Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Guild bid on up to 10 different Guild Trader locations each week with update 23

  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    jim_1 wrote: »
    reoskit wrote: »

    As I noted, it was a serious question. I'd like to hear more from people who are happy about this.

    Can you explain how this will eliminate shadow (/ghost/whatever we want to call them) guilds?

    This change (in Update 23) will not eliminate shadow guilds, in my opinion. A wealthy guild can more easily buy a primary location (placing multiple bids), and their shadow guild(s) can buy other locations (also placing multiple bids, given enough coin).

    Now, if ZOS follows up with another change, say in Update 23 + n, that prohibits the resale of a purchased guild trader ...
    That would be interesting, in my opinion. How do you make in game money off of a shadow guild, if you cannot resell the guild trader that the shadow guild is purchasing?

    But why would they? Seriously Who wants to actually give up guild slots for "Shadow" guilds if they no longer have to do so? They have at best the bare minimum of 50 people in them to have aguild store. Those Shadow guilds are not going to eek out any profit worth mentioning. There really is no longer going to be any reason for people to give up a valuable guild slot just so their guild leader wants a shadow guild. There may be the rare few egotistical leaders who keep them going IF they have guild members stupid enough to support them for a guild that will not earn enough gold to make it worth the gold it costs to bid a second location. I mean seriously! The ONLY point of Shadow guilds was to have a backup location. It cost people valuable guild slots for a guild that would only end up being disbanded to give the main guild the trader at best.

    Do you even read what the others have written?

    Some shadow guilds buy up guild trader slots so that they can sell them on to the highest bidder after the trader flip is closed. They even sell it on with a 60% profit from what they gave for the trader. This is not going to stop.

    I've skipped over a lot of whining sure. I still don't see people giving up guild slots so one guy can "Sell the spot" for profit. He must have oodles of really gullible friends.....

    Sry Steve to say so, youre position is easy, looking at your guild on PC EU server. Its easy for you to talk like that, your guild always had a random single trader and is more social orientated. you never did a serious trading guild and have no interest in having a trader a lot, either you bid and get a trader, or you dont and whatever. Your position here is flawed by the fact, that you're not really managing a trade guild but only a casual social guild which sometimes has a trader. How are you even able to talk with and about problems, you never really faced on PC EU. You're not hit by backup traders, you aren't facing problems like medium range sale hub guilds are, which are already way too often paying higher bids than they do in sales, since your spots are usually some of those noone is interested in. And also people here are discussing about different servers. PC EU and NA aren't the consoles. There are massive differences in how the gm act on those different platforms. Ghost Guilds are an issue of consoles, while backups for hiring and securing are an isue of the PC. But even on PC EU "backup" spots are getting sold for higher price than the actual bid was.
    Edited by Dont_do_drugs on July 3, 2019 5:16AM

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • bmnoble
    bmnoble
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Well I will tell you how this announcement has already affected the main trade guild I am in with a good location.

    Min weekly dues just went up by 150%

    From 10K min a week to 25K min a week. From a combination of raffle tickets/sales tax/auction bids

    I already paid more per week, so it didn't affect me but its going to push a lot of more casual members out of some of the big guilds assuming the others raise fees as well.

    If others don't raise their fees, I personally think it will come back to bite the guild in the long run, they don't have exclusive access to certain cities nothing stopping members switching to nearby guilds with lower dues or an influx of members to some of the mid size guilds, if the other city guilds are near or at capacity.

    While watching the discussion unfold in guild chat saw about 4 players leave the guild expect more to follow, as more members log in and learn of the new dues.


    Don't think the planned changes have sunk in in the mid sized and smaller guild I am in though, they haven't changed a thing about the way they operate. Time will tell I guess.
  • Vicinia
    Vicinia
    ✭✭✭✭
    It may be a different world on PC but this is going to be one hell of a mess on XBox/PS4. I didn't think it could get worse, but I stand corrected. Whoever thinks ghost guilds will cease to exist, you're in for a rude awakening.

    Get ready for horrendous trade wars, throw in some already well documented corruption (On PS4NA atleast) and a splash of ghost guilds (What is stopping them from doing what they've been doing, as long as they have the gold they can continue.). Expect dues to go up as well due to increased competition.

    If this goes through, my heart goes out to mid/small trading guilds. Getting a capital city will be near impossible. I feel terrible for the new players/casual players who will be subjected to this nonsense.

    This just reaffirmed my decision to cancel my sub.
    Edited by Vicinia on July 3, 2019 5:42AM
  • Eyllora
    Eyllora
    ✭✭✭
    As member of big guilds, I totally agree with people who say that this system is very bad and unfair for small-medium guilds who don't have enough income to secure many bids.
    10 bids is far too much to make it a healthy system for those who don't have the money,
    In my opinion, if 10 bids are allowed, there should be a real gold sink somewhere increased with the amount of bids and the money we place.
    2 or 3 bids I would have understood, but 10 is far too much !!!
  • Sorcery
    Sorcery
    ✭✭✭
    Flaminir wrote: »
    In the long run this is going to be very negative I think:

    - More volatility in the market... easier to take a punt on taking a trader elsewhere if you know you have mutltiple backups... and unreliability in peoples traders is bad for everyone at every level.

    - Higher bid costs due to above... and knock on effect on players having to pay more to support the bids.

    - Medium/lower tier more disrupted by higher end trade guilds placing large backups on them. This will be FAR easier to do than creating ghost guilds so will become far more common.

    - Trickle down effect increases costs on traders further down and increases the barrier to entry for newer guilds.

    This is undoubtedly an overall benefit for the top tier trading guilds, but even then I see the potential for disruptive market behaviour which many may not like.

    Feels like a poorly thought out solution to the ghost guild problem...

    Yep, lot of negative effects from this. I've already seen multiple guilds raising requirements, and it'll only continue to brace for this. I'm a GM of a guild in Wayrest, i can't think of a worse update for guilds and i've played since beta. @ZOS_GinaBruno Please rethink this choice and remove it entirely.
  • Mewpers
    Mewpers
    I would like to see them only deduct up to the highest bid, and that’s how I initially assumed it would work, because that is what makes sense. I don’t have faith that they will do what makes sense, however.

    How it should work:

    I bid 2 million on trader 1, system removes 1 million. I bid 2.5 million on trader 2, system removes an additional 500k. I bid 50k on trader 3, system removes nothing, I bid 3 million on trader 4, system removes an additional 500k. The total removed is 3 million, equal to the highest bid. I win trader 1, system refunds me 500k from trader 2, nothing from trader 3, and 500k from trader 4, a total of 1 million refunded.

    The above would be still be consistent with ZOS’s short description, but require more work to implement. It would also be much more fair. I wish I had faith they were willing to put in the time and energy to adequately solve this problem instead exacerbating it

  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mewpers wrote: »
    I would like to see them only deduct up to the highest bid, and that’s how I initially assumed it would work, because that is what makes sense. I don’t have faith that they will do what makes sense, however.

    How it should work:

    I bid 2 million on trader 1, system removes 1 million. I bid 2.5 million on trader 2, system removes an additional 500k. I bid 50k on trader 3, system removes nothing, I bid 3 million on trader 4, system removes an additional 500k. The total removed is 3 million, equal to the highest bid. I win trader 1, system refunds me 500k from trader 2, nothing from trader 3, and 500k from trader 4, a total of 1 million refunded.

    The above would be still be consistent with ZOS’s short description, but require more work to implement. It would also be much more fair. I wish I had faith they were willing to put in the time and energy to adequately solve this problem instead exacerbating it

    I doubt zos will be able to code such complex stuff. This is a lot of calculations. I am already wondering, how the 5 minutes after 8pm cet will be. Lagfest? It's been easy before. Each trader had a table with bids, highest won. Now there must be some kind of big table. Highest bud on server gets trader. All bids on that trader get removed from table, all other Judd of that guild get removed from that table, then next highest bid and do on. Sounds pretty weird to me tho with x10 bids. I doubt it will work out correctly the first weeks, will be full of bugs and broken to hell.

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • Flaminir
    Flaminir
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Mewpers wrote: »
    I would like to see them only deduct up to the highest bid, and that’s how I initially assumed it would work, because that is what makes sense. I don’t have faith that they will do what makes sense, however.

    How it should work:

    I bid 2 million on trader 1, system removes 1 million. I bid 2.5 million on trader 2, system removes an additional 500k. I bid 50k on trader 3, system removes nothing, I bid 3 million on trader 4, system removes an additional 500k. The total removed is 3 million, equal to the highest bid. I win trader 1, system refunds me 500k from trader 2, nothing from trader 3, and 500k from trader 4, a total of 1 million refunded.

    The above would be still be consistent with ZOS’s short description, but require more work to implement. It would also be much more fair. I wish I had faith they were willing to put in the time and energy to adequately solve this problem instead exacerbating it

    Why even complicate it that much?

    Just take the value of the highest bid and then refund the difference if it's one of the lower 'backup' bids that wins.

    Also, limit it to two bids... Primary & a single backup if they must insist on a system like this. Minimize the harm.
    GM of the Unholy Legacy
    EU/EP
    Sorcerer Flaminir (Magicka) / Staminir (Stamina)
    Templar Elixiia (Magicka/Healer) / Lotti Velooni (Magicka)
    DragonKnight Xalora Flaminar (Tank) / Unholy-Dragon-Toad (Tank)
    Nightblade Aimee Owlious (Magicka) / Myttens (Stamina)
    Warden: Frosti-Tute (Magicka/Healer) Boops-Many-Snoots (Stamina/Tank)
  • sirinsidiator
    sirinsidiator
    ✭✭✭✭
    As a GM of a medium sized guild that has been around since launch, I am very worried about this change. We've always made a point of being casual friendly, allowing lenient inactivity limits and not requiring weekly fees. For us it also has been important to give a feeling of stability for both our sellers and our customers by sticking to our regular trader. In order to achieve this, we have conserved as much gold as possible by low-balling the bid whenever it was safe to do so. With the announced change I fear this will no longer be possible in the long run.

    I'm worried that other guilds will start using the kiosk we had for many years as a backup spot and kick us out of our preferred spot
    I'm worried that we will run out of gold after a few months in the new system and our current model of not requiring any fees won't work anymore if we want to survive for 5 more years
    I'm worried that this will become even more stressful for GMs than it has been until now

    So please ZOS, rethink this change before you make one of the worst systems in your game even worse and drive off some of the most dedicated members of your community. Try to think about what the people leading those guilds have to go through each and every week and change the system so it becomes awesome and rewarding for them.
    Edited by sirinsidiator on July 3, 2019 10:07AM
    https://www.imperialtradingcompany.eu/ - My Addons - The Vault (Early updates and experimental projects) - My patreon - My blog
  • SantieClaws
    SantieClaws
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    As a GM of a medium sized guild that has been around since launch, I am very worried about this change. We've always made a point of being casual friendly, allowing lenient inactivity limits and not requiring weekly fees. For us it also has been important to give a feeling of stability for both our sellers and our customers by sticking to our regular trader. In order to achieve this, we have conserved as much gold as possible by low-balling the bid whenever it was safe to do so. With the announced change I fear this will no longer be possible in the long run.

    I'm worried that other guilds will start using the kiosk we had for many years as a backup spot and kick us out of our preferred spot
    I'm worried that we will run out of gold after a few months in the new system and our current model of not requiring any fees won't work anymore if we want to survive for 5 more years
    I'm worried that this will become even more stressful for GMs than it has been until now

    So please ZOS, rethink this change before you make one of the worst systems in your game even worse and drive off some of the most dedicated members of your community. Try to think about what the people leading those guilds have to go through each and every week and change the system so it becomes awesome and rewarding for them.

    Agreed one million billion percent.

    This just gives the biggest and richest guilds an even bigger hold on traders and does nothing to address the most fundamental issue in the trading system - there are far too few traders and a greatly increasing number of guilds trying to get them.

    It's not about getting a "good" spot for most guilds these days, apart from the exclusive few. It's about getting any spot at all.

    Please be so good as to listen very carefully to what traders are telling you here. A lot of people have put in a huge amount of work into building up guilds and this is potentially very, very serious for the survival of many of them.

    Yours with paws
    Santie Claws
    Shunrr's Skooma Oasis - The Movie. A housing video like no other ...
    Find it here - https://youtube.com/user/wenxue2222

    Clan Claws - now recruiting khajiit and like minded others for parties, fishing and other khajiit stuff. Contact this one for an invite.

    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

    https://www.imperialtradingcompany.eu/
  • Urigall
    Urigall
    ✭✭✭
    Eyllora wrote: »
    there should be a real gold sink somewhere

    If ZoS want to maintain the amount of the gold sink, while allowing for some rotation of top guild spots, one option is to make top tier spots - Say, Craglorn, Mournhold - subject to a non-refundable, lottery ticket system. Take the value of the winning bid, then divide it by the average number of bidders for the spots every week. That's the price of the ticket. How to determine what constitutes a "top spot"? Analyse which spots rarely see a change in guilds from one week to the next.

    At the moment, there's very little risk involved for wealthy guilds that can deploy capital as a weapon. But investment should involve risk.

    Could this lottery system be gamed? Well, guilds could act as groups and buy more lottery tickets. Sure, deploy your capital as a weapon. But...bear in mind securing the spot is no longer a done deal. Limited spots means the more tickets a group buys, the higher the value of their potential losses. That's where the risk element kicks in.

    Unfair? Is this any less unfair than knowing there's next to no chance of ever securing a top spot? Aspiring guilds with a bit of capital might even decide to have a punt.

    Lower tier spots would probably become sought after though. There would probably be an upward pressure for bid prices in these spots. And the root of the problem with guild bids is less wealthy guilds are at a disadvantage. We all know that. I read ZoS's changes as a tacit acknowledgement of that issue.


  • Urigall
    Urigall
    ✭✭✭
    I don't like editing my posts so I'll lift this out from what I said previously and amend it here - bold text = amendments --

    --If ZoS want to maintain the amount of the gold sink, while allowing for some rotation of top guild spots, one option is to make top tier spots - Say, Craglorn, Mournhold - subject to a non-refundable, lottery ticket system. Take the value of the winning bid, (THE TOTAL BID VALUE PER AREA) then divide it by the average number of bidders for the spots (IN THAT AREA) every week. That's the price of the ticket. How to determine what constitutes a "top spot"? Analyse which spots rarely see a change in guilds from one week to the next. --
  • Sorcery
    Sorcery
    ✭✭✭
    Flaminir wrote: »
    Also, limit it to two bids... Primary & a single backup if they must insist on a system like this. Minimize the harm.[/quote]

    Honestly seems like a good way to go about it, if they must do it limit it to two bids.

  • ZeroXFF
    ZeroXFF
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just implement a global AH, and all these clownish changes wouldn't need to be done any more. Then control how much of a gold sink you want it to be via taxes.
  • Sorcery
    Sorcery
    ✭✭✭
    ZeroXFF wrote: »
    Just implement a global AH, and all these clownish changes wouldn't need to be done any more. Then control how much of a gold sink you want it to be via taxes.

    Honestly if they go through with this i'd almost prefer it. This change will make many guilds increase requirements, some that don't have them and are more casual will be pushed aside. Honestly the worse change they could make.
  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    First time in history I'd prefer ah too...

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • DragonRacer
    DragonRacer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yeah, haven't been a big global auction house fan, but my fear is that this is going to force my guild - proudly founded on the basis of not charging dues - to have to start charging dues in order to survive.

    Which honestly may make me step away from being a GM at all anymore. I was fighting a good fight, and this may well be the nuke that kills it for all the console guilds who were proud to be doing well as dues-free guilds (who are not affiliated with the Mafia, at least - there are plenty of capital trade guilds claiming to be dues free but it's because they have a "parent" feeding them money). Because being so means hoping to mostly win bids in decent cities most weeks. If this increases the trader bid ranges... all but the Mafia will die.

    So, I guess there's your global auction house... not in an easily searchable fashion, but traders and item prices 100% controlled by our server's Mafia in all cities everywhere? Have fun with that.

    If my guild dies or has to radically change from what it was originally intended to be, I'mma be in EVERY global auction house thread here in full support. Because chances are I wouldn't have a guild to protect anymore anyway.

    All this does is crush the little guy.

    Pretty heartbroken the more I think on this. I mean, I suppose it'll be nice to get hours of my life back weekly, but I didn't want it to be because ZOS potentially forces me out of it...
    Edited by DragonRacer on July 3, 2019 11:50AM
    PS5 NA. GM of The PTK's - a free trading guild (CP 500+). Also a werewolf, bites are free when they're available. PSN = DragonRacer13
  • Urigall
    Urigall
    ✭✭✭
    First time in history I'd prefer ah too...

    Beginning to think the same way. The bidding system is becoming too complicated to understand. And many players in this thread have laid out reasons why the changes are unlikely to benefit yer average trade guild.

    If a global AH didn't lead to widespread, price gouging, the practice of flipping could be left untouched. Conversely, mass buying of cheap items and then flipping them at inflated prices, could only be stopped by introducing bound upon purchase. There would be a lot of complaints if that happened. All ZoS would need to say is "you brought this upon yourselves"

    Motifs and recipes are obvious candidates, because players don't buy them then think..."nah...this motif is boring...I'll flog it" The only time I buy a cheap motif, one that I already know, is when I can sell it on at average value for a bit of profit. That's fine. Price gouging is not.

    I'd prefer items were not made bound upon purchase through a global AH. But if greed kicks in, and bound upon purchase is needed to stop the greed, the greedy ones will have cut their own throats.

    Bind upon purchase would also mean those players wanting to sell fast could price competitively. True price competition.





  • ZeroXFF
    ZeroXFF
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Urigall wrote: »
    First time in history I'd prefer ah too...

    Beginning to think the same way. The bidding system is becoming too complicated to understand. And many players in this thread have laid out reasons why the changes are unlikely to benefit yer average trade guild.

    If a global AH didn't lead to widespread, price gouging, the practice of flipping could be left untouched. Conversely, mass buying of cheap items and then flipping them at inflated prices, could only be stopped by introducing bound upon purchase. There would be a lot of complaints if that happened. All ZoS would need to say is "you brought this upon yourselves"

    Motifs and recipes are obvious candidates, because players don't buy them then think..."nah...this motif is boring...I'll flog it" The only time I buy a cheap motif, one that I already know, is when I can sell it on at average value for a bit of profit. That's fine. Price gouging is not.

    I'd prefer items were not made bound upon purchase through a global AH. But if greed kicks in, and bound upon purchase is needed to stop the greed, the greedy ones will have cut their own throats.

    Bind upon purchase would also mean those players wanting to sell fast could price competitively. True price competition.





    You don't need a "bound on purchase" mechanic, you only need taxes to prevent flipping, because the higher the tax, the fewer the number of items there will be below [average market price] - [tax] for the "flippers" to make profit on. And with easy access to global pricing information, the tax wouldn't have to be particularly high to discourage this behavior.
  • Arrodisia
    Arrodisia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is just insane. I dont understand the reasoning behind this. If its to get rid of backups, just do what we asked and stop disbanding a guild from freeing the trader, that would fix it much more effectively. My small guild cant afford this!

    I absolutely agree.

    I wish. They had considered the repercussions of this change to smaller and newer guilds before they proposed it. Maybe instead, they could implement a 5-6 day timer to stop a guild master from disbanding and/or changing the guild leader at all, if they won a kiosk for that week, or like you said disbanding wouldn't free the trader, or even implement a much higher minimum price to hire a dropped trader, and for goodness sake, add more vendor spots to the game. Unfortunately, the system change, they're proposing, seems to have more cons than pros. I'm not insulting ZOS or the dev team, but imho, they should look at some other solutions/suggestions, and opt for something more beneficial and stable for all.
    Edited by Arrodisia on July 3, 2019 12:21PM
  • OsManiaC
    OsManiaC
    ✭✭✭✭
    As a GM of a medium sized guild that has been around since launch, I am very worried about this change. We've always made a point of being casual friendly, allowing lenient inactivity limits and not requiring weekly fees. For us it also has been important to give a feeling of stability for both our sellers and our customers by sticking to our regular trader. In order to achieve this, we have conserved as much gold as possible by low-balling the bid whenever it was safe to do so. With the announced change I fear this will no longer be possible in the long run.

    I'm worried that other guilds will start using the kiosk we had for many years as a backup spot and kick us out of our preferred spot
    I'm worried that we will run out of gold after a few months in the new system and our current model of not requiring any fees won't work anymore if we want to survive for 5 more years
    I'm worried that this will become even more stressful for GMs than it has been until now

    So please ZOS, rethink this change before you make one of the worst systems in your game even worse and drive off some of the most dedicated members of your community. Try to think about what the people leading those guilds have to go through each and every week and change the system so it becomes awesome and rewarding for them.

    Agreed one million billion percent.

    This just gives the biggest and richest guilds an even bigger hold on traders and does nothing to address the most fundamental issue in the trading system - there are far too few traders and a greatly increasing number of guilds trying to get them.

    It's not about getting a "good" spot for most guilds these days, apart from the exclusive few. It's about getting any spot at all.

    Please be so good as to listen very carefully to what traders are telling you here. A lot of people have put in a huge amount of work into building up guilds and this is potentially very, very serious for the survival of many of them.

    Yours with paws
    Santie Claws

    I have a no requirements no fee guild in Rimmen. I cannot fight against chain reaction losers of big fights
    GM of The Argonian Kebab, The Argonian Steak & The Argonian BBQ - PC - EU (The Tamriel Kitchen) @OsManiaC

    Don't worry, the tail grows back!
    if it breathes we eats. #justbosmerthings - we can detect stealth boy NPCs and hunt them thanks to our skill!

    https://steamcommunity.com/id/osmaniac
  • Urigall
    Urigall
    ✭✭✭
    ZeroXFF wrote: »
    You don't need a "bound on purchase" mechanic, you only need taxes to prevent flipping, because the higher the tax, the fewer the number of items there will be below [average market price] - [tax] for the "flippers" to make profit on. And with easy access to global pricing information, the tax wouldn't have to be particularly high to discourage this behavior.

    That makes sense and allows more flexibility for item transfer from player to player. Good points.

    The debate over flipping strikes at the heart of a fundamental aspect of game play.

    I don't have figures to back this up. My guess is a lot of players - I do it - make a lot of money from flipping items. How many/what proportion of traders is impossible to state with any accuracy. I'd just say...a lot.

    If there was any objection to the hobbling of flipping, it would only come from players who make a lot of their income from the practice. Otherwise, no-one else would be affected directly, provided some transfer of items between players was still allowed.

    Your solution (which seems eminently fine to me) means the question would then become one of game play philosophy, more than one of practicality.

  • Gariele
    Gariele
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rob said it yesterday and I agree. Watch as the thing bugs and we get two or more kiosk with the same trade guild or it bugs and takes the gold from all 10 of your bids. I will not bet the house and watch as I take a hit to the bank cause of ZOS incompetence.

    I run three Social Guilds with over 1300 active members and I get Traders for them. I never have requirements such as mins or donations. All this does is try to push GMs like me out of trading and get guilds in that bet everything for one week and then go broke cause they don’t understand how much Traders cost and return.

    There has been many great suggestions on how to address trading guilds and the problems but all have been ignored. Why?
    Edited by Gariele on July 3, 2019 12:38PM
    PC/EU
    Winter Rose Autumn Rose Summer Rose Pacific Rose Midnight Rose
    RoseESO Discord
    RoseESO Website
  • Neelanna48
    Neelanna48
    ✭✭✭
    I run a medium sized guild. We have a trader almost every week. I don`t expect guild members to donate to the guild or pay for the trader but I do like my members to have access to a trader if they wish to use it, that`s why I don`t mind paying a large proportion of the guild fee myself every week. Tell me ZOS how you expect me to do that X 10 every week? I love running my guild even at times when it can be stressful and like to make sure all my members are catered for. I cant even begin to tell you how much my stress level has gone up this morning reading about this upcoming update.
    Edited by Neelanna48 on July 3, 2019 12:49PM
  • Katahdin
    Katahdin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think this might make shadow guilds a thing of the past if it works the way I think it will.

    There is no reliable way to know who the second, third, fourth etc bidder is for any given kiosk.

    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    How is that shadow guild going to sell a kiosk if they have no idea who is second and the second place bidder cant tell for sure that he is next in line

    Seriously who would risk it?
    Edited by Katahdin on July 3, 2019 12:52PM
    Beta tester November 2013
  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Katahdin wrote: »
    I think this might make shadow guilds a thing of the past if it works the way I think it will.

    There is no reliable way to know who the second, third, fourth etc bidder is for any given kiosk.

    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    H ow is that shadow guild going to sell a kiosk if they have no idea who is second and the second place bidder cant tell for sure that he is next in line

    Seriously who would risk it?

    Just offer spot in zone... Or through connections or checking hubs who hasn't got a trader. That's how backup works on pc EU as well. They always find someone to buy the backup spot.

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • girlpoison
    girlpoison
    ✭✭✭
    Katahdin wrote: »
    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    If a guild loses the bid on that kiosk, their gold is refunded so we can assume all those bids are erased. Also, that guild would have 9 other bids to potentially win a trader for the week, and a guild can't hold two kiosks at once.
    PC/NA @Scarlett - GM of East Empire Trading Co & West Empire Trading Co
  • DragonRacer
    DragonRacer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Katahdin wrote: »
    I think this might make shadow guilds a thing of the past if it works the way I think it will.

    There is no reliable way to know who the second, third, fourth etc bidder is for any given kiosk.

    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    How is that shadow guild going to sell a kiosk if they have no idea who is second and the second place bidder cant tell for sure that he is next in line

    Seriously who would risk it?

    ZOS says after the traders are won, the losing amounts are refunded. So, still operating how it currently does, just with more potential backup locations.

    Ghost selling will absolutely, 100% still be a thing for the servers who experience it en masse. Because once the ghost wins whichever of the 10-trader roulette they put bids on, that kiosk is theirs. Just like it is now. And within an hour or so after the dust settles from flip, they can still sell it to another guild because all the losers have already been refunded their money. Just like it works now.
    PS5 NA. GM of The PTK's - a free trading guild (CP 500+). Also a werewolf, bites are free when they're available. PSN = DragonRacer13
  • Katahdin
    Katahdin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Katahdin wrote: »
    I think this might make shadow guilds a thing of the past if it works the way I think it will.

    There is no reliable way to know who the second, third, fourth etc bidder is for any given kiosk.

    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    H ow is that shadow guild going to sell a kiosk if they have no idea who is second and the second place bidder cant tell for sure that he is next in line

    Seriously who would risk it?

    Just offer spot in zone... Or through connections or checking hubs who hasn't got a trader. That's how backup works on pc EU as well. They always find someone to buy the backup spot.

    Did you actually read what I wrote?

    They can't sell it if it goes to the next highest bidder when they disband. They have no idea who is second in line or how many other bidders there may be.
    Edited by Katahdin on July 3, 2019 12:55PM
    Beta tester November 2013
  • DragonRacer
    DragonRacer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Katahdin wrote: »
    Katahdin wrote: »
    I think this might make shadow guilds a thing of the past if it works the way I think it will.

    There is no reliable way to know who the second, third, fourth etc bidder is for any given kiosk.

    So a trader is bid upon by multiple guilds, and the top bidder is a ghost guild. Im assuming the kiosk goes to the next highest bidder if the top guild disbands.

    H ow is that shadow guild going to sell a kiosk if they have no idea who is second and the second place bidder cant tell for sure that he is next in line

    Seriously who would risk it?

    Just offer spot in zone... Or through connections or checking hubs who hasn't got a trader. That's how backup works on pc EU as well. They always find someone to buy the backup spot.

    Did you actually read what I wrote?

    They can't sell it if it goes to the next highest bidder when they disband. They have no idea who is second in line or how many other bidders there may be.

    They sure can after they win it and the losers are all refunded their money... just like how it operates right now. The game does not know or care that a ghost guild won a spot if they have highest bid. Disbanding does not mean now that suddenly the second place bidder on the kiosk now gets it... because they'll have been refunded their losing bid money.

    This fixes/changes NOTHING from how it operates right now, other than more calculations involved at flip time for the game. There will still be winners of kiosks and losers who get refunded. And the wait for next week's flip begins anew.
    PS5 NA. GM of The PTK's - a free trading guild (CP 500+). Also a werewolf, bites are free when they're available. PSN = DragonRacer13
Sign In or Register to comment.