Proposal: Increase the number of guilds that a NPC Trader supports.

Thorvik_Tyrson · June 2019

After reading some of the threads that wanted to add a Global AH, I got to thinking about the trading issue. As a newer player to ESO, the current trading system seems to me to be very exclusionary to the general population playing the game. If my math is correct, there are around 210 traders, and each trading guild can have up to 500 players in it. So in theory that serves about 105,000 possible players. That number gets reduced by players that are in multiple trading guilds, therefor reducing the number of actual players that can trade. For easy math, lets call it 100,000. (its probably a lot less). Now what is the player base of ESO? If it is 1 million players, then less than 10% of the player base can actually trade goods with a trader. So for the most part, the average casual player gets shutout of trading to players past their own trading guild of 500 players or less.

My proposal is the following: Increase the number of guilds that a trader can support. 5 guilds per trader sounds to me like a reasonable number and would increase the % of players actually able to use a trader up closer to 50% of the player base. (if it is 1 million players) We keep the current trading system and bidding for trading spots, but now the top 5 bidders for a spot would be able to win that spot for the week.

I will say that the trader/trading guild is probably more historically accurate to a medieval time period that ESO seems to emulate than a global AH is, so from that standpoint I can see trying to keep the existing system and modify it to allow for more of the general population to be able to participate in it, rather than replacing it.

We are already able to go to the bank and view our trading guilds, so I see this as something similar to that for viewing/searching the trading guilds at that trader.
It would be even more convenient for the buyer if you were able to search all 5 trade guilds at the same time.

Devanear · June 2019

It's a terrible idea for the sellers of the established guilds as they would lose customers and their profits could drop considerably.

Sylvermynx · June 2019

@Thorvik_Tyrson - it's an exclusionary system for a reason: because ZOS went this direction, and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

If ZOS goes any different direction, the vast majority of trading guilds are going to quit en masse. I estimate that to be about a third of the current player base. Not happening.

StabbityDoom · June 2019

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Thorvik_Tyrson - it's an exclusionary system for a reason: because ZOS went this direction, and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

If ZOS goes any different direction, the vast majority of trading guilds are going to quit en masse. I estimate that to be about a third of the current player base. Not happening.

I don't know if it'd be that many. many of us traders are well aware it's a problematic system that invites unfair strategy, stress (every gm I know feels like barfing on sunday nights), and limits selling to just a few. I doubt it reaches as many buyers as it could, too.

I'm not sure about your proposal, but I wouldn't mind something changing. Even though I'm in many of the top guilds, I still hear complaints about the system being so exclusionary. We aren't all just sitting around cheering on this system. We all know it has flaws, even those who like it know that.

VaranisArano · June 2019

As a different viww to the pure numbers, I'l offer a different viewpoint.

I often see advertisements for trading guilds in zone chat.

Every time I've gone looking for a trading guild, I found one that met my requirements in a couple days - and I was being picky and just looking at ads. If I'd gone to a major hub and typed in zone chat "LF trading guild", it would have gone a lot faster.

So at least in my experience, anyone who wants a trading guild and bothers to look for one to join can find one that fits their needs pretty easily.

Sylvermynx · June 2019

StabbityDoom wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Thorvik_Tyrson - it's an exclusionary system for a reason: because ZOS went this direction, and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

If ZOS goes any different direction, the vast majority of trading guilds are going to quit en masse. I estimate that to be about a third of the current player base. Not happening.

I don't know if it'd be that many. many of us traders are well aware it's a problematic system that invites unfair strategy, stress (every gm I know feels like barfing on sunday nights), and limits selling to just a few. I doubt it reaches as many buyers as it could, too.

I'm not sure about your proposal, but I wouldn't mind something changing. Even though I'm in many of the top guilds, I still hear complaints about the system being so exclusionary. We aren't all just sitting around cheering on this system. We all know it has flaws, even those who like it know that.

Yeah.... got to be a serious downer when Sunday rolls around. Nope, I'm not really advocating seriously for a GAH as in WoW and RIFT - I miss those, but this system isn't at all set up for that. And having such a major change would more than likely lose the game a LOT of players.... NOT a good outcome.

Something needs to be done though. I don't know if I'm an outlier.... if so, there's no further issue. But if there are others who simply are turned off by the very exclusionary trader system as it stands.... then something needs to happen.

I don't really have an answer. I wish I did.

Urigall · June 2019

I trade a lot and my experience of trade guilds has been positive. My current one enforces a highish, weekly target but I can see why - they need the revenue to compete each week. Don't blame them and I knew what I was signing up to anyway.

But I'm only too aware of the complaints about financial firepower being brought to bear, buying up less popular spots to keep other guilds out etc.

There is a - sort of - workaround. No doubt it would lead to disagreement from many guild owners, so I'll keep it to myself. The workaround could probably be gamed anyway.

Absent a way to stop financial clout being unfairly used to block less wealthy guilds, I can't see any other way of addressing the issue.

jainiadral · June 2019

Devanear wrote: »

It's a terrible idea for the sellers of the established guilds as they would lose customers and their profits could drop considerably.

And a good idea for more of the game's players. This is probably the most clear, plain, blatant expression of the true agenda behind the fearmongering we've seen over the last couple of weeks.

What scares established guilds the most? Actual competition, apparently.

It would be nice to see some smaller guilds really have a shot. Expanding the market potential would be good for them and for a larger percentage of the player base. Lower prices would benefit consumers.

tahol10069 · June 2019

Devanear wrote: »

It's a terrible idea for the sellers of the established guilds as they would lose customers and their profits could drop considerably.

How horrible that would be! Who cares that many people don't trade at all right now because it is such a cumbersome system they just don't bother with it and trash or sell to vendor rather than bother with it. Who needs fairness in this world anyway? Or how insanely difficult it is to find what you need, or how in popular trading spots prices are 5 times higher than in less popular which leads to item flipping.

You people are such a jolly bunch of hypocrisy and double standards.

Urigall · June 2019

jainiadral wrote: »

It would be nice to see some smaller guilds really have a shot.

They could.

But there would be too much resistance to doing what's needed for that to happen.

idk · June 2019

The UI required would still have the top bidder being the default store we see. It should not be all stores as one for various reasons but most notable server load.

Considering I am in two PvE guilds that are by no means trading guilds nor try to be and they often have traders it does not seem that we have a shortage in the game which also means OP is making a false assumption that it would increase access to traders.

It is also a huge assumption that there are 1 million actual active players on any of the servers. Even more to the point, trading guilds are constantly recruiting which demonstrates there is room at the inn and those who want to be part of the system can as long as they find the trading guild they fit into.

Rushinator · June 2019

Considering it would be a lot of work for ZOS to change the code to have a trader support multiple traders, it would actually be more realistic to ask ZOS to add MORE NPC Traders to different cities. They can easily do that since they do it every time they add a new zone, which comes with new Traders.

They could easily drop a trader next to each existing Trader if they wanted & label them an assistant or something.

However I doubt ZOS would do this as they want this cut-throat system with a limited supply of traders. It's created a huge gold sink for the game where guilds are spending MILLIONS of gold each week to win their trader.

Billions of gold are being removed from the economy through this method, which reduces inflation.

This is what the people who want a universal auction house don't understand. ESO's economy was designed with these traders in mind. Its also created a much more dynamic trading system then compared to other games like WoW.

jainiadral · June 2019

Urigall wrote: »

jainiadral wrote: »

It would be nice to see some smaller guilds really have a shot.

They could.

But there would be too much resistance to doing what's needed for that to happen.

Believe me, I know

The lengths I've seen hardcore traders go to and weird leaps of logic I've seen around here recently defending the system as it currently is smack of a semi-organized propaganda campaign. I mean this could all be random coincidence or there's a Borg collective in operations behind the scenes

<--seriously, this might actually be awesome!

I'm guessing the outrage and outpouring would be far worse if ZOS upped the guilds per trader to two. It would make the Nerfmire fire look like nothing

Too bad, because if the situation was bad six months ago, it's a hell of a lot worse with the massive influx of new players. Prices have doubled in the last six months on dreugh wax, for example, since I quit my trading guild (PC-NA). New players require services and opportunities. The services need to expand by default to accomodate them.

Grianasteri · June 2019

As a consumer, when I search for items I need I want to shop at large, wealthy guilds, with active players, who therefore have well stocked guild stores.

Diluting the guild traders so that smaller, less wealthy, less active guilds can crowd things, seems to me an unattractive preposition. It may seem cruel to smaller guilds to struggle to purchase guild store space, but thats how the system works, if you cannot afford a guild store, it is unlikely your guild store would be very well stocked.

Urigall · June 2019

jainiadral wrote: »

Urigall wrote: »

weird leaps of logic

Any debate that could lead to one, or more, parties losing out financially is unlikely to proceed on the basis of logic or impartiality. The potential loss of money always creates the possibility of bias arising out of vested interests.

As Upton Sinclair neatly put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

bmnoble · June 2019

I am not opposed to the idea however:

Don't think it should be 5 guild for every one of the traders in the game, right now there are certain locations that are bid on by the top guilds due to the amount of foot traffic there is in certain locations eg, Alliance capitals and locations with a large number of traders near a wayshrine.

If you suddenly had 5 guilds per trader, it would only increase the advantage of those locations with lots of traders near each other. Further decreasing the likely hood of players venturing out to those single trader locations in spots that are less likely to be visited, unless TTC shows a good deal there.

My suggestion is this, have the single location traders, have the 5 guilds able to share the spot, it would increase the likely hood, of players visiting those locations, since they suddenly have the equivalent of guild traders that some of the big spots have, making it more worth players time to have a look.

While not cluttering up the main towns, with so many trade guilds that players never have a reason to go anywhere else.

They already have the means to implement it, similar to how we access, our guilds store through the bankers, just have it that the guild that bids the highest gets to have their name on the store/gets to dress the NPC.

That should give some of the smaller and medium trade guilds a chance to get a spot, while keeping the competition among the big guilds for the high traffic spots, maintaining the blind bid system as a gold sink.

Suddenly there would be too many traders for the richer guilds to buy out all possible spots, meaning if a guild loses there usual spot they will be able to find a back up easier.

That's my 2 cents.

Iluvrien · June 2019

First you’d have to establish that there are players that want to be in a trading guild that are prevented from doing so.

The near constant trading guild recruitment spam in zone causes me to question this foundational premise.

Urigall · June 2019

Iluvrien wrote: »

First you’d have to establish that there are players that want to be in a trading guild that are prevented from doing so.

The near constant trading guild recruitment spam in zone causes me to question this foundational premise.

Yes - there are constant calls for applications to join guilds. I see them frequently. How many of these guilds regularly hold their spots is a moot point.

And there is a flip side to not being able to join a guild in order to trade: not wanting to join one in the first place.

Some players might want to trade without joining a guild. They might want to remain outside of the guild system because of personal preference.

Under the current system, players who want to make even a little money have two choices. Either join a guild or make money solely from crafting writs. I suppose it's a matter of individual judgement as to what is best.

Romo · June 2019

Iluvrien wrote: »

First you’d have to establish that there are players that want to be in a trading guild that are prevented from doing so.

The near constant trading guild recruitment spam in zone causes me to question this foundational premise.

Chuckle...

Most guild spam for traders are either newly formed "trading guilds" with no trader, or older guilds with "positions for 2-10 new members(they just kicked out some members because of lack of activity or poor sales numbers/failure to pay "dues").

Do you dispute the 210 number for Traders available?

What number of them are back-up for large guilds holding them as backup? number in very poor spots?

500 members for 210 slots still is only 105,000 peeps. What is your estimate of peeps on each server?

And finally how many of the guilds and therefore the traders are targeted for late game, just the top end items gamer, thus knocking out all the newbie just starting out from traders. Odds are all the traders in major trading cities are these type of traders.

Me, like probably many of the locked out players, have just given up on this trading system....

chess1ukb16_ESO · June 2019

The current model works as a Clearing system with many Members of the big guilds trawling through the smaller less frequented kiosks. They find good offers, buy them and move these items to the busy Guilds that occupy prime kiosks for a profit. Customers who prefer finding items quickly swarm to the busy Guilds and buy these moved items and consume them. Everyone is happy(ish).

I help manage over a dozen Trade Guilds and am in several others (yes I have a few accounts). Every single one has vacant openings for new members at this exact moment in time. This is normal.

Arguably super casual players are not well served in the current model but even these Players could find a Trade Guild with no requirements. Yes it wont be in a prime zone like Vivec City but should it be? Customers do not want to trawl through shops that have very limited supply as it would waste even more time.

Urigall · June 2019

chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »

Customers do not want to trawl through shops that have very limited supply as it would waste even more time.

After guild spot bidding time, I make a mental note of which new guilds have good stock and which don't. If it's the latter, I never go back when looking for an item. Other players probably do likewise. If such guilds don't perform they're up the creek come the following Sunday. Seems odd to buy a spot then fail to make every effort to list items, in order to get the revenue rolling in. Seeing exactly that happening right now.

And I'm not convinced there is a correlation between newness and quality/quantity of items. There is no reason why a new guild couldn't start off with loads of good quality items for sale.

david_m_18b16_ESO · June 2019

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Thorvik_Tyrson - and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

Not happening.

Beside a few guild leader how would quite over this ?

StabbityDoom · June 2019

The only high-end traders who have commented haven't bashed a change in the system, yet you people are piling on to kick strawmen by suggesting they need to keep "elite spots" and use twisted logic to do so.

Try again, this time with using reality. Scroll up to my post and see what I said, and I'm in all high end trade guilds and some smaller ones on another account.

Mettaricana · June 2019

Devanear wrote: »

It's a terrible idea for the sellers of the established guilds as they would lose customers and their profits could drop considerably.

And?

jediodyn_ESO · June 2019

I like the current trade system. It makes sense and it isn’t hard to find a guild with a very cheap or free trader.

Thank god this game has at least a tiny bit of RL economics in it.

Thorvik_Tyrson · June 2019

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Thorvik_Tyrson - it's an exclusionary system for a reason: because ZOS went this direction, and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

If ZOS goes any different direction, the vast majority of trading guilds are going to quit en masse. I estimate that to be about a third of the current player base. Not happening.

After reading your post a couple of times, I have to laugh. I didn't say unwind it or go in a different direction, I said modify it to allow more players access to the system. And you ended with a threat of tons of players quitting the game. Too funny IMO.

The current system is based on a smaller number of player having access to the system. Why? Who knows? It really does not matter as to why. The system COULD be modified to allow more trade guilds, and that is my point. When they add a new zone, they add a handfull of traders just like every other zone has. This number of new trader NPC's is not based on the number of players in the player base and seems very short sited in my opinion.

With the current system, it encourages the players to only list high dollar items and ignore the smaller materials listings as they are not "worth it" to list. With more players being able to sell their goods to other players, the quantity of items will increase, and it will also encourage them to list those smaller items as being worth it to them to make some gold.

I have to say that I expected posts like this. They really are not addressing my post at all, but they have a doomsday ring to it. I expect resistance to change, but I see the change as being better overall for the game, and more inclusive of the player base.

Devanear · June 2019

jainiadral wrote: »

Devanear wrote: »

It's a terrible idea for the sellers of the established guilds as they would lose customers and their profits could drop considerably.

And a good idea for more of the game's players. This is probably the most clear, plain, blatant expression of the true agenda behind the fearmongering we've seen over the last couple of weeks.

What scares established guilds the most? Actual competition, apparently.

It would be nice to see some smaller guilds really have a shot. Expanding the market potential would be good for them and for a larger percentage of the player base. Lower prices would benefit consumers.

It's not about the competition, but the OP wanting guilds to continue to bid and having to pay for a place to trade while at the same time slashing their income.

Not everyone in a trading guild is raking in profits, and taking away the clients while requiring the spending could make the whole endeavor not worthwhile. Specially for the guilds in the less popular hubs.

Pevey · June 2019

StabbityDoom wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Thorvik_Tyrson - it's an exclusionary system for a reason: because ZOS went this direction, and now the guild trading system is so entrenched they couldn't unwind it without losing a LOT of players.

If ZOS goes any different direction, the vast majority of trading guilds are going to quit en masse. I estimate that to be about a third of the current player base. Not happening.

I don't know if it'd be that many. many of us traders are well aware it's a problematic system that invites unfair strategy, stress (every gm I know feels like barfing on sunday nights), and limits selling to just a few. I doubt it reaches as many buyers as it could, too.

I'm not sure about your proposal, but I wouldn't mind something changing. Even though I'm in many of the top guilds, I still hear complaints about the system being so exclusionary. We aren't all just sitting around cheering on this system. We all know it has flaws, even those who like it know that.

These are pretty much my thoughts, as well. I enjoy the current system to some extent and deal with it because in any game I play, I love trading. But there are some serious downsides.

Raammzzaa · June 2019

It’s been my experience that at least the larger trading guilds are extremely inclusive with lots of social activities planned for members above and beyond trading.

From what I read of the recent threads advocating for a GAH, the argument of those players is not that they’re being excluded it’s that they don’t want to join a guild and interact with other players - even though very little interaction is really required. So I don’t see that simply adding more guilds for them to join would something welcome.

ghastley · June 2019

There are a couple of false assumptions, at least, in this idea:

Not every player is desperate to play the trading game. Most just want to do the questing, dungeon diving etc. There may well be enough slots to satisfy the actual demand.

A guild can trade, within its own members, without having a trader. The small-volume casual trades are likely to happen that way, but we have no way to see it happen, so we assume it doesn't exist.

Urigall · June 2019

Rushinator wrote: »

Billions of gold are being removed from the economy through this method, which reduces inflation.

How much new gold is created every week? How much gold is sunk every week? Related question: is the amount of gold within the ESO economy static (new money offset by gold sinks) or is it increasing or decreasing?

As an illustration, let's say 10,000 players are each taking in an average of 100,000/week for crafting writs. I make about 150k/week on my 8 chars. If my crafting income is similar to a fair slice of the other, player base, at least 1,000,000,000 of new money could be entering the ESO economy every week. Are those figures of 10,000 and 1,000,000,000 too high or too low? No data exist to allow a definitive answer.

There are pointers though - guesswork. The current Steam player charts show around 30,000 peak players on a consistent basis since last December and that's only Steam players. If only 33% of all ESO players do writs that generate 100,000/player/week, it seems fair to say billions in new gold might be entering the ESO economy every week. Might be a lot less. We don't know for certain.

Unless the guild trader system, and other sinks such as riding lessons, removes an amount that is at least equivalent to the new money accruing to players every week, the gold supply within ESO must be increasing. Week on week. If so, the gap between the total amount of gold in circulation and the amount sunk must also be increasing. Week on week.

There is no doubt that the guild system sinks a lot of gold every week. What we do not know is whether the gold sink exceeds the amount of new money that is created.

I suppose guilds wipe out enough of the new money to prevent the worst inflation. If they sink more gold than is created every week, the ESO gold supply must be contracting.