Anne13 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

I've never bid on a guild kiosk so I may miss something out. Can someone explain this idiot friendly to me?

1. Main Guild bids on Kiosk A. Kiosk A is popular and expensive. Main Guild loses bid.
2. Dummy Guild bid in the meanwhile on Kiosk B. Kiosk B is cheap.
3. Dummy guild won kiosk B. Dummy Guild disbands.
4. Main Guild takes slot of kiosk B.

Did I get this right so far?
Now on to my questions.

#1. How comes Kiosk B is so cheap?
#2. What happens to the money of the succesfull bid for Kiosk B?
#3. What are the costs for taking a free kiosk B from a disbanded guild?
#4. Can other Guilds buy the disbanded kiosk B as well?

Dummy guild bids 100k or something low
As apposed to honest legit guilds that lose a 4.5m bid in Deshaan for instance.

If no one else bids on the spot that the dummy guilds bid on the dummy guild wins it for peanuts.

Hence they cover every trader in every main town.

There's been many times were there's been 3 dummy guilds at once.

The main guild lost their 5m bid and that 5m refunded back to the guild bank.

One gm who can hire stands in front of the dummy guild and waits until the other gm disbands the dummy guild.

At that point it will become free to hire for 10k

So. The main guild made 5m set a dummy guild up which cost say 200k

The main guild has a top trader and withdraws the 4.8m that they saved by using the dummy guild exploit.

I hope this helps

So they are bidding on traders that NOBODY bid on. So they are spending gold on a trader that obviously nobody wanted. Or are you suggesting that they are getting prime location traders for 100k? If so then the other guild should just bid on that trader. Your theory is not making sense.

They are not getting prime location traders for nothing. So why wouldn't the main guild just bid on that same trader for 100k if that is all it takes to win a bid on a prime location trader. Somehow I doubt they are winning bids for 100k at prime locations, unless nobody bid on that trader. In which case ANY guild who wanted that trader could have out bid them since you are saying they only bid 100k.

Surely you see what you are suggesting has holes all in it.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

One of the problems I see with the current system, which leads to the issue brought up by the OP, is the huge disruption in trading for a guild that is very active, if it loses a spot for the week.

The system should be designed to provide relative stability for guilds that are trading at the highest rates. What I mean by this is that the system should not be designed in a way that a guild trading enough to fund a 5 million gold bid per week should all of the sudden not have a trader if another guild bids 5.1 million, assuming they did everything else right.

The gaming of the system described by the OP is risk managament. ZOS needs to find a way to legitimately allow good trading guilds to limit their risk. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing with guild traders. The current system of "all or nothing" leads to massive instability in the trading guild market, which leads to the cartels/exploitation as we see now.

If there was a legitimate way to hedge the risk of not having a trading spot, then we would see less collusion and better competition in this area of the game.

How though, does a guild, that is trading at the highest capacity possible, in the top spot, with the most active members, all giving weekly donations lose a position, if all profits are put toward the bid the following week!???

There are a few reasons.

First: Trading guild's profits eventually top out, especially when at a high end spot already. The amount of gold a guild has does not keep increasing at the same rate to infiniti, even if guild leaders are honest. Because of this, guilds will only ever have a limited amount of gold to spend on bids.

Second: Your assumption is that only trading guilds have the money to invest. There are plenty of rich players with the capital to invest in a high end trade spot, if they decided they wanted to try their hand at running a trade guild. If someone with millions of gold (plenty of people in this game) decided to start up a guild and bid on a top spot, it throws the whole system into a loop. If they win, the former guild gets kicked out. Then the former guild has to start bidding against other guilds (because they won't want to risk bidding multiple times against the new guild that beat them, where each week without a trader seriously jeopardizes the guild). Then they kick out another guild, who has to do the same thing.

It creates a lot of instability when there is a newcomer with capital in the market. With instability, people try to find ways to hedge, thus the current problem.

The current system provides no means of hedging and that needs to be fixed.

Also, there seems to be some thought that many guild leaders are skimming gold from their guild treasury for themselves. While this could happen, I think it's wrong to presume that this is the cause of the exploitation of the system.

We see cartels and dummy guild bids simply because this is the best and ONLY way to hedge risk in a very unstable system.

So if a player with tons of capital in the market wants to run a trade guild he/she shouldn't be able to because the other guild were there first!?
This does not throw the system into a loop. Guaranteeing guilds trader spots and not allowing anyone else to enter the market IS the loop.

That "topped out" sum you speak of is going to be the only competitive bid for that spot. Sure someone can push them off that spot for a week but regardless, the losing guild will come back with more money for the following bid. It's how the system is supposed to work.

Why does the lack of hedging need to be "fixed". If a guild isn't successfull in its bid, then it loses its spot. It's actually pretty simple. This system is supposed to take gold out if the economy, to reduce inflation, and keep prices to a reasonable level.
What you are suggesting is that guilds should be able to guarantee top spots or even reasonable spots without paying out the required amount. This required sum is the means to debase the currency else prices continue upwards indefinitely. Pricing everyone without millions of gold and hundreds of hours to grind out of the economy.

You are not making sense. If a guild is ran correctly they should not require hedging of bets. Sure they may lose a spot for a week but it isn't the end for them. I've seen countless guilds take a week in another location or no location at all and come back the following week with a stronger bid. This is how it is supposed to work and actually helps everyone in the long run by debasing the currency and keeping prices of goods and traders to a reasonable level.

I think we are on different trains of thought here.

I am not suggesting anyone be guaranteed the same spot, or any spot. However, a trading guilds continued success and existence relies on having a spot to trade at, whether it be in Mournhold or Windhelm, or wherever. That success and existence is very much threatened by the likely possibility (because of the design of the system) of having NO trading spot.

So what do guilds do to best continue their success and existence? Exactly what the OP says: they find ways of guaranteeing that they have a back-up spot (it may not be anywhere as good, but it is way better than having no spot for a week) and they work (collude, really) with other guilds in their area to mutually benefit them their guilds.

The name of the game for Trading Guilds is STABILITY. I am not saying that any guild should be guaranteed a spot, but rather that it's in the guild leaders' best interest to guarantee that their guild at least has a spot. Therefore, you should be able to see why they act (exploit the system) in the way that they do. Hopefully you can draw the conclusions yourself on what happens to a trading guild that often has no guild trader.

As for competitive bids, I explained just one way how a new competitor can make things bad. If they "fixed" the dummy guild issue without adding in a legitimate way to hedge the risk of not having a trading spot (since guilds can only bid on one spot), it would be chaos. Would anyone here really want to be on trading guilds that only had a spot every other week? Is that really good for the market? I don't care if we don't have the same spot, but not having ANY spot is just plain bad for all involved.

I explained why hedging is needed: newcomers and growing guilds with influxes of capital provide a (albeit, shorterm) risk to established guilds. This is intended, but not having a trading spot (since guilds can technically only bid on one location) is a large risk to the success of the guild and has a decent shop at happening.

All I am saying ZOS should do is legitimize a way of allowing guilds to get another trader in the chance that their primary bid is beat, instead of having to go a week without a trader. There is no reason a 500 person guild selling 50 million in gold + in sales a week should happen to not be able to trade anywhere because they missed out on a a single bid, when they can easily outbid 3/4 of the other traders.

Prof_Bawbag wrote: »

alexkdd99 wrote: »

Prof_Bawbag wrote: »

alexkdd99 wrote: »

Anne13 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

I've never bid on a guild kiosk so I may miss something out. Can someone explain this idiot friendly to me?

1. Main Guild bids on Kiosk A. Kiosk A is popular and expensive. Main Guild loses bid.
2. Dummy Guild bid in the meanwhile on Kiosk B. Kiosk B is cheap.
3. Dummy guild won kiosk B. Dummy Guild disbands.
4. Main Guild takes slot of kiosk B.

Did I get this right so far?
Now on to my questions.

#1. How comes Kiosk B is so cheap?
#2. What happens to the money of the succesfull bid for Kiosk B?
#3. What are the costs for taking a free kiosk B from a disbanded guild?
#4. Can other Guilds buy the disbanded kiosk B as well?

Dummy guild bids 100k or something low
As apposed to honest legit guilds that lose a 4.5m bid in Deshaan for instance.

If no one else bids on the spot that the dummy guilds bid on the dummy guild wins it for peanuts.

Hence they cover every trader in every main town.

There's been many times were there's been 3 dummy guilds at once.

The main guild lost their 5m bid and that 5m refunded back to the guild bank.

One gm who can hire stands in front of the dummy guild and waits until the other gm disbands the dummy guild.

At that point it will become free to hire for 10k

So. The main guild made 5m set a dummy guild up which cost say 200k

The main guild has a top trader and withdraws the 4.8m that they saved by using the dummy guild exploit.

I hope this helps

So they are bidding on traders that NOBODY bid on. So they are spending gold on a trader that obviously nobody wanted. Or are you suggesting that they are getting prime location traders for 100k? If so then the other guild should just bid on that trader. Your theory is not making sense.

They are not getting prime location traders for nothing. So why wouldn't the main guild just bid on that same trader for 100k if that is all it takes to win a bid on a prime location trader. Somehow I doubt they are winning bids for 100k at prime locations, unless nobody bid on that trader. In which case ANY guild who wanted that trader could have out bid them since you are saying they only bid 100k.

Surely you see what you are suggesting has holes all in it.

Because people aren't clairvoyants and because like the rest of us, don't actually own a crystal ball which tells us which spots will go without a bid. Instead, they make fake guilds up to cover all those bases. If you're gonna tell someone their argument is full of holes at least use some common sense when applying some of your own points..

Lol he said it was a dummy guild in the same spot multiple times. Common sense would suggest that it would be the trader with the dummy guild in it multiple times.

Maybe you just can't see the holes in his theory. Either way common sense is all that's needed to see it. There is a reason he has not disputed this fact with anyone else. Any other guild in the game could bid on these traders. But according to op traders in prime locations don't even get bids at all.

It's not my fault you can't comprehend the flaws in his theory.

You really do come across as a try hard, especially when your own flaws are exposed. You're simply not understanding any of this and instead you're attempting to be the smart one when it's obvious you're not fully grasping anything. Do you even know how bidding works? It's the old internet thing of having to comment on anything and everything and then back yourself into a corner when you're exposed as lacking much credibility in the subject you're banging your gums about.

Don't let me stop you though, because you usually carry on regardless. Not gonna waste another second on you and your overly inflated opinion of yourself that you seem to throw around on these forums. Maybe someone somewhere will be impressed one day.

Lol and who is trying hard? Who started off slinging insults? Do I know how the bidding works? Apparently I am the only one.

Why is it that nobody can answer the questions being asked, oh great one. Btw I am not the only one pointing out these massive holes in this scheme that op is presenting.

But I guess there is a reason nobody has answered those very simple questions. Because they have no clue.

I usually carry on regardless? What are you taking about? You just want to hurl a few insults, then say you are not going to defend your points. Which btw are so obviously flawed, so obvious multiple people have pointed them out.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

@Verbalinkontinenz how do you think these trade guilds came into existence if not for someone fronting the capital!? That is how the system is supposed to function. If a rich player is just throwing his money at a spot and making no returns he isn't going to have that spot for very long.
It's this exact function that is supposed to draw the gold out of the economy to keep it stable. The system works perfectly in this regard.

@TheStealthDude I'm not saying the system is without flaws. But when risk is removed for a trade guild that aren't required to put up all or at least the vast majority of a weeks profits to ensure that stability then they are able to pocket massive amounts of gold and that gold inflates the currency. Individuals create huge spending power for themselves that can be, and I have seen first hand, is in fact used to purchase up the entire of a particular resource (be it sharpened weapons, gold tempers etc.) and sell at a higher price further pricing others out of the market. It's the risk of losing a spot for a week that is supposed to control the amount of gold taken out of the economy on a weekly basis.

Interesting thought about inflation, I absolutely see what you are saying. The gold sink is absolutely needed for the game. But let's not forget that there is still risk from losing a top spot and going to a lesser spot.

Is that enough risk to keep guilds upping their bidding? That's definitely debatable. I lean towards yes, due to the demands of the guild members. Members want to maximize their profits, obviously, which is why they are in the guild. If the guild leaders keeps losing a top spot because they are trying to get fancy with the bids, then the members will eventually find (or create) a guild where their needs are being met. Competition of guilds is why this happens.

Right now, the current system either allows you to win your first and inly spot or have no spot for the week. That's a risk from going from 100% sales efficiency to 0%. If the system allowed, instead, a chance to get a lower priority spot if your primary bid failed, the risk would be of going from 100% efficiency to 75% (or some other amount, but not 0 and likely not 100).

What I want to do (and what the dummy bids are already allowing guilds to do) is legitimize a way of not having to settle either 100% or 0% and allowing guilds to place multiple (perhaps limited, to say, 3) bids. This would essentially allow guilds to have less risk and would reduce the necessity to collude. This would also allow for more competition because you could then bid on your neighbors if perhaps they are paying less than you are, on top of your own and your backup spot. It would actually help to keep gold sunk into the system high, in my opinion (your key concern, it seems).

In short, a fix to allow bids on different traders keeps what's happening in the open (as opposed to the behind the scenes dummy bids and collusion), still retains some risk for the guild, and allows for greater competition for guild traders.

alexkdd99 wrote: »

jazsper77 wrote: »

As a GM of a 450 member PS4 NA Guild , I can tell you that this is rampant in our game. There was exactly 10 dummy guilds this week and 4 of them have been flipped. I can also tell you for fact that there is a 10 guild alliance that encompasses the 4 main areas.They have created a MAFIA to control the Trading and to be the HARBINGER of Guild Trading.

I can also tell you for a fact that a tier 2 city location is about 400k . One of the Guilds I belong to purchased a said Trader Mon for 500k. A nice 100k profit for the Main Guild.

This practice happens for really a couple of reasons.

1. Keep members from leaving
2. Securing spots for any losing alliance Guilds.

But a simple way to explain
Unicorns and puppy's bids 5 mill Mornhold
Fake Guild -Rainbows and kittens bids 400k in Stormhold.

Main guild wins bid- flips second spot 100k plus profit.

Main guild loses main uses back up for members to sell for week.

Simple

Ok, that makes sense. They are getting traders in locations that are NOT prime locations.

OP is suggesting these dummy guilds are getting traders in prime locations, right next to where the main guild lost the bid.

So they are in fact not getting prime location traders for 100k.

He is saying guild A bids on there trader in Mournhold for 5mil and loses.

Guild A has a dummy guild that bids on another trader in Mournhold for 100k and wins.

So then guild A main guild has a trader in Mournhold for 100k.

But what you are saying is not what op is saying.

What you are saying is what is happening but is by no means the same thing op is saying.

Except sometimes they are. Numerous times I have come across a guild in Rawl'kha or Mournhold with absolutely nothing listed. It's not as common probably, but it does happen. Although I don't understand why they don't sell the spot to another guild if that's the way people are saying these things work.

I agree with the idea that it should just be changed so that any guild currently holding a trader cannot be disbanded. That wouldn't hurt anyone but would make this sort of practice useless.

TheStealthDude wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

@Verbalinkontinenz how do you think these trade guilds came into existence if not for someone fronting the capital!? That is how the system is supposed to function. If a rich player is just throwing his money at a spot and making no returns he isn't going to have that spot for very long.
It's this exact function that is supposed to draw the gold out of the economy to keep it stable. The system works perfectly in this regard.

@TheStealthDude I'm not saying the system is without flaws. But when risk is removed for a trade guild that aren't required to put up all or at least the vast majority of a weeks profits to ensure that stability then they are able to pocket massive amounts of gold and that gold inflates the currency. Individuals create huge spending power for themselves that can be, and I have seen first hand, is in fact used to purchase up the entire of a particular resource (be it sharpened weapons, gold tempers etc.) and sell at a higher price further pricing others out of the market. It's the risk of losing a spot for a week that is supposed to control the amount of gold taken out of the economy on a weekly basis.

Interesting thought about inflation, I absolutely see what you are saying. The gold sink is absolutely needed for the game. But let's not forget that there is still risk from losing a top spot and going to a lesser spot.

Is that enough risk to keep guilds upping their bidding? That's definitely debatable. I lean towards yes, due to the demands of the guild members. Members want to maximize their profits, obviously, which is why they are in the guild. If the guild leaders keeps losing a top spot because they are trying to get fancy with the bids, then the members will eventually find (or create) a guild where their needs are being met. Competition of guilds is why this happens.

Right now, the current system either allows you to win your first and inly spot or have no spot for the week. That's a risk from going from 100% sales efficiency to 0%. If the system allowed, instead, a chance to get a lower priority spot if your primary bid failed, the risk would be of going from 100% efficiency to 75% (or some other amount, but not 0 and likely not 100).

What I want to do (and what the dummy bids are already allowing guilds to do) is legitimize a way of not having to settle either 100% or 0% and allowing guilds to place multiple (perhaps limited, to say, 3) bids. This would essentially allow guilds to have less risk and would reduce the necessity to collude. This would also allow for more competition because you could then bid on your neighbors if perhaps they are paying less than you are, on top of your own and your backup spot. It would actually help to keep gold sunk into the system high, in my opinion (your key concern, it seems).

In short, a fix to allow bids on different traders keeps what's happening in the open (as opposed to the behind the scenes dummy bids and collusion), still retains some risk for the guild, and allows for greater competition for guild traders.

i don't feel a system like that would work any better than it's currently 'supposed' to work.

Would the guild lose all of its bids if one was successful? If not its a sure fire way for the top pest of the top to get even cheaper traders with even less risk and gains them the ability to siphon even more gold into their pockets. If they lose all placed bids on having one succeed it 'could' work.

Again, the blind bid system is meant to put pressure on a guild to bid the maximum possible to extract the maximum possible out of the economy. With this system a guild could decrease its bid greatly and have far more in excess than the system should allow lest it causes more inflation.

Inflation really is the name of the game here. And the whole premise of trader exploiting is to remove risk, reduce bids, and inflate the currency. You're right, this is the whole reason I have issue with this, very few win while everyone else loses in the long run. Also, being that I play on the most expensive economy on PS4 EU, it just strengthens my disdain.

How would you put pressure on guild masters to bid, up to and including, it's entire profit of not without the current blind bidder system. A system that is currently being bypassed!!

Verbalinkontinenz wrote: »

So, originally you said that rich individuals throwing money at spots is a 'cancer' to the trade system. I argued that it didn't matter as the system will weed out these individual

yes, but if a crazy old lady goes on rampage tour with her 60 millions, it takes half a year until she is bankrupt, since she also can earn within that time another millions. in this time she already has been able to make a lot of damage. now imagine many people doing that. meanwhile many people have tons of millions on the bank, imagine everyone doing it. i just say, the balance between 1 persons earnings and earnings of a system of 500 people is totally broken and has to be readjusted. thats why this behaviour "be rich and make trade guild, buy trader and then MAYBE try too improve the guild" we discussed about, is cancer in the system.

thats also how trading hubs die, thats why stormhaven has been dead for so long (besides the first 2 guilds, it changed meanwhile), thats why the top spots are so centralized on few hubs, while everything around is dead and full of half empty stores and thats why every ambitious guild longs for that same hubs.

and only hard working honest guild traders would prevail. Are we now in agreement!??

on this we are on agreement

But on my platform I see no crazy old ladies . And if it was to be such an issue then why don't I see it more often? The fact is, it's not happening! Not as far as I can tell at least. What I do see though are cartels of guilds gaming the system. If they are so afraid of losing a spot then they should be putting all their profits and donations into the weekly bid. Can you tell me that is what is occuring? I don't think so. They are bidding far less on two traders than they are willing spend on one to guarantee a spot. They are in fact taking risks with guildies donations to pocket a saving for themselves.

Narvuntien wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

One of the problems I see with the current system, which leads to the issue brought up by the OP, is the huge disruption in trading for a guild that is very active, if it loses a spot for the week.

The system should be designed to provide relative stability for guilds that are trading at the highest rates. What I mean by this is that the system should not be designed in a way that a guild trading enough to fund a 5 million gold bid per week should all of the sudden not have a trader if another guild bids 5.1 million, assuming they did everything else right.

The gaming of the system described by the OP is risk managament. ZOS needs to find a way to legitimately allow good trading guilds to limit their risk. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing with guild traders. The current system of "all or nothing" leads to massive instability in the trading guild market, which leads to the cartels/exploitation as we see now.

If there was a legitimate way to hedge the risk of not having a trading spot, then we would see less collusion and better competition in this area of the game.

I agree this is an issue. Losing a guild trader is such a big hit to a guild and its players.

People in many trade guilds at the same time might want to switch things listed from a guild that lost thier store to thier other guild that still has an active guild in someway.

I think a simple soultion is that there is a week lag on the bids.. you bid for the week after next so traders know if they have the trader for the next week but not the week after. So you have certainty, you can start scouting a new location before you lose your trader.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

How though, does a guild, that is trading at the highest capacity possible, in the top spot, with the most active members, all giving weekly donations lose a position, if all profits are put toward the bid the following week!???

Easily.. for starters another guild may take a week off a bid to try and fundraise and jump above them to push them out.

I had my guild pushed out locations multiple times, they were in Ralwh'l when I joined.. then Kvatch, then sentinal then pushed out of there after homestead for some reason then Kvatch and now Hews bane just in time for the event.

You admit that there is huge risk involved in taking a week off but accept its a legit strategy to attempt to climb the proverbial ladder! I don't see the problem. If they are outbid then more money is taken out of the economy (which I will re-iterate is the whole point of the system) they are then forced to come back with a larger bid, again doing what the system is supposed to do. Sure, people can lose a trader for the week but with regards the big picture everyone actually wins. More money out of the system, the more everyone's gold is worth.

wouldnt bidding on 2 kiosks basically double their bids?
how do they get it "for free" if they have to bid for 2 stalls in the first place?
if they win both they are screwed.

if they lose the main one they are screwed as well, cos 100k bids for good stalls. be real.
they can jsut take an empty spot nobody bid on as well

Anne13 wrote: »

They will always been in one of the 4 main towns. Both main and dummy guilds.

I impose that they could implement that any guild that owns a trader location can not disband a guild during this ownership. Or, if a guild disbands whilst owning a trader location that location then becomes unavailable, frozen out until the following trader switch.

This was the best suggestion I've see thus far. It would stop the dummy guilds.