanding it.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Many weeks later,

Many weeks later ? It's been 4 weeks, maybe 5 ? When it's obvious that the results, trends and balance of the new system can only be proven and evaluated in the long term ? This is by no mean "many weeks later", and this formulation simply shows how biased, manipulative and centered around your own interests you are.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the bids are still inflating, and they aren't going down. Each week it gets worse.

Well, I am in 2 guilds, (a big one and a smaller one) and BOTH of them have won their usual spot again last night, and BOTH of them have reported that their (winning) bid was significantly lower than the week before. So, either I'm just in the best guilds ever with the most clever GMs in the entire server (which might well be the case), OR you're flatout lying here. Or you're again taking your own personal case as a generality. Take your pick.

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

the system will burst soon enough, and it won't be in favor of any type of player.

Burst ? What do you mean by "burst" ? I understand you want to scare everyone with catastrophy prediction, but what do you think will happen concretely ? I think guilds which will adapt will find their way and others won't, and they will be replaced by other guilds. I don't see any "burst" or catastrophy in that, and I don't see it causing any prejudice to the players in general.

I didn't respond to your last message for me, because I ignored you after the baseless attacks you launched on some of the trade gm's in previous threads. I didn't say you can have no opinion either. Yes 5+weeks qualifies as many weeks. A trend can be seen. I never said they should change it right now this week. You aren't a gm. You don't hear the complaints, and concerns direct from most of the server GM's, like we do. I spoke the truth here. You insulted me for doing so, calling me a liar. With zero proof of any such thing once again, just like you did to the other GM's in the last few threads. If anyone is being dramatic and disruptive in these forums, it's you. So, I'm sorry if I don't have time to be trolled, and I'm not falling for the bait. I, like most other players here, came here "today" to discuss the issue with other players, who can agree and disagree in a healthy way. I gave a couple of positive suggestions, which is what ZOS wants to see from us. ZOS can speak for themselves on how they want to handle things.

Best Regards

pelle412

Reliable gold sinks have the benefit of keeping inflation really low. The cost of most things on traders isn't much different than it was a few years ago. Prices may ebb and flow but overall they seem to remain stable. The guild trader bidding has been very successful at this.

Other things such as repair kits and repair costs are tiny and largely insignificant gold sinks. If you do crafting writs every day you'll eventually drown in repair kits and can build skyscrapers out of them.

An AH could be a gold sink if a big enough portion of the sale just vanishes into the ether but that may *** off a lot of sellers.

Grimm13

pelle412 wrote: »

Reliable gold sinks have the benefit of keeping inflation really low. The cost of most things on traders isn't much different than it was a few years ago. Prices may ebb and flow but overall they seem to remain stable. The guild trader bidding has been very successful at this.

Other things such as repair kits and repair costs are tiny and largely insignificant gold sinks. If you do crafting writs every day you'll eventually drown in repair kits and can build skyscrapers out of them.

An AH could be a gold sink if a big enough portion of the sale just vanishes into the ether but that may *** off a lot of sellers.

I responded to how other games handle the gold sink.

In ESO repair is not a priority as nothing happens if you let it go to zero other than you don't get the buff until you repair. It becomes much larger when you risk losing the item and you repair it more often. Note to that I said repair kits are given away less often as well, so you buy them in other games.

Other games do not require a larger listing fee and taxes, it is about the same as in ESO. Yet some do quite well at keeping inflation down and spreading out the gold sink more equally among the player base. They do not target a specific small percentage of the players to place that burden on them.

ESO wants to claim they have +12 Million accounts yet limit the Trade aspect to a much smaller amount. 651,000 across all the platforms is all that can be on Traders in a given week. From the introduction of Traders until now they ratio has not kept up with the player base growth.

Really wish someone could provide what they population of ESO was at the time of UD3 when Traders was introduced. Be nice to know the ratio that existed then.