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

Dont_do_drugs

Well I agree to some extent, and I always supported thoughts of guilds in other hubs trying to achieve more and eat some sales away from the "conglomerates", actually a lot of them would be even happy about that since it's also reducing pressure on the top tier spotdls with every motivated gm trying to hit those top Hubs. Truth also is, that a lot of guilds aren't using tge hub to its potential, like windhelm and so on, but this isn't tgd fault of the to tier guilds but also the problem of low efforts of the guilds there in making hubs attractive, advertising btw, making sales week and other stuff might bring more attention to those hubs. But the truth also is, that there aren't even 200 gm willing to build and maintain a guild and a hub to that extend. Not 100, not even 50 or 30. Hubs also prosper from those gm and conglomerates pushing it. Before ttu captured vivecs front spots it was on its way to another rotten hub with rotten guilds. I know it's harsh, but it's also the truth. Remember how windhelm grew when alchemist emporium advertised the heck out of windhelm? This is up to the guilds competing the other top Hubs as well, but they just don't want it. It's too much work for them, complaints here complaints there blabla.

dvonpm

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

dvonpm wrote: »

Something to consider - that fact that traders keep their kiosks every week *is* a direct result of them being competitive.

dvonpm wrote: »

Further, do you honestly think guilds that maintain their spots through thick and thin for YEARS aren't being competitive?

Guilds that have been holding the same premium spot for years now aren't being competitive. They're being coopted.
Market failure, as @daemonios pointed out.

As a person who has been an officer in a guild that has successfully fought off every attempt to knock us out of our spot without the aid of a "cartel" or a GM with insanely deep pockets, I can say with absolute confidence that you are wrong.

In any case, even with an alliance you have to pay the bids. If you agree with your neighbors to not mess with each other, that doesn't stop any other of the dozens upon dozens of guilds from making a move.

Aside from that, I'm not here to argue about the market. I'm content to agree to disagree.

What I'm frustrated with is the lack of tools and now guild history to deal with it.

ThePlayer

With the bid fault, which occurred in recent weeks, ZOS has withdrawn my gold in addition to those in excess ...
I suspended my ESO+ indefinitely.
The community of this game is based on trading, with gold seeker and gold seller; nothing is done to improve the game for guilds pve/pvp, and what is done is wrong.
A single market is urgently needed, players must focus on the game and not on the buy/sell.
I see guilds trading with more than 90 players online and guilds pve/pvp with maximum 30 (if they are lucky), this is not normal for me and the money (the real ones) ZOS can forget them from me.

anitajoneb17_ESO

ThePlayer wrote: »

I see guilds trading with more than 90 players online and guilds pve/pvp with maximum 30 (if they are lucky), this is not normal

This is absolutely normal, since PVE/PVP guilds legitimately require active participation and even presence on vocals, which not everyone wants to do all of their ingame time. A PVE/PVP guild means a commitment.
Trading guilds on the other hands don't require anything (except trading) but provide a welcome and commitment-free way of socializing for solo players (of which there are A LOT in ESO).

Dont_do_drugs

The comparison is bad anyways. There are way more social, pve and pvp guilds out there than trading guilds with top spots and such activity rate (its, only smaller part of all trading guilds) , most such pve and pvp communities also aren't even willing to reach the 500 ppl limit, bcs they want to focus on maintaining one until three primary raid groups.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

The comparison is bad anyways. There are way more social, pve and pvp guilds out there than trading guilds with top spots and such activity rate (its, only smaller part of all trading guilds) , most such pve and pvp communities also aren't even willing to reach the 500 ppl limit, bcs they want to focus on maintaining one until three primary raid groups.

Very true too.

BalticBlues

It's look like always in ESO:
1. the RICH are getting RICHER
2. the POOR are getting POORER or even OUT OF MARKET
3. the average Joes cannot sell their stuff

This happens because ZOS only listens to the Youtubers, Twitchers etc. etc.

anitajoneb17_ESO

BalticBlues wrote: »

It's look like always in ESO:
1. the RICH are getting RICHER
2. the POOR are getting POORER or even OUT OF MARKET
3. the average Joes cannot sell their stuff

This happens because ZOS only listens to the Youtubers, Twitchers etc. etc.

Has any YouTuber or Twitcher ever expressed an opinion about multibidding... ?

StabbityDoom

Katahdin wrote: »

I'm not a GM but one of my guilds lost its spot that it's had since traders started both of the last 2 weeks

Now the officers have to deal with unhappy and/or worried members asking if the guild is dying, if there is a plan, blah blah

This has created unnecessary chaos for no good reason whatsoever.

There's one guild I know of on NA who has done that, and I'm really curious about whether they bid more than one spot.

martinhpb16_ESO

I am still very interested to hear about the experience of GMs, Officers and members since multi-bidding, especially in B and C zones as these zones are seeing a lot of flips.

This was pitched as a quality of life improvement and it would be interesting to hear about what is actually happening rather than us going down the trader theorising route or guessing what may happen.

Jayman1000

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

He was already bidding more than the spot was worth with a guild which fit that spot.

What do you mean by "more than the spot was worth" ?
Any spot is "worth" what a guild is ready to pay for it (supply and demand).
If you'd rather go by "the tax income the spot can achieve to self-sustain itself", then all spots are being paid "more than they're worth", since most guilds don't self-sustain on taxes alone, with or without multibidding.

What a "trader spot is worth" is mostly an image constructed by the current leading conglomerates of trading guilds to serve their own purposes, like "if you wanna shop efficiently, come to us in Belkarth/Mournhold/Wayrest/Rawl". Hopefully with the multibidding system things will spread out more and people will realize it's just as good to shop in Evermore, Sentinel or Coldharbour.

Except that it is not as good to shop in Evermore, Sentinel or Coldharbour. Partly due to logistics of those places and partly because the guilds in those locations dont offer as many items as rawlkha, mournhold, elden root, wayrest, in that order.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Except that it is not as good to shop in Evermore, Sentinel or Coldharbour. Partly due to logistics of those places and partly because the guilds in those locations dont offer as many items as rawlkha, mournhold, elden root, wayrest, in that order.

The "logistics" aspect have become irrelevant in most cases. Banker ? Most players have a pocket banker by now. Writs ? Can be handed over in any zone now. Closeness to wayshrine ? Coldharbour's traders are as close to the wayshrine as can be.
Undaunted traffic ? Okay, fine, this one's valid.
According to those objective criteria, Belkarth should be close to the very bottom of the list of "trader locations", yet on PC/EU it's still by far the 1st. Because, as you say, there are big, good, experienced guilds there, with huge inventories and correctly priced stuff.

What I mean is, with multibidding, other good guilds will be able to spread their wings and hire traders that are currently categorized as middle- or lower-tier locations, and make them good ones. As a result, we won't have 20 good guilds occupying 20 excellent spots, but maybe 100 good guilds or more occupying just as many spots all over Tamriel (making them good spots too) and buyers would spread out more as well. As a result, this somewhat artificial "hierarchy" between trader spots would cease to exist for everyone's greater good.

Jayman1000

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Except that it is not as good to shop in Evermore, Sentinel or Coldharbour. Partly due to logistics of those places and partly because the guilds in those locations dont offer as many items as rawlkha, mournhold, elden root, wayrest, in that order.

The "logistics" aspect have become irrelevant in most cases. Banker ? Most players have a pocker banker by now. Writs ? Can be handed over in any zone now. Closeness to wayshrine ? Coldharbour's traders are as close to the wayshrine as can be.
Undaunted traffic ? Okay, fine, this one's valid.
According to those objective criteria, Belkarth should be close to the very bottom of the list of "trader locations", yet on PC/EU it's still by far the 1st. Because, as you say, there are big, good, experienced guilds there, with huge inventories and correctly priced stuff.

What I mean is, with multibidding, other good guilds will be able to spread their wings and hire traders that are currently categorized as middle- or lower-tier locations, and make them good ones. As a result, we won't have 20 good guilds occupying 20 excellent spots, but maybe 100 good guilds or more occupying just as many spots all over Tamriel (making them good spots too) and buyers would spread out more as well. As a result, this somewhat artificial "hierarchy" between trader spots would cease to exist for everyone's greater good.

That hierarchy will not cease to exist as long as there are differences between the trading guilds. If most trading guilds were major big players, then yes, that would happen. However most trading guilds wont be major big players unless there are customers to support it: game pop would have to be many times larger to have all trading locations become occupied by same big sized trading guilds. This probably will never happen, but who knows, maybe the amount of active players will permanently double or triple during 2020....

Grimm13

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 (up to) 50 spots with no overlap within the group out of the 135 trader spots in the game. Each five coalition is (could be) doing the same thing but are gonna try to spread out, so collectively they have (up to)250 bids.

Before they would concentrate on two maybe three zones but not all win. Now They can(could) 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?

Edit made but this is done to show how a small group can control the whole system. A coalition is two or more guilds that have aligned their interests, whether formally or informally

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO

ez solution...sitck to the big bois trading guilds...close all underdeveloped guilds...never start a new trading guild since u have no rate of success..i mean u didn't stand a chance before let aside now )...hmm did I forgot anything?

reoskit

As expected, bids are exorbitant.

Over the past several weeks, I've seen ~20-25% of the top tier guilds knocked out of their long-held spots, some of whom I wouldn't have imagined losing a spot. I'm curious:

How many folks feel the bids they're making (defensive/offensive, winning/losing) are sustainable?

It currently takes a lot of gold to defend your spot or take over a kiosk. These increased funds are coming from... where? Warchests, member fees, donations, your own pockets, gold/crown selling? How long can you/your guildies keep it going?

Eventually, things have to stabilize. I just wonder how long it will take and what bids will look like when we get there. Some may argue that the whole point of multibidding was to upset the stable market. If that was the intent, I call shenanigans on the whole "QoL improvement for trade guilds" thing.

cyclonus11

One guild lost a trader one week and has been asking for more in donations (my only guild that doesn't have required dues), and another has only been able to secure lone traders in overland zones (like Junal-Nakal in Shadowfen).

reoskit

Grimm13 wrote: »

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.

Wait - can you clarify this? You're on PCNA, so:

Ethereal Trade Union - Sister guild is ETU II (Mournhold)
Angry Unicorn Traders - Had Angry Narwal Traders; I believe that turned social or shut down
Ska'vyn Exchange - Sister guild is Ska'vyn Bazzar (Elden Root)
Bleakrock Barter Co - Sister guild is Blackbriar (my guild - Mournhold)
Black Market Wares - Not sure if they have any sister guilds.

So... tell me about these "coalitions of about 5 guilds" please? I can at least speak for BBC - we have no such thing.


Edit: I always spell ethereal wrong. Soz.

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Except that it is not as good to shop in Evermore, Sentinel or Coldharbour. Partly due to logistics of those places and partly because the guilds in those locations dont offer as many items as rawlkha, mournhold, elden root, wayrest, in that order.

The "logistics" aspect have become irrelevant in most cases. Banker ? Most players have a pocket banker by now. Writs ? Can be handed over in any zone now. Closeness to wayshrine ? Coldharbour's traders are as close to the wayshrine as can be.
Undaunted traffic ? Okay, fine, this one's valid.
According to those objective criteria, Belkarth should be close to the very bottom of the list of "trader locations", yet on PC/EU it's still by far the 1st. Because, as you say, there are big, good, experienced guilds there, with huge inventories and correctly priced stuff.

What I mean is, with multibidding, other good guilds will be able to spread their wings and hire traders that are currently categorized as middle- or lower-tier locations, and make them good ones. As a result, we won't have 20 good guilds occupying 20 excellent spots, but maybe 100 good guilds or more occupying just as many spots all over Tamriel (making them good spots too) and buyers would spread out more as well. As a result, this somewhat artificial "hierarchy" between trader spots would cease to exist for everyone's greater good.

Can we stick to what is actually happening please based on experience as per the title of the thread rather than fiction . Thank you

Dont_do_drugs

reoskit wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

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.

Wait - can you clarify this? You're on PCNA, so:

Ethereal Trade Union - Sister guild is ETU II (Mournhold)
Angry Unicorn Traders - Had Angry Narwal Traders; I believe that turned social or shut down
Ska'vyn Exchange - Sister guild is Ska'vyn Bazzar (Elden Root)
Bleakrock Barter Co - Sister guild is Blackbriar (my guild - Mournhold)
Black Market Wares - Not sure if they have any sister guilds.

So... tell me about these "coalitions of about 5 guilds" please? I can at least speak for BBC - we have no such thing.


Edit: I always spell ethereal wrong. Soz.

Even for PC EU it's wrong. So at least can't be any pc server he's speaking of.

StabbityDoom

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.

OsManiaC

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO wrote: »

ez solution...sitck to the big bois trading guilds...close all underdeveloped guilds...never start a new trading guild since u have no rate of success..i mean u didn't stand a chance before let aside now )...hmm did I forgot anything?

I agree but also possibilty of exploited gold is so om nom nom nom.

Gariele

A couple weeks after the PC/EU meltdown and I can definitely say I’m not enjoying it. Bids are increasing at a wild rate even in small places. Gold is being thrown around by guilds that will soon find out that they won’t make 25% back in taxes so they will have to rely on donations or a GM that is powertrading to fund bids and all that leads to is burn out and a guild disbanding.

Grimm13

reoskit wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

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.

Wait - can you clarify this? You're on PCNA, so:

So... tell me about these "coalitions of about 5 guilds" please? I can at least speak for BBC - we have no such thing.

This is the impression that there is. My apologizes, I was trying to show how a hub can now be controlled and the trickle down. There are a number of 3 - 5 coalition guilds in PCNA. Some advertise themselves that way, other have official sister guilds but some officers may also have their own guild which does not share funds but enjoys a partnership of benefits. If you have a sister guild, you are a coalition of two but still a coalition.

This is an inherent downfall of a limited buy in system in that it becomes possible for a small group to control the system locking out all others. The 10 bids only increased that instead of reducing as ZOS implied.

Every guilds is going to be looked at as placing 10 bids. No guild is going to throw open their books to prove otherwise, understandable so, just as they will not disclose actual bids. This makes it even harder to predict and requires speculation.

Edit: I am not saying that the five guilds would be actually conversing as to where they are bidding. But certainly they look at where the others and partners have been, so decide not to bump heads there as it is not in the best interests. Further you might see that an officer of yours has a guild in x spot so again you don't bid there, thus granting a benefit informally.

The system is a whole lot worse if there was a united front. I expect at some point it will happen, probably to the downfall of the current leaders.It's a pig of a system fraught with flaws and exploits.

reoskit

Grimm13 wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

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.

Wait - can you clarify this? You're on PCNA, so:

So... tell me about these "coalitions of about 5 guilds" please? I can at least speak for BBC - we have no such thing.

This is the impression that there is. My apologizes, I was trying to show how a hub can now be controlled and the trickle down. There are a number of 3 - 5 coalition guilds in PCNA. Some advertise themselves that way, other have official sister guilds but some officers may also have their own guild which does not share funds but enjoys a partnership of benefits. If you have a sister guild, you are a coalition of two but still a coalition.

This is an inherent downfall of a limited buy in system in that it becomes possible for a small group to control the system locking out all others. The 10 bids only increased that instead of reducing as ZOS implied.

Every guilds is going to be looked at as placing 10 bids. No guild is going to throw open their books to prove otherwise, understandable so, just as they will not disclose actual bids. This makes it even harder to predict and requires speculation.

So many points.

To the concept of controlling a hub:
I suppose anyone could spin up 5-ish legitimate guilds and (with considerable work) own a city. But why would you?

We have a lot of guildies who are in both BBC guilds. We offer them two different cities in which to sell; this diversifies and increases the number of shoppers looking at their wares. Why would we stack both of our guilds in one city?

To the "coalition of two":
Is that a bad thing? We started with one guild and became successful enough that a sister guild was warranted; both are run by the same officer team.

To the "partnership of benefits":
Are there other GMs or guilds that I know/like/respect and therefore I do not bid on their spots? Absolutely. There are also guilds that I acknowledge as strong enough to be threatening if they become vengeful. I don't bid on their spots either. Does that count as a "partnership of benefits"? I don't think so. Bidding has always been political and strategic; it just comes with the job.

Grimm13 wrote: »

This is an inherent downfall of a limited buy in system in that it becomes possible for a small group to control the system locking out all others.

This is more misinformation. There are 218 kiosks currently available in ESO. I challenge anyone, small or large, to "control the system" and "lock out all others." One guy managed it with one town for one week to troll people; it was the biggest shakeup I've ever seen in the trade world.

At least on PCNA, the whole cartel theory is a boogieman, used to incite uninformed people to mistrust trade guilds. It's ridiculous and overplayed.

StabbityDoom

Grimm13 wrote: »

This is the impression that there is. My apologizes, I was trying to show how a hub can now be controlled and the trickle down. There are a number of 3 - 5 coalition guilds in PCNA. Some advertise themselves that way, other have official sister guilds but some officers may also have their own guild which does not share funds but enjoys a partnership of benefits. If you have a sister guild, you are a coalition of two but still a coalition.

This is an inherent downfall of a limited buy in system in that it becomes possible for a small group to control the system locking out all others. The 10 bids only increased that instead of reducing as ZOS implied.

Every guilds is going to be looked at as placing 10 bids. No guild is going to throw open their books to prove otherwise, understandable so, just as they will not disclose actual bids. This makes it even harder to predict and requires speculation.

Most "coalitions" are mid-level. Look at the Upstate & Dark Alliance guilds, each that have multiple 3+ guilds. I'm not sure it helps them, in the long run.Some of the big guilds are friendly among themselves, some aren't, and there might be tacit agreement not to attack someone's main spot, but for backup bids, in my experience they do not coordinate. They *did* help one another look for open slots if one of them didn't get their spot.

So sick of the accusation of accusation of cartels. They don't exist - at least on NA.

freespirit

Cartels or Alliances certainly exist on PC-EU, there are several pretty big ones with 5+ Guilds and also smaller ones of 3 or 4 guilds.

After the debacle that happened the first weekend of the new multibid system, the last two weeks seem to have gone relatively smoothly.

There are ofc guilds that have been pushed out of their "normal" spot and on my frequent shopping trips across the whole map I have been seeing some new names.

However guilds often lost their spots under the old system, this is not a new thing, I personally feel that in a few weeks time everything will settle down and we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

martinhpb16_ESO

Can we try and stay on-thread please, ty

Iarao

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Only thing I noticed is that my guild now asks for more money in weekly sales. I'm not a gm or officer though.

yeah one of mine doubled dues.

freespirit

I'm sorry if you felt my post was off topic, I didn't feel it was......

However to try make a more on topic comment I will add that the of the three trade guilds that I am in, two of which I am an officer in, two have maintained their chosen/normal spot and the third has been in three different locations since multibid started..

I expect that there will likely be a bit more movement of guilds under this system but as I said in my previous post I believe over the next few weeks things will settle down.

I also personally think that the new/smaller guilds will suffer if they do not maintain well stocked stores, on PC-EU at least there are a lot of very poorly stocked stores. To my mind these guilds are unsustainable over any length of time, this is not based on hearsay, I frequently run the whole map doing a bit of shopping..... this girl loves to shop!