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

Dont_do_drugs · July 2019

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

First time in history I'd prefer ah too...

This whole situation is proof that does listen is trying to come up with solutions that help everybody.

1. this helps big guilds always get a big spot WITHOUT having to pay shady ghost guilds...just bid on 10 elite spots with elite money. (combined with not paying ghost guilds at all, this would quickly kill ghost guilds because they run out of money...e.g. = 400 active members can out pay 50 deviants.)
2. this helps small guilds get a trader somewhere because instead of hitting a 200k bid this week and losing a 500k bid next week, they can spread out their bids and get lucky somewhere...also, this will result in more information! by finding the price points of specific spots over time.
3. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY = you all, most of you, shouted down any *** alternative to your precious guild trader system so ZOS intelligently did the best they could to help everybody = "EXPANDED IT."

its an elegant solution.

Zos never made any alternative or change on that system, do how are we supposed to shout it down. Also a lot of those people here collected a lot of constrictive thoughts on adjustments in the past.

everytime the auction house was raised, the trolls, shouter downers :-), raced to the beat horse meme, stop pretending like it didn't happen. :-)

Auction house shouters are the real trolls. They know zos refused to change the system and will never do it, still they enter every trade guild thread like a troll wave and beating down any constructive thought on hielw to make fair adjustments to the system. This is all I gonna answer u, I'm no fan of discussing with trolls. Ah was never a true option and will never happen. Deal with it.

Zos has said a lot of things would never happen and here we are today with lots of added stuff because the community kept bringing it up. Skyshards for alts, text chat for consoles-, outfit stations for styles, buffs/nerfs to classes, nerfs to dungeons, ECT ECT ECT

Don't say never because it can happen.

tell me where they said text chat for consoles would never happen. ah is on the "will never happen and isnt even on the we might think about list" as where underwater content is.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

Medhir wrote: »

Please remind me when was the last time ZOS solved a complex problem with a simple solution.

Cyrodiil? --- Lagging like ever
Group Finder? --- Still buggy
PVE skills vs PVP skills? --- Yet to be solved

All you are doing is lending more weight to the idea they should K.I.S.S.

Just because ZOS has always failed the KISS Test doesn't mean they are right.
Maybe if they followed the KISS methodology things would be a LOT better all round.

I do know this: if you keep doing what you already know doesn't work, you'd be an idiot to expect it to suddenly start working.

All The Best

Giraffon · July 2019

I think you should get a smaller percentage of your gold back for each additional trader you bid on beyond the first. That way there is a cost to go along with having some additional chances to get a trader.

Bid 1 trader and lose...get it all back
Bid 2 traders and lose on both, 100% back on highest, 95% on next highest
Bid 3 traders and win the highest, get 95% back on 2nd, 90% back on third and so on.

Kotusha · July 2019

jaws343 wrote: »

New Bid Situation:
Guild A Bids on main trader.
Guild A Bids on secondary trader.
Your guild Bids on a main trader (which is Guild A's backup)
Guild A wins main trader bid. Guild A's secondary bid goes away.
Your guild wins it's main trader build.

And now, your guild has an option to drop an even smaller bid into a another location, just in case.

In both scenarios, there is a chance that you lose your trader to Guild A. But at least in scenario 2, the upcoming changes, you retain your bid if Guild A wins their main bid. Something that wasn't happening in the current bidding.

Nah, it's gonna be like that:
Guild A bids on trader 1
Your guild bids on trader 2 (cheaper one)
Guild B bids on trader 1 and 2
Guild A wins trader 1, guild B wins trader 2, your guild loses.

SteveCampsOut · July 2019

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

WardenofNirn wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

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.

Dude. You don't know me or my Guild. We have held the Cormount Trader in Grahtwood since Beta with just a few interruptions from people knocking us off. As long as my members support the trader I'll continue bidding on one. You assume too much. In fact we held our Trader completely uninterrupted for well over a year the first year we were open. So don't pull that "You don't run a trade Guild!" nonsense on me!

In FACT, I ran Pacrooti's on both EU and NA for the first 4 years of this game. I stepped down from the NA leadership last year. We held our traders there, albeit less reliably in the same locations while I was running it and we were casual with no dues then. I can't speak to how the people running it now run it as I no longer spend any time to speak of on NA.

Sorcery wrote: »

Flaminir wrote: »

Also, limit it to two bids... Primary & a single backup if they must insist on a system like this. Minimize the harm.

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

You guys act like it matters 2 or 10, you only win with one of your bids

MYWARCHILD887 · July 2019

As a GM of a decent enough trading guild this change makes me want to quit being a GM. As if bidding wasn't stressful enough, you have now made it so much harder(and easier for the Mafia). Instead of placing a bid on a spot against say 10 other bids, we are now going up against maybe 50 other bids for that spot. Meanwhile the Mafia and their gold sellers can still get whatever spot they want. And for the donation based guilds... they will have to start charging dues just to hopefully get a refuge spot.

Sorcery · July 2019

MYWARCHILD887 wrote: »

As a GM of a decent enough trading guild this change makes me want to quit being a GM. As if bidding wasn't stressful enough, you have now made it so much harder(and easier for the Mafia). Instead of placing a bid on a spot against say 10 other bids, we are now going up against maybe 50 other bids for that spot. Meanwhile the Mafia and their gold sellers can still get whatever spot they want. And for the donation based guilds... they will have to start charging dues just to hopefully get a refuge spot.

Yeah, any casual guilds will have to get more competitive now which means adding requirements/dues...doesn't really help the community at all if every guild has to be more strict.

Denver21 · July 2019

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

WardenofNirn wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

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.

Dude. You don't know me or my Guild. We have held the Cormount Trader in Grahtwood since Beta with just a few interruptions from people knocking us off. As long as my members support the trader I'll continue bidding on one. You assume too much. In fact we held our Trader completely uninterrupted for well over a year the first year we were open. So don't pull that "You don't run a trade Guild!" nonsense on me!

In FACT, I ran Pacrooti's on both EU and NA for the first 4 years of this game. I stepped down from the NA leadership last year. We held our traders there, albeit less reliably in the same locations while I was running it and we were casual with no dues then. I can't speak to how the people running it now run it as I no longer spend any time to speak of on NA.

Sorcery wrote: »

Flaminir wrote: »

Also, limit it to two bids... Primary & a single backup if they must insist on a system like this. Minimize the harm.

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

You guys act like it matters 2 or 10, you only win with one of your bids

Steve dude.. for real though. Your guild is sitting on a trader in Cormount. It's one of these single traders far out in the middle of nowhere. It will be a real stretch to think that any guild with any kind of ambition will fight for that spot. Come on. We are talking about guilds and traders in bigger cities, hubs, top tier, second tier and even the 3rd tier locations. The fact that you are so oblivious to the going-ons in ESO trading world in itself is saying a lot about your understanding of the issues we are and will face if this change makes it live. You seem to have zero understanding of the evolution of back-up guilds, why they were created on the first place and along the way have re-invented themselves to be something else and who are the people behind this scheme etc. If your guild trader is a regular occupant of Mournhold, Rawl Kha or Craglorn etc, and your guild is a serious trading guild, and you lose that spot, you can bet your last dollar that they would have offered to sell you a spot in a decent location within 10 minutes of you losing the spot. Why would they bother to approach you, knowing you are a social, casual guild that had just lost a spot in Cormount. It's not like you will accept their offer of 8mil for a spot in say Vivec City,. now would you?

You are out of your depth here. Your naivety is astounding considering how long you have been a GM and holding a trader, albeit in the middle of nowhere. You talk about issues that really don't apply to your guild's NPC trader location. No one would willingly put a backup bid on your spot, dude. Maybe some new trading guild will bid on that spot every now and then because they are just starting out and have very little gold to bid anywhere else. That is the truth. Others might not have wanted to say it to you because they dont want to appear flippant and disrespectful. However, your persistence in trying to undermine our concerns based on your, what appeared to be, very limited knowledge of the subject matter and insisting on your opinion is the only sound one really need a reality checkup.

Peace out.

Dont_do_drugs · July 2019

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

WardenofNirn wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

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.

Dude. You don't know me or my Guild. We have held the Cormount Trader in Grahtwood since Beta with just a few interruptions from people knocking us off. As long as my members support the trader I'll continue bidding on one. You assume too much. In fact we held our Trader completely uninterrupted for well over a year the first year we were open. So don't pull that "You don't run a trade Guild!" nonsense on me!

Dude I know your semi-empty guild very well, since I visited every trader in the past over months, what even even a lot of Resellers/Powersellers dont consider doing. Your guild doesnt get sniped, because nobody is interested in most single trader spots. Who would want a backup there? No serious trading guild would go to such spot, except for starting and improving into city-hubs. That's the only reason why you're having a nice and unproblematic situation over such a long period. You obviously have absolutely no idea, what other real trading guilds are dealing with.

HalvarIronfist · July 2019

As medium size trading guild GM, this is interesting but also disappointing to an extent.

Essentially, if I don't win my main bid, on a decent spot, because a larger guild got booted from theres and also bid high on mine, there goes my guilds sales. While I can get 'backups', so can these other guilds. And Divines know that other guilds may be willing to throw more towards traders than I.

While i guess it's nice to have a backup system, 10 is extreme.

Sorcery · July 2019

HalvarIronfist wrote: »

As medium size trading guild GM, this is interesting but also disappointing to an extent.

Essentially, if I don't win my main bid, on a decent spot, because a larger guild got booted from theres and also bid high on mine, there goes my guilds sales. While I can get 'backups', so can these other guilds. And Divines know that other guilds may be willing to throw more towards traders than I.

While i guess it's nice to have a backup system, 10 is extreme.

Curious if not 10 backup bids what number you think would be best? 1 backup bid? none? Honestly i'd be happy with just having 1 or 2, as 10 is very extreme imo.

SammiSakura · July 2019

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Dude. You don't know me or my Guild. We have held the Cormount Trader in Grahtwood since Beta with just a few interruptions from people knocking us off. As long as my members support the trader I'll continue bidding on one. You assume too much. In fact we held our Trader completely uninterrupted for well over a year the first year we were open. So don't pull that "You don't run a trade Guild!" nonsense on me!

In FACT, I ran Pacrooti's on both EU and NA for the first 4 years of this game. I stepped down from the NA leadership last year. We held our traders there, albeit less reliably in the same locations while I was running it and we were casual with no dues then. I can't speak to how the people running it now run it as I no longer spend any time to speak of on NA.

Steve, really? You're arguing with the GM's of some of the biggest trade guilds. PH is barely a trading guild. It's like 75% social. It's never faced the sorts of issues these guys are. Jeez, my trade guild does better than Pacrootis ever did. it's just not applicable to whats going on here. youre likely to not be affected at all.

It barely gets sniped because sales are so low there. And even when it does it was no big loss. who cares how long youve been running the guild, youre just making yourself look silly in front of these people doing 5 times the job you are.

Take a chill pill yourself.

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO · July 2019

THIS IS PERFECT! EASYER MONOPOL!! THX ZOS!

Titansteele · July 2019

I feel 10 is too many, it favours the guilds with large pockets too much and makes it harder for new guilds to get started. It also does not do anything to stop backup trading guilds. This system allows individual guilds to have a backup mechanism but it doesn’t stop anything else.

My suggestion would be reduce the number to 3 to limit the impact on small guilds and prevent guilds with traders from disbanding as this kills the backup trader mechanism dead.
It would introduce an inconvenience for people looking to legitimately disband their guild but that number must be very small.

Arrodisia · July 2019

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_BillE @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_GaryA

Sorry to bother you all, but can we please know, how the devs are planning on making this fair and more affordable for small and midsized guilds? GM's and officers are already tapping into personal resources each week, after sales and donations, to make one single bid on a trader in a decent city hub. Where will the money come from to make multiple bids to secure a trader? How will you prevent entire areas from being sniped up by larger trade unions and their backup guilds? Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop guilds from disbanding, and switching GM's if they currently own a vendor spot? This just seems unfair to those guilds, and still totally abusable for the larger guilds and their many sister guilds. The backup guilds haven't been dealt with. This bidding change does nothing to stop that from happening. It actually makes it possible to happen on a much larger scale with the ability to OP bid x10 with their many back up guilds. Many of us are seeing more cons than pros. Can you, maybe please, elaborate on what other steps you'll take and/or considerations in the mix, which might fix any of the problems that many guilds are facing currently, and after this change takes place? We'd greatly appreciate some feedback.

Arrodisia · July 2019

Btw, thanks to everyone who came into this thread to discuss the issues sensibly, and offer some suggestions and solutions.

Vahrokh · July 2019

There should be a drawback to bidding to 10 guilds. Diminishing returns, non 100% refund. Something.

As it is, it's way too skewed towards large trading guilds.

adagiogray · July 2019

So, in effect, it gives more opportunity for the deeper pocket guilds, and shuts out the smaller guys. They went from a broken system to jumping the shark. Can we just go back to the big guys trying to snipe each other out of Wayrest, Daggerfall, Craglorn, and Rawl'kha? Instead of driving up the cost in popular/concentrated areas, this is going to drive it up everywhere. (Yes, I run a smaller guild)

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Sorry to bother you all, but can we please know, how the devs are planning on making this fair and more affordable for small and midsized guilds? GM's and officers are already tapping into personal resources each week, after sales and donations, to make one single bid on a trader in a decent city hub.

Has there ever been a single shred of evidence that ZOS cares about anything other than the Big Fish?

I've never seen it.

My guess is that ZOS know exactly how this will harm small and mid sized guilds, and just don't care.

All The Best

generalmyrick · July 2019

guys! relax!

you know how many times, as a small gm, i have lost 500k bids, while winning 200k or even 100k bids?

right there we can just spread out in 5 bids across 2 cities and its possible we'll get our traders for cheaper

BECAUSE

the big guilds don't want our crappy spots!

give it a chance!

Hämähäkki · July 2019

generalmyrick wrote: »

the big guilds don't want our crappy spots!

They will take it, because a crappy spot for a week is better than no spot for a week.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

Hämähäkki wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

the big guilds don't want our crappy spots!

They will take it, because a crappy spot for a week is better than no spot for a week.

^ This, AND they can afford to outbid the normal level of bids for those positions.

All The Best

GargOysteinYikernes · July 2019

Fiktius wrote: »

So, what is this change actually trying to accomplish? Getting rid of proxy guild business?
That's not gonna happen. Those guilds which used proxy guild for purely having a profit in mind will continue doing so:
The change will just make sure that if the proxy loses their primary bid, they have 9 other chances to win one bid at different location. The business is still gonna flourish as long as there are guilds around who will loose all their bids and are willing to pay for the proxy spot. As long as there are demand, the business will continue.

Which leads to the second point I wanted to mention: Increased bid cost.
Now rich guilds which can afford for multiple bids will continue spreading their bids for increasing their chances to get a trader. Smaller guilds have to pray that bigger guilds actually do win their primary bids, because there's no need to be a Sherlock to guess where these bigger guilds will find their back up spot if bids on major cities are lost.
If this patch goes live like this and you happen to have a medium/small guild, you can realistically expect that you'll be more likely outbid than before. What if you can't afford several back up bids? Sorry, the system have no mercy for you.
That may sound rough, but that's apparently what ZOS wants.

And now let's look at perspective of stabilized guilds, which are trying to maintain their spots and defend from jumpers:
Now they are even more likely going to be sniped by wealthy guilds, who have a desire to move on your spot for reason X and Y. What would you do? Increase your requirements, charge more fees and sit still, trying to "defend the fortress" with higher cost? Or will you go mayhem and try your luck with increased bids, where everyone are sniping spots from left and right?
Costs of spots will only increase and the competition will become even rough for smaller guilds than ever before.

I agree this seems very cool for new players who read the changelogs, but is actually a disaster in making

martinhpb16_ESO · July 2019

Dear Zos please do not implement this!

I am a GM of a large trade guild and can predict that this will not be a change for the better.

This will be bad for larger guilds as well as not much help for medium and smaller guilds.

I cannot understand why this is being proposed without any consultation with trading guild GMs. Of all the improvements that are needed or could be implemented this feature is not helpful.

On the PC EU server the majority of trade guilds cooperate to some extent via a network of communication, alliances, friendships and rivalries. We have a discord channel for GMs and it is not just for large guilds. We have networks, we cooperate and communicate. The purpose of this is stability.

You are lobbing a chaos grenade into a system that needs less chaos, more opportunity for smaller guilds and less work for the GMs!

Most GMs, officers and members want stability for their guilds. Trade guild admins invest a huge amount of time and effort into their guilds. Both large and smaller guild gm's, officers and members also put in large amounts of their own money to boost trader bids as sales tax alone is not enough.

Most trade guilds do not want to move around, this is human nature. People like some level of predictability, cooperation and stability. Most of us don't want to bid against our neighbours.

With any economy demand will create competition. In this case demand for limited trader spots creates competition between guilds, pushing bids higher. There are more guilds than trader spots. There is inequality between the location of trader spots as some are better than others. Competition is not always good as it can manifest bad behaviour.

There is a small minority of guilds on EU that dont want stability. They move around and more than often over-bid 10 million, 15 million bids every week. Their gold sources are not primarily from sales tax. On top of gold buying, crown selling has introduced even more gold into the game. You can literally buy-to-win in trading.

People are people, so there is not always cooperation. There is also inter-faction rivalry that is often subversive and based on personality and ego. Sometimes small guilds are given money by one guild to hit a rival guild. So now a faction will be able to fund an attack on multiple guilds, causing even more disruption.

This new proposal means that me and other large guilds are going to have to constantly bid massive bids to maintain our spots. This will create a higher glass ceiling for smaller guilds. At the moment there is a chance that we can lowball now and then and will not be hit by the 2-3 rogue guilds.

This new bidding idea is chaotic: will disrupt the status quo and not for the better; will cause more stress for GMs; will not help smaller guilds and just feels like a random, poorly consulted idea with little thought about the consequences.

Can we please have:
- Communication - a dedicated name and forum thread for trading so that ideas can be proposed and thought through
- Improvements to trader locations in certain zones e.g. Riften, Hew's Bane etc.
- More trader locations in each zone, is this possible?
- Consultation on the bidding system to come up with something that is actually useful and helpful.

I am already tired of the effort, gold, diplomacy and time I have to invest into this labour of love and you are about to make it worse. With the recent fiasco with guild history I am not sure how much more I can take. This could be the last straw for a guild that has been trading since week 1.

Thanks for listening

Arrodisia · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Sorry to bother you all, but can we please know, how the devs are planning on making this fair and more affordable for small and midsized guilds? GM's and officers are already tapping into personal resources each week, after sales and donations, to make one single bid on a trader in a decent city hub.

Has there ever been a single shred of evidence that ZOS cares about anything other than the Big Fish?

I've never seen it.

My guess is that ZOS know exactly how this will harm small and mid sized guilds, and just don't care.

All The Best

So, by that logic, everyone (except the big fish) should pack up their tents, and not bother to come to the forums. I think not. I'd rather. We just speak our minds and make suggestions, which is exactly what ZOS wants. Whatever will come out of it, will be. At least, we spoke up for ourselves.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Sorry to bother you all, but can we please know, how the devs are planning on making this fair and more affordable for small and midsized guilds? GM's and officers are already tapping into personal resources each week, after sales and donations, to make one single bid on a trader in a decent city hub.

Has there ever been a single shred of evidence that ZOS cares about anything other than the Big Fish?

I've never seen it.

My guess is that ZOS know exactly how this will harm small and mid sized guilds, and just don't care.

All The Best

So, by that logic everyone except the big fish should pack up their tents, and not bother to come to the forums. I think not. I'd rather. We just speak our minds and make suggestions, which is exactly what ZOS wants. Whatever will come out of it, will be. At least, we spoke up for ourselves.

No, that wasn't what I meant.

Of course small and medium guilds should voice their concerns.

My point was don't hold your breath expecting a favourable outcome.

All The Best

Arrodisia · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Sorry to bother you all, but can we please know, how the devs are planning on making this fair and more affordable for small and midsized guilds? GM's and officers are already tapping into personal resources each week, after sales and donations, to make one single bid on a trader in a decent city hub.

Has there ever been a single shred of evidence that ZOS cares about anything other than the Big Fish?

I've never seen it.

My guess is that ZOS know exactly how this will harm small and mid sized guilds, and just don't care.

All The Best

So, by that logic everyone except the big fish should pack up their tents, and not bother to come to the forums. I think not. I'd rather. We just speak our minds and make suggestions, which is exactly what ZOS wants. Whatever will come out of it, will be. At least, we spoke up for ourselves.

No, that wasn't what I meant.

Of course small and medium guilds should voice their concerns.

My point was don't hold your breath expecting a favourable outcome.

All The Best

Thanks. I'll keep hope alive though. I've seen proposed changes get turned around in this game before. Maybe ZOS will see it isn't a good change, and it will be fixed. Then again maybe not. I guess. We'll see. Cheers mate.

WardenofNirn · July 2019

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

You can literally buy-to-win in trading.

Agree!!

generalmyrick · July 2019

best qol ever! besides bag space!

:-)

Artmetis · July 2019

EllieBlue wrote: »

Utter madness. At this point, what would a reasonably serious trading guild need to do in order to survive, and to continue to be able to afford to make winning bids on that one spot, weekly, weeks in weeks out? Something that is needed in order to have stability, which is paramount for any serious trading guild. Because with this new change taking place, stability will go the Dodo bird way, really fast.

1. Raise sales requirement
2. Raise the amount of gold donation/fees for those not hitting weekly sales requirement
3. OR replace no 2 with mandatory fees for all members
4. Be more restrictive with rules, duration of offline days, no-sales grace period

because bid costs are going to rise by at least double, if not triple on normal weeks. On DLC and new chapter week, bids will go up by x10, and for the next 3-4 weeks after that initial week.

So the one that loses the most here will be guild members/regular players. New players want to join the main hub's trading guilds? Only if you are able to produce sales good enough from the get-go. Those players that only want to donate 5k weekly but not sell anything when they don't feel up to it? Sorry, can't afford to keep you anymore. Community? What community?

Meanwhile, trading guild GMs are going to continue getting the fat cat, thieving, scamming scums title from players that felt like they have been wronged after being removed from their trading guild. At the same time, (disgruntled) trading guild GMs are trying, desperately to raise gold weekly in order to be able to afford the rising amount needed for winning bids, in between trying to deal with the guild history data troubles, demands and questions about all the changes from their members, all in 7 days, week in week out.

Good luck everyone, both regular traders and trading guild GMs!

Disclaimer: The scenario only, possibly, applies to the trading guilds in the major hubs - Craglorn, Mournhold, Wayrest, Elden, Rawl and possibly even the next tier locations. Will not apply, much, to waaaaaay out in the woods single trader casual guilds, maybe.

The ones that will benefit from this new change will be the jumper guilds. Put 10 bids on 10 different guilds, one will surely stick! It's open season, betches!

Well said, and yes it HAS to happen. There is no way to raise the $ to bid, for mid/small guilds. So hey, us larger guilds have to kick out ppl that don't do a ton of sales/donating. to make sure the 'best sellers' stay with us, cause we would have a stall! I for one, will have to start kicking out ppl. Guildies that been with us for years, and are helpful to the guild at times, but don't have deep pockets. Sorry, DAS BOOT! We need to bid a ton more now... BYE! Maybe they will find a home in a new guild somewhere... someday... but can't sell cause no stall.. or quit the game... donno...