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

StabbityDoom

reoskit wrote: »

hiyde wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

Please point me to someplace, any place, that ZOS said anything of the sort.

*cuts ties with Hiyde*

So, how do we go about this divorce? Like, you can keep the guild house, but I’m getting full custody of the Officer Team.

You can't argue with this nonsense. So, I'm going with Reo, sorry Hiyde.

Grimm13

hiyde wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

Please point me to someplace, any place, that ZOS said anything of the sort.

1) Trader system was made when a faction wall was in place.
2) They have never made any provisions to have guilds larger than 500.
3) No advance tools to mange a larger guild or multiple guilds.
4) They have never referenced a guild larger than 500 in their guides.
5) If they had intended for guilds to be larger, they would have done so (It's been asked for)

Deducted reasoning follows that they did not. As for them expecting or stating that they did, here is what follows that.

1)...
They seem to never have show an intention to expect this by acting counter to above points 2-5. Show me that those points are incorrect.

(EDIT: Just pointing out I neither stated that it was good or bad on the "extended guilds". I merely was pointing out the inherent flaw unaccounted for in the design of the system, which changes results of how it actually works.)

Dont_do_drugs

i dont thinl that needs to be discussed here. guilds having partner or sister guilds is i guess pretty normal on all platforms and actually also natural. some people get along, some people do not get along, sometimes the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend and so on. the actually trade guild managing community is small. so small its normal that people start to get to know each other and start to get along with each other or sometimes not and its normal its ending in diplomatics. i do agree sometimes that situation gets a bit "overused", but in general u cannot forbid people to befriend, as as example an officer of yours starting to like that content and building an own trade guild.

guys, get over the cartel and conglomerate stuff. even the lowest 0815 guilds in mid and low tier spots have partner guilds and keep ties to other guilds. some openly commnicate that and let other people know about that ties and get hated on then, others do it in secret. even before the first open alliance had been "announced" on pc eu, there were already multiple guilds forming friend-groups with not bidding each other. u just dont bid a guild whose gm u personally like, get over it.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

Get rid of multi-bidding and instead, start showing the previous week's winning bid at each trader. Also show the previous week's raw sales volume. Let supply and demand do what it does best.

Actually quite a nice idea. But do that 1/ on top of multibidding 2/ viewable by anyone.

sry its a bs idea for a simple reason -> u might think of the situation, once the gold inflation problem got solved, guilds will stop bidding over their income and every guild will bid what its able to. but as long as u can buy gold with crowns and guildmasters actively doing so, that idea is broken.

Maybe it's a BS idea, to be honest I haven't given it much thought (and probably won't since it's not soething that's likely to be implemented by ZOS).

But your argument about all the gold makes me think... OK, there's HUGE sums of gold being bid right now. Where does it come from ? Savings ? Excess gold from last disaster still around ? In this case, it should be all dried up soon, not much to worry.
But if it comes from crown selling... Are you serious ? Are you saying that some guys (and not only one or two) are ready to (and already do) spend hundreds of USD/EUR week after week after week just to keep a trader ? That sounds totally insane ! Are you assuming, or do you actually know some who do ?
If those guys (whom I'd diagnose are sick) truly exist, then I'd suggest to just leave them be, and simply live the happy life as a simple trader in one of their guilds. Because I don't see any of this changing, since it's $$$ for ZOS that goes straight into the gold sink, so I don't see ZOS acting against them...

StabbityDoom

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

Get rid of multi-bidding and instead, start showing the previous week's winning bid at each trader. Also show the previous week's raw sales volume. Let supply and demand do what it does best.

Actually quite a nice idea. But do that 1/ on top of multibidding 2/ viewable by anyone.

sry its a bs idea for a simple reason -> u might think of the situation, once the gold inflation problem got solved, guilds will stop bidding over their income and every guild will bid what its able to. but as long as u can buy gold with crowns and guildmasters actively doing so, that idea is broken.

Maybe it's a BS idea, to be honest I haven't given it much thought (and probably won't since it's not soething that's likely to be implemented by ZOS).

But your argument about all the gold makes me think... OK, there's HUGE sums of gold being bid right now. Where does it come from ? Savings ? Excess gold from last disaster still around ? In this case, it should be all dried up soon, not much to worry.
But if it comes from crown selling... Are you serious ? Are you saying that some guys (and not only one or two) are ready to (and already do) spend hundreds of USD/EUR week after week after week just to keep a trader ? That sounds totally insane ! Are you assuming, or do you actually know some who do ?
If those guys (whom I'd diagnose are sick) truly exist, then I'd suggest to just leave them be, and simply live the happy life as a simple trader in one of their guilds. Because I don't see any of this changing, since it's $$$ for ZOS that goes straight into the gold sink, so I don't see ZOS acting against them...

Disposable income, i suppose.

reoskit

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

But if it comes from crown selling... Are you serious ? Are you saying that some guys (and not only one or two) are ready to (and already do) spend hundreds of USD/EUR week after week after week just to keep a trader ? That sounds totally insane ! Are you assuming, or do you actually know some who do ?
If those guys (whom I'd diagnose are sick) truly exist, then I'd suggest to just leave them be, and simply live the happy life as a simple trader in one of their guilds. Because I don't see any of this changing, since it's $$$ for ZOS that goes straight into the gold sink, so I don't see ZOS acting against them...

You know - I thought the same thing back when they were debating whether it was legit to sell crowns in game. Someone said that crown selling would lead to people buying gold to pay for kiosks. I chuckled at it, scoffed at it.

But, there was actually a guy in one of these threads (please don't make me find it) who outright said he was doing it. For the one that says he's doing it, there are likely others who are doing it but not saying it.

I agree with you (contain your suprise); it's nutty.

anitajoneb17_ESO

angelncelestine wrote: »

If you have a crap ton of rl money to burn it isn't hard to become wealthy in a short period of time. Some of these crown sellers might be just buying up traders for the fun of it. 🤷‍♀️

Do you really think there are that many people on earth playing ESO with that level of crapton of money and nothing better to do with it... ??? I know some people are filthy rich IRL but they don't stay that rich very long if they throw the money out of the window to such an extent. And as far as I know, money doesn't grow on trees...

anitajoneb17_ESO

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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

It's not fiction, it's anticipation.
Don't you think everyone concerned will evaluate their current situation at the light of their anticipations for the future ? Like, for instance, "but we/they won't stand that level of bidding for long" ? (Just an example).

This thread isn't about predictions.

It is, since everyone will communicate their thoughts and experience considering their hopes and expectations. But I explained that already.

StabbityDoom

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

angelncelestine wrote: »

If you have a crap ton of rl money to burn it isn't hard to become wealthy in a short period of time. Some of these crown sellers might be just buying up traders for the fun of it. 🤷‍♀️

Do you really think there are that many people on earth playing ESO with that level of crapton of money and nothing better to do with it... ??? I know some people are filthy rich IRL but they don't stay that rich very long if they throw the money out of the window to such an extent. And as far as I know, money doesn't grow on trees...

Values differ. I am guessing some in the crown selling guilds do just this.

Dont_do_drugs

But if it comes from crown selling... Are you serious ? Are you saying that some guys (and not only one or two) are ready to (and already do) spend hundreds of USD/EUR week after week after week just to keep a trader ? That sounds totally insane ! Are you assuming, or do you actually know some who do ?

i do know:
* someone who already had been known for gold buying pre crown selling, so as an exploiter basically, who did it for quite a long time meanwhile - in times u could spy bank deposits and withdrawals i even saw known goldsellers moving pretty accurate sums + avoided transaction taxes due to bank deposit in that specific guild myself, that gm went on doing so since ever and ever. 2015 she announced beeing bankrupt after having a loss run of 90 - 110m, while not beeing the strongest powertrader able to gain 5m win each week and more - after she was bankrup she came back 3 or 4 weeks later and since that went on with a crazy run of bidding between 8 and 25m each week while her guild barely did make 25% of that bid amounts as income - trading is still pretty transparent due to mm, att and the option of using multiple account, so u definitely are able to track someones trade activities and also are able to track and find possible alt accounts - so yeh, even if i didnt see that deposits in the past, its a pretty sure thing that person is regularly buying gold for her bids.
-> edit: and yeh i actually do think she isnt mentally healthy tbh

* there are gm here in these multi bid threads selling/having sold xx k amounts of crowns as a startup/backup of their smaller guilds

* there is also someone, openly speaking out against crown selling gm but having backups on crowns for his crown discord - tho in his defense, he did it to support the discord in case no sellers were there - those were xxx k amounts and i do think, he actually didnt need to sell these crowns, he was rich before, but the difference isnt that big still, its a plus he is having on his bank account for selling crowns and something which distors competition.

lets assume ur case... there is less gold flowing around, so harder to get gold, it might rise in price each million then, but it doesnt matter then, since equally to that, also the bids would decrease due to the lesser gold in the economy as well.

i mean goldbuying via crowns especially regarding trade guild competition is the pure definition of pay to win, even though i do agree thats somehow pretty okay to me if some casuals and eso+ players and so on casually exchange those amounts, but as long as there are no limits on how many crowns u can gift within a defined amount of time and as long zos isnt willing to actively also work agoinst the more exploitive methods of gaining gold (reselling for bots, buying gold on markets outside of the game, dupe-exploit) bidding competition is and will stay a farce anyways.

Giraffon

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

Get rid of multi-bidding and instead, start showing the previous week's winning bid at each trader. Also show the previous week's raw sales volume. Let supply and demand do what it does best.

Actually quite a nice idea. But do that 1/ on top of multibidding 2/ viewable by anyone.

sry its a bs idea for a simple reason -> u might think of the situation, once the gold inflation problem got solved, guilds will stop bidding over their income and every guild will bid what its able to. but as long as u can buy gold with crowns and guildmasters actively doing so, that idea is broken.

Maybe it's a BS idea, to be honest I haven't given it much thought (and probably won't since it's not soething that's likely to be implemented by ZOS).

But your argument about all the gold makes me think... OK, there's HUGE sums of gold being bid right now. Where does it come from ? Savings ? Excess gold from last disaster still around ? In this case, it should be all dried up soon, not much to worry.
But if it comes from crown selling... Are you serious ? Are you saying that some guys (and not only one or two) are ready to (and already do) spend hundreds of USD/EUR week after week after week just to keep a trader ? That sounds totally insane ! Are you assuming, or do you actually know some who do ?
If those guys (whom I'd diagnose are sick) truly exist, then I'd suggest to just leave them be, and simply live the happy life as a simple trader in one of their guilds. Because I don't see any of this changing, since it's $$$ for ZOS that goes straight into the gold sink, so I don't see ZOS acting against them...

It's okay. I had a lively hate thread going about this idea once a couple years ago. Most people hate it. Whatever.

My other idea is a little less radical for all I think. Leave the current guild trader system in place, but also add an auction house where each account can have up to 10 items listed at any one time. This does a few things. I'm not going to bother explaining though. If you understand what I'm saying then it speaks for itself.

Link to referenced thread:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/329279/why-not-show-last-winning-bid-on-guild-traders/p1

-do it...read it...you will hate me or love me afterwards-

martinhpb16_ESO

Grimm13 wrote: »

hiyde wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

Please point me to someplace, any place, that ZOS said anything of the sort.

1) Trader system was made when a faction wall was in place.
2) They have never made any provisions to have guilds larger than 500.
3) No advance tools to mange a larger guild or multiple guilds.
4) They have never referenced a guild larger than 500 in their guides.
5) If they had intended for guilds to be larger, they would have done so (It's been asked for)

Deducted reasoning follows that they did not. As for them expecting or stating that they did, here is what follows that.

1)...
They seem to never have show an intention to expect this by acting counter to above points 2-5. Show me that those points are incorrect.

Nothing you mention there inhibits or in any way relates to 'political alignments'. Most alignments have come about to solidify stability. It is human nature that in a competitive system where the majority are striving for the same outcome - to trade peacefully - then systems and groups will establish to create cooperatives. only a few guilds in the main have acted un-cooperatively, and this is because of inter-personal spats or in a very few cases to cause disruption.

Unfortunately multi-bidding is making cooperation more difficult and with an even greater advantage to more powerful coops than before as evidenced by the fact that B and C tier zones are being affected the most.

There is no evidence that Zos has ever intended to inhibit cooperation, alliances, groups, discussion, talking or anything of the sort.

OsManiaC

@martinhpb16_ESO this thread is out of control, moving far away even we forget you are the thread owner.

sorry this is just human nature, as you see there are lots of unhappiness now everyone wants to share their problems and how they cannot solve.

this is not personal, people are full of hate thanks to zos.

we all need to not prioritize trading. because it is not in zos' priority list and will not ever. the system they implemented was wrong at the beginning, with multibidding it is inevitable. our precious time is not worth stressing about, because we just circling around,none of us is happy and zos just laugh its arse off.

the thoughts we share are only means something for us only. and zos already showed that it is not with us. this is so ***.

just think once, there were hundreds of posts before multi bidding , hundreds of posts after black sunday bidding fiasco. and what changed? or who acted accordingly or in time?

you can open hundreds of topics, we all post again and what will change?

guys, it is over. nothing will change. just try to spend less time on trading and more time on pve/pvp. I know most of us loves trading more, but it is one way platonic love.

I love all you guys both,

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

angelncelestine wrote: »

If you have a crap ton of rl money to burn it isn't hard to become wealthy in a short period of time. Some of these crown sellers might be just buying up traders for the fun of it. 🤷‍♀️

Do you really think there are that many people on earth playing ESO with that level of crapton of money and nothing better to do with it... ??? I know some people are filthy rich IRL but they don't stay that rich very long if they throw the money out of the window to such an extent. And as far as I know, money doesn't grow on trees...

How can you even think that this doesn't happen!

Pevey

Because of the blind bidding system combined with the previous fear of being completely out of a spot if you lost your main bid, some guilds were habitually paying less (in some cases, much, much less) than other guilds in nearby stalls in the same city. This persisted because they were rarely if ever challenged by other bidders, because no one knew what anyone else was paying each week.

Multi bidding changes that, and that is why some guilds have experienced it as a very negative thing, and some have experienced it as neutral or even positive. Those that say they have increased their bid by 2x or 3x and still lost, most likely your neighbors were already paying approximately that amount. Being able to bid on 10 spots makes 9 of those bids not do or die, and that makes it possible to discover the lowest bidder in a particular location. We are still in the early part of this process now.

I agree there will still be some settling before we see where all the chips land. I myself got out of the bidding business and turned that duty over to someone else, so that is one effect I can report. I also merged a guild with another guild to combine our war chests to make sure we could place 10 strong bids in top locations and still have ample left over. It was possible to merge two full guilds by culling less active players, which obviously had an impact for some casual players. So that’s another effect I can report. (With the added effect that we just had our first 150m+ week, so I think it was worth it).

I’m not going to say multibidding is good or bad at this point because it is here, it is what we have. I understand the complaints. I was not for this change. But it is here now, and some gm’s have shown no effort to prepare for it or adapt. Naturally, those are the ones who have been most negatively affected.

EDIT: just to be clear, that last comment is not a response to any commenters here on the forum, just an observation based on some things I have noticed in-game.

StabbityDoom

Aside from the usual "But a global AH!" I don't think this thread moved off topic at all. It evolved organically to include what political alliances/consortium/sister guilds have as an effect *on the multi-bid system; then what the effect of that is on gms/officers.

freespirit

To all the people who think nobody is silly enough to buy crowns with real currency, purely to sell them for ingame gold to fund trader bids......

I'm sure I remember a guy that when Crown Crates came out, spent $1000 on said crates and then streamed himself opening them.......

There is all kinds of crazy in this game, just saying!

Grimm13

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

hiyde wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

Please point me to someplace, any place, that ZOS said anything of the sort.

1) Trader system was made when a faction wall was in place.
2) They have never made any provisions to have guilds larger than 500.
3) No advance tools to mange a larger guild or multiple guilds.
4) They have never referenced a guild larger than 500 in their guides.
5) If they had intended for guilds to be larger, they would have done so (It's been asked for)

Deducted reasoning follows that they did not. As for them expecting or stating that they did, here is what follows that.

1)...
They seem to never have show an intention to expect this by acting counter to above points 2-5. Show me that those points are incorrect.

Nothing you mention there inhibits or in any way relates to 'political alignments'. Most alignments have come about to solidify stability. It is human nature that in a competitive system where the majority are striving for the same outcome - to trade peacefully - then systems and groups will establish to create cooperatives. only a few guilds in the main have acted un-cooperatively, and this is because of inter-personal spats or in a very few cases to cause disruption.

Unfortunately multi-bidding is making cooperation more difficult and with an even greater advantage to more powerful coops than before as evidenced by the fact that B and C tier zones are being affected the most.

There is no evidence that Zos has ever intended to inhibit cooperation, alliances, groups, discussion, talking or anything of the sort.

Never said that they wanted to limit political alliances, just that it was not taken into account when they introduced traders in update 3. You are correct it is human nature. In the age of communication we have so many ways to transfer idea or coordinate actions that you will not be able to limit this. But this must be considered as to how it will affect matters. In this case in how Multi-bidding can and is influencing the Trader system. Old flaws and original design intent also need to be considered if you want to fix things correctly.

I am direct and blunt. Much of what I have said has been taken personally because we can see parts of it being in each of us. There is no standardized definitions so to one a group is two or more to others a much greater number. We each think, "I'm not the problem" but we need to think of how problems can arise from how we do things.

Now there was some action taken by ZOS that was doing a cooperated actions on a outside source. Was not part of that, only heard bits and probably was distorted anyway. What I heard ZOS did not want it so shut it down.

Would there be a benefit to the system if ZOS actually recognize extended Guilds and gave a way to make formal game ties? A benefit such as allowing one trade spot per zone that only extended guilds could bid for but was then excluded from the "normal bid traders"? All guilds in the extended guild would have access but the listing fee be slightly higher to provide ZOS with a greater gold sink as incentive. Of a limit would need to be defined, say 5 guilds which also must have the same GM.

Would this improve or hamper the current situation?

Pevey

Grimm13 wrote: »

Never said that they wanted to limit political alliances[...]

You kind of did, though...

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

There is no evidence at all that ZOS thinks they way you said.

Even for guilds not in any alliances, there are a lot of politics and strategy to bidding. That is all just part of the system as ZOS designed it, whether intentional or not (and we have no way of knowing which).

Dont_do_drugs

it wouldnt change anything for them sweety, @Grimm13 . as multibid wont change a lot to them. those alliances always will find options and ways how to deal development and changes in that game as they did here as well. thats also a bit more than only using size of a group or alliance, but also the will to success and power and also due to that the will to increased efforts for that success.

baratron

My partner and I run around Tamriel each week recording which guild holds which Guild Trader, and also the size of the guild. We have several years of data.

Under the new system, the guilds who are getting Traders easily seem to be the ones with over 2500 items, as you'd expect. If they don't manage their main spot, they get one of their backups.

But there's also a disproportionate number of guilds with under 400 items. Given that some of these tiny guilds have taken spots that I've bid on, I know that they're paying ridiculously over the odds - far more than they could ever make back from sales taxes, and sometimes more than the total value of items in the store. There's something very wrong with the economy (or with people's hopes and expectations) when a guild is paying more to have a public store than the items in the store are even worth!

Guilds who typically have 750-1250 items seem to be struggling the most. I think a bunch of us haven't quite figured out how to play the new system, or think of our guilds as "better" than a roadside trader or Outlaws Refuge.

rager82b14_ESO

Here is how to fix it.


Add a global Ah.


Problem solved. This issue is stupid. This ah system is stupid. A reason why MMOs have a global ah.

JN_Slevin

rager82b14_ESO wrote: »

Here is how to fix it.


Add a global Ah.


Problem solved. This issue is stupid. This ah system is stupid. A reason why MMOs have a global ah.

They also have constant Inflation, from what I've heard

anitajoneb17_ESO

baratron wrote: »

My partner and I run around Tamriel each week recording which guild holds which Guild Trader, and also the size of the guild. We have several years of data.

Interesting.

baratron wrote: »

There's something very wrong with the economy (or with people's hopes and expectations) when a guild is paying more to have a public store than the items in the store are even worth!

Maybe people are just playing around (if their accumulated gold is of no use, or has no meaning to them)
Or they're investing and hope that the trader they got will help them attract new members and grow and reach some sort of balance (Given the influx of new players, this would be a valid strategy imho)
Or they're just being stupid.

It has nothing to do with "something wrong with the economy".

rager82b14_ESO

Cani wrote: »

rager82b14_ESO wrote: »

Here is how to fix it.


Add a global Ah.


Problem solved. This issue is stupid. This ah system is stupid. A reason why MMOs have a global ah.

They also have constant Inflation, from what I've heard

I mean ya, Markets working as they should, but letting everyone have equal chance to sell and compete is much better than this system we have now or before.

dvonpm

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

i dont thinl that needs to be discussed here. guilds having partner or sister guilds is i guess pretty normal on all platforms and actually also natural. some people get along, some people do not get along, sometimes the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend and so on. the actually trade guild managing community is small. so small its normal that people start to get to know each other and start to get along with each other or sometimes not and its normal its ending in diplomatics. i do agree sometimes that situation gets a bit "overused", but in general u cannot forbid people to befriend, as as example an officer of yours starting to like that content and building an own trade guild.

guys, get over the cartel and conglomerate stuff. even the lowest 0815 guilds in mid and low tier spots have partner guilds and keep ties to other guilds. some openly commnicate that and let other people know about that ties and get hated on then, others do it in secret. even before the first open alliance had been "announced" on pc eu, there were already multiple guilds forming friend-groups with not bidding each other. u just dont bid a guild whose gm u personally like, get over it.

I would add to all this that, in my guild, we don't bid on other kiosks because we want the spot we've maintained. We don't want to start a war. We don't want to risk losing a good spot in order to screw some other guild out a spot that's probably not much better than the one we have. It has nothing to with with alliances. We are happy where we are and don't want to mess with other guilds, period.

This system is forcing us into conflicts with other guilds that we don't want to have and wouldn't otherwise have, and would have no reason to even interact with, much less form a shadow cabal. And it still costs more.

daemonios

Cani wrote: »

rager82b14_ESO wrote: »

Here is how to fix it.


Add a global Ah.


Problem solved. This issue is stupid. This ah system is stupid. A reason why MMOs have a global ah.

They also have constant Inflation, from what I've heard

That is not on the ah. It's on the developers. Gold sinks can come in many ways, shapes and forms. Trader bids are just one of them.

It's also on the developers to prevent too much money from entering the economy in the first place, yet we have money printing activities such as daily writs paying almost 5k gold per character, per day, for a 2-minute effort (using add-ons).

StabbityDoom

Grimm13 wrote: »

They are there and that is beyond the intent of what ZOS created the Trader System. ZOS expected that each guild would be a single group of it's own without political alignments, further it was done when there was a faction divider as well so they did not expect guilds to grow beyond 500.

Pevey wrote: »

There is no evidence at all that ZOS thinks they way you said.

^^^^^ SO MUCH THIS

StabbityDoom

baratron wrote: »

My partner and I run around Tamriel each week recording which guild holds which Guild Trader, and also the size of the guild. We have several years of data.

Under the new system, the guilds who are getting Traders easily seem to be the ones with over 2500 items, as you'd expect. If they don't manage their main spot, they get one of their backups.

But there's also a disproportionate number of guilds with under 400 items. Given that some of these tiny guilds have taken spots that I've bid on, I know that they're paying ridiculously over the odds - far more than they could ever make back from sales taxes, and sometimes more than the total value of items in the store. There's something very wrong with the economy (or with people's hopes and expectations) when a guild is paying more to have a public store than the items in the store are even worth!

Guilds who typically have 750-1250 items seem to be struggling the most. I think a bunch of us haven't quite figured out how to play the new system, or think of our guilds as "better" than a roadside trader or Outlaws Refuge.

I do this every week as well for two years now. That's why I think the medium and small guilds that are elbowing people out but don't have the inventory won't be able to sustain, and the mid-range guilds that have inventory and a history will likely remain in the long run.

StabbityDoom

dvonpm wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

i dont thinl that needs to be discussed here. guilds having partner or sister guilds is i guess pretty normal on all platforms and actually also natural. some people get along, some people do not get along, sometimes the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend and so on. the actually trade guild managing community is small. so small its normal that people start to get to know each other and start to get along with each other or sometimes not and its normal its ending in diplomatics. i do agree sometimes that situation gets a bit "overused", but in general u cannot forbid people to befriend, as as example an officer of yours starting to like that content and building an own trade guild.

guys, get over the cartel and conglomerate stuff. even the lowest 0815 guilds in mid and low tier spots have partner guilds and keep ties to other guilds. some openly commnicate that and let other people know about that ties and get hated on then, others do it in secret. even before the first open alliance had been "announced" on pc eu, there were already multiple guilds forming friend-groups with not bidding each other. u just dont bid a guild whose gm u personally like, get over it.

I would add to all this that, in my guild, we don't bid on other kiosks because we want the spot we've maintained. We don't want to start a war. We don't want to risk losing a good spot in order to screw some other guild out a spot that's probably not much better than the one we have. It has nothing to with with alliances. We are happy where we are and don't want to mess with other guilds, period.

This system is forcing us into conflicts with other guilds that we don't want to have and wouldn't otherwise have, and would have no reason to even interact with, much less form a shadow cabal. And it still costs more.

Wow, that's crazy though, you should at least multi bid on some spots that have constant turnover or are used by guilds with no inventory. Otherwise you could be without a spot, and that can kill a guild.