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

beadabow

Having read many (but nowhere near all) of the comments in this thread, as a trader, consumer and guild member, I want to say THANK YOU for all that you do . I now have a much deeper appreciation for the officers in my current and former guilds. I know I couldn't (and wouldn't) do anywhere near as much as you have done on a weekly basis.

Dont_do_drugs

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.

anitajoneb17_ESO

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

In the long run, you're surely correct. But recall what Keynes said about the long run. Or, if you can't recall it off the top of your head, please don't lecture anybody else about economics.

Keynes ? The guy who theorized the support of economical activity via demand, which failed all over the world and caused all nations to live on a public deficit and leave a huge debt to the next generations ? No wonder he suggests not taking thelong term into consideration :-(
If you want to brag about your culture in anything economics, you'd better update your references.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

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.

It's probably what you intended to say, but it's not what you said :-) It's the way you worded it that triggered it.
I understand your concern - yet you cannot assume that just because a guild is not primarily a trading guild it will have a badly stuffed guild store.

Fiktius

@Mathius_Mordred

Nah, I didn't forget those kind of guilds. They are described in type D due this one very reason:
Guilds which are not build on sustaining longer time massive bids and lack functioning guild core, they will eventually find out that they are knocking their heads to the wall. Their solo yolo rounds might become annoying on eyes of type A guild, but at longer run guess which kind of guild can sustain massive bids more successfully? Type A or Type D?

Edit: Had to remove first quote due it was not intended, so just tagged you to reply instead

Edit2: The point was that Type A nor Type D guilds really are not impacted as badly as type B and C guilds are, so perspective of their GMs is very highly impacted of it.

Dont_do_drugs

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

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.

It's probably what you intended to say, but it's not what you said :-) It's the way you worded it that triggered it.
I understand your concern - yet you cannot assume that just because a guild is not primarily a trading guild it will have a badly stuffed guild store.

most pve- and pvp guilds i saw in trading hubs barely had anything to sell, bcs most people there arent even interested in selling, next to the fact that such guilds often are far away from 500 members, more like 100 or 200. i dislike that kind of behaviour. saw them over and over again in many years, and they are a pain for hubs like glenumbra, bandaari, marbruk and co. people easily gain enough gold to bid those spots out of boredom, while other guilds work to get that gold together via taxes. there is a general disbalance between what guilds earn in taxes and what single people can earn in a week leading into that problem, which ends with dead hubs on the one side and rising, more powerfull hubs on the other side. so i'd defintely appreciate guilds which barely have something to offer to respect guilds which want to trade.

your interpretation is your problem, its wondering me, you went in that way, since the user i responded to already made clear which hubs or trader spots he went on, so he isnt even a "conglomerates" problem. so it should have been obvious, i wasnt about that.

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Fiktius wrote: »

Look, there is a massive difference in the perspective where these guilds are looking the situation.

Definitely.
All those who've had their special place in the sun for years feel the change is negative.
All those who start making their own place in the sun now thanks to the new system feel the change is positive.

Still the loud voices claim that their view is more legit than any other (because, you know, experience and all). They even claim they speak in "one voice", as if all others did not exist.
Talk about biased :-)

But what about all those people who are having a negative time? Like really having a negative time. They exist, should not their voices be heard. So Fik's eloquent round up, which i think most of us would recognise (you included) shows that C's are having a hard time. A-C are having to work harder as well to get those bids. And it is work, its a lot of effort. Real effort that's increasing.

A good system would allow that new place in the sun but not at the expense of others right? QOL improvements should on the whole make things better for more people, don't you agree? More opportunity for more people, less work.

Multi-bid: more opportunity; more guilds; same number of trader spots; more work; higher bids; some people already involved in trading struggling through no fault of their own.

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?

anitajoneb17_ESO

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

most pve- and pvp guilds i saw in trading hubs barely had anything to sell, bcs most people there arent even interested in selling, next to the fact that such guilds often are far away from 500 members, more like 100 or 200. i dislike that kind of behaviour. saw them over and over again in many years, and they are a pain for hubs like glenumbra, bandaari, marbruk and co. people easily gain enough gold to bid those spots out of boredom, while other guilds work to get that gold together via taxes. there is a general disbalance between what guilds earn in taxes and what single people can earn in a week leading into that problem, which ends with dead hubs on the one side and rising, more powerfull hubs on the other side. so i'd defintely appreciate guilds which barely have something to offer to respect guilds which want to trade.

your interpretation is your problem, its wondering me, you went in that way, since the user i responded to already made clear which hubs or trader spots he went on, so he isnt even a "conglomerates" problem. so it should have been obvious, i wasnt about that.

Again I understand your concern and I even share it. But as you said, this problem (guilds not dedicated to trading, with less members than a trading guild, and most certianly less stuff to sell than a trading guild, still taking up spots) is not new and has not appeared with multibidding.
I believe they will run out of funds sooner or later (and quicker with multibidding than with monobidding) and will disappear in the long run (thanks to multibidding).

anitajoneb17_ESO

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").

DragonRacer

I'll be the first to admit I have zero clue what is going on with PC. They seem to be experiencing the exact opposite of what PS4 NA is. In fact, hearing so much about guilds with little-to-nothing to sell in good trading areas and rising trader prices sounds... exactly like what PS4 NA lived with for the past many, many years. I don't envy them now having that kind of issue. Not sure if it's a few super-rich people trolling or what.

On PS4 NA, where it was common to see 20-30 ghosts right at flip backed by either the major capital city conglomerates or independent ghost trader sellers, multi-bidding has been a Godsend. I was incredibly fearful of it at first, particularly fearful of the prospect of soaring trader bid prices, but that has simply not come to pass yet.

Instead, Week 1 I saw only 4 ghosts... 3 of which owned by the same independent seller who I guess missed the memo. Last night, I only saw one.

What I've seen now for two weeks are the capital city peeps keeping their usual capital city circuit. The upper tier and middle ground guilds mostly still holding their own, although a few have shuffled cities due to needing backup bids to win (nicer than them being without a trader all week instead). The smaller guilds are still around, and now we have a small nest of guilds I've never seen before in the lower ends... who have a chance to exist now that ghosts aren't choking out the system... and they generally at least have a few pages of goods to sell, if not more.

I'm almost afraid to say anything because I don't want to jinx myself. I've been a battered GM with PTSD from this frickin' server and its ghost wars for so long. But now that the big boy guilds can make backup bids instead of pooping their ghosts all over the upper tier/middle ground spots... there is far less stress, drama, and misery so far.

And I am a donation-based guild. I don't charge dues. My only regular income is sales tax (that I can't even properly estimate because console), a weekly auction, occasional raffles, and donations from members. But I did hold one big month-long initiative in August to build a small backup bid warchest (that large guilds would laugh at as being a warchest) that encouraged members to donate more than usual, and that put us in a decent position to ensure a trader in a decent location. So far, have won my primary bids the past two weeks but felt good about my backups.

martinhpb16_ESO

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.

jazsper77

PS4 NA and PC NA and PS4 EU all my Guilds won their bids again. As for the Guilds I’m responsible for the bidding I cut back 15% on the bids on the week before and won all.
As this system settles in I’m going to venture today bids will get back to a normalcy.

Btw without the Ghost Guilds that were taking up 25-35 spots a week in high - mid-tier spots there are more for hire. But the REAL *** from the mid tier complaints is that they can’t run to the Ghost Seller and buy one. It’s what was being done. Funny part is a lot of these Guilds would love the ghosts back.

anitajoneb17_ESO

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

As far as I can tell, you're the one who can't help overreacting to every word I type.

And you're also the one who keeps, over and over, tagging ZOS and asking them to cancel multibidding and pretending that everyone agrees with you and that every evidence is backing up your position. I'm just reinstating the truth here, which is that your opinion is just your opinion and has nothing to do with the truth.
At least I am honest enough to say openly that my opinion is based on reasonable expectations as to how the system will be once things have settled down, in the long run. Which again you've always tried to deny me. Don't twist things around : you're the one denying other people a voice, you're the one distorting the facts to your liking, and you're the one picking up on others and causing conflicts.

martinhpb16_ESO

jazsper77 wrote: »

PS4 NA and PC NA and PS4 EU all my Guilds won their bids again. As for the Guilds I’m responsible for the bidding I cut back 15% on the bids on the week before and won all.
As this system settles in I’m going to venture today bids will get back to a normalcy.

Btw without the Ghost Guilds that were taking up 25-35 spots a week in high - mid-tier spots there are more for hire. But the REAL *** from the mid tier complaints is that they can’t run to the Ghost Seller and buy one. It’s what was being done. Funny part is a lot of these Guilds would love the ghosts back.

Sounds like you guys had a real plague of ghosts on PS4

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

At least I am honest enough to say openly that my opinion is based on reasonable expectations as to how the system will be once things have settled down, in the long run. Which again you've always tried to deny me. Don't twist things around : you're the one denying other people a voice, you're the ones distorting the facts to your liking, and you're the one picking up on others.

"As far as I can tell, you're the one who can't help overreacting to every word I type." interesting.

"And you're also the one who keeps, over and over, tagging ZOS and asking them to cancel multibidding and pretending that everyone agrees with you and that every evidence is backing up your position" I tagged Zos once not sure where you get the over and over from. And if you read the post I asked them to take the experience of the poster I was quoting into consideration. I did not ask for multibidding to be cancelled and I dindt pretend that everyone agrees with me. Why do you make this stuff up? Evidence Anita, evidence.

Ok your clearly rattled, sorry if my posts have been party to that. I don't see that to be fair, you have said that before that I deny people a voice - not sure that is true or even possible tbh.

I'm just reinstating the truth here, which is that your opinion is just your opinion and has nothing to do with the truth. No Anita I'm am pointing out what is happening - evidence. Also people posting up their experiences is not distorting facts. Is it 'fake news' Anita?

"you're the ones distorting the facts to your liking" Are you saying there is a conspiracy?

"and you're the one picking up on others." Actually I only pick up on your comments because they are provocative.

I stick by the fact though that when you post there is conflict.

anitajoneb17_ESO

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

I'm just reinstating the truth here, which is that your opinion is just your opinion and has nothing to do with the truth. No Anita I'm am pointing out what is happening - evidence.

You deny the difference between short-term effects (the inevitable phase of chaos and disruption caused by multibidding) and long-term effects (that the situation once settled will be much better for everyone with multibidding than it used to be with monobidding). That's not "evidence", that's twisted, oriented reasoning. And you tried to shut me up by saying anything beyong "right here and right now" was imagination and fluff.
Now this back and forth will only get us banned at some stage and is probably getting more annoying than funny to those who read, so I'll leave it at that for now. Everyone can see what you're trying to do. I'd suggest you read the people who're happy about multibidding SO FAR (and there are already quite a few of them). Of course, you'll try to counter them by asking what rank / what guild / whatnot to deny them the legitimacy of their testimony.

DragonRacer

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

jazsper77 wrote: »

PS4 NA and PC NA and PS4 EU all my Guilds won their bids again. As for the Guilds I’m responsible for the bidding I cut back 15% on the bids on the week before and won all.
As this system settles in I’m going to venture today bids will get back to a normalcy.

Btw without the Ghost Guilds that were taking up 25-35 spots a week in high - mid-tier spots there are more for hire. But the REAL *** from the mid tier complaints is that they can’t run to the Ghost Seller and buy one. It’s what was being done. Funny part is a lot of these Guilds would love the ghosts back.

Sounds like you guys had a real plague of ghosts on PS4

You have no idea. And people laughed at us here on the forums, as if we were just making up the story for poops and giggles.

martinhpb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

I'm just reinstating the truth here, which is that your opinion is just your opinion and has nothing to do with the truth. No Anita I'm am pointing out what is happening - evidence.

You deny the difference between short-term effects (the inevitable phase of chaos and disruption caused by multibidding) and long-term effects (that the situation once settled will be much better for everyone with multibidding than it used to be with monobidding). That's not "evidence", that's twisted, oriented reasoning. And you tried to shut me up by saying anything beyong "right here and right now" was imagination and fluff.
Now this back and forth will only get us banned at some stage and is probably getting more annoying than funny to those who read, so I'll leave it at that for now. Everyone can see what you're trying to do. I'd suggest you read the people who're happy about multibidding SO FAR (and there are already quite a few of them). Of course, you'll try to counter them by asking what rank / what guild / whatnot to deny them the legitimacy of their testimony.

I dont know what is going to happen in the long-term. I believe that it will be worse for mid-lower guilds as it has been in the short term

I have read the people who found it positive and gave them an insightful. I have not countered any of them, I have never asked one of them what their guild is etc, So you made that up too. But you never, ever apologise for thes false accusations yu just throw out more based on your feelings of what you imagine.

You cannot keep replying to me and making s**t up and not expect me to retaliate.

reoskit

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

In the long run, you're surely correct. But recall what Keynes said about the long run. Or, if you can't recall it off the top of your head, please don't lecture anybody else about economics.

I had to look it up.

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

o.0

Good morning and happy Monday to you all.

*sips coffee and contemplates why we do anything at all*

Mathius_Mordred

reoskit wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

In the long run, you're surely correct. But recall what Keynes said about the long run. Or, if you can't recall it off the top of your head, please don't lecture anybody else about economics.

I had to look it up.

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

o.0

Good morning and happy Monday to you all.

*sips coffee and contemplates why we do anything at all*

Haha

You know there's a lot of people on here who really should get out more.

Donny_Vito

Guild Trading has been working like a charm on Xbox NA since the patch. Nothing really changed (in terms of drastic relocation for traders) of note, which was the overall intent I believe.... give some more flexibility behind the scenes but to the mass consumers it was just another day.

Moonfalcon462

Wanting world-wide linked auction houses is beating a dead horse?

The current system is beyond stupid and probably a factor why long time players quit TESO.

Grimm13

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Plus, they'll inflate even more. I will gladly show ZOS the difference of the bids, in multiple areas for multiple different guilds, allianced and non allianced to show how drastic the change is, and how many high selling guilds are unable to recover the higher and higher loses each week. High sales, combined with raffles, farming on the side at unhealthy hours to offset bid loses and such were already a thing to barely scrape by. Now those things combined don't even cover the higher loses. We have much higher sales than before and none of our guilds have broken even once with bids since the change.

The most basic knowledge of economics shows that all guilds that cannot sustain the prices will stop bidding or bid lower once they're out of gold, which in turn will lower the overall bidding level. It will all settle over time and it is much too soon to make a judgement on the new system.
But sorry, how DARE I have an opinion, let alone express it and referring to basic economics.

Time, that is the key. ZO$ does not care that Traders are now becoming PTW, as long as they get their crown sales. But they are running out of time as more players are moving on.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Grimm13 wrote: »

Time, that is the key. ZO$ does not care that Traders are now becoming PTW, as long as they get their crown sales. But they are running out of time as more players are moving on.

I agree that crown gifting is a major distortion in the market mechanism that ZOS is trying to reinstate, provided it happens on a large scale. But it's a crown gifting issue, not specifically linked nor caused by multibidding.
As to players moving on, every player complaining about ZOS decisions or some aspect of the game's design always claims that he knows herds of players leaving over it. So far, I haven't seen ANYONE leaving over multibidding.

Grimm13

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

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.

It's probably what you intended to say, but it's not what you said :-) It's the way you worded it that triggered it.
I understand your concern - yet you cannot assume that just because a guild is not primarily a trading guild it will have a badly stuffed guild store.

Not assuming, looking at the Traders that my Guild did not win. Seeing that they have a few pages at most. We ran 35 to 45 pages on average. Since Multi-bidding started there is an increase in PCNA of guilds that seem bent on removing competition at a hefty gold loss. TESO has Necromancer class now, It's not a dead horse to all. AH bring it on.

WIZZARD2K

I see writing on the wall. Over the past few weeks I've watched it adversely affect many guilds, and GMs are feeling the pressure the worst. This is not fun. This will kill is already killing off long-time loyal players. Game is going to need a steady stream of new content to attract new players to compensate.

Iarao

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

Iarao

Urigall wrote: »

freespirit wrote: »

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.

Alliances do exist on PC-EU. I don't believe they are involved in anything malign though.

But there is zero doubt that one, or more, players are at the capers. The evidence for that is the number of kiosks with less than a page of 30-day inventory. It's that phenomenon that's probably pushing up bid prices (genuine guilds worried about being sniped or losing a bid)

Whenever the possibility of someone gaming the bidding system is raised, it often results in jibes of "conspiracy theory" Conspiracy is an established, legal principle. Although it is primarily used in criminal cases, conspiracy has civil applications too. A conspiracy is when more than one person colludes to do something conspiratorial. The minimum number required for that purpose...two. So a single player gaming the system is indulging in dodgy practice. More than one is a conspiracy. No amount of dissembling semantics changes that fact.

I agree with most of what you said above, but there are still some issues with multi-bidding. These problems were present under the previous system. Multi-bidding has simply thrown those dodgy practices into sharper focus, because they are now affecting more guilds directly. The primary issue is price hikes. Kiosk squatting is related to that issue in my view.

Previously, guilds didn't have to worry too much about the kiosk buying - didn't have too much effect on their interests. Guilds either had an arrangement to avoid competition, or they could go, cap in hand, to a kiosk flipper. Welcome to the crappy world of dodgy practices that you can no longer ignore. I genuinely feel for you guys but the problem won't go away until the squatters are stopped. Multi-bidding would work as intended, without the influence of the kiosk buyers/squatters - there would be competition amongst equals.

they can still squat if someone has 10 accts with a trading guild on each. can control up to 10 traders. expensive initial outlay, but they get all the lost bids back.

Iarao

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.

not to mention buying gold from gold sellers.

Iarao

ecru wrote: »

reposting my comment from another thread:

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

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

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

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

tl;dr smaller guilds are getting screwed and there are a lot of empty traders. there seems to be a concerted effort to bid on and win traders with proxy guilds and leave them mostly empty to reduce the amount of trade guilds in the game who actually have a tarder. yes, people are that greedy.

reoskit wrote: »

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.

There are guilds placing 7 figure bids on traders that, before the patch, used to go for about 15% of that amount of gold. These guilds have less than one page of items listed. If I had to speculate on why this is happening, my first thought wouldn't be to suggest that the GMs of all of these tiny guilds with nothing to sell suddenly decided to throw millions of gold into the trash.

I'm not suggesting anyone distrust trade guilds, but I am suggesting that there is some effort by a person or persons to place large bids on traders for the sole purpose of making them unavailable to any other guild.

yeah these guild groups trying to squash the competition. that's my take. cuz i can't believe a trader noob would pony up 7 figures on their first trader.