adding following thread to read:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482926/guild-bid-on-up-to-10-different-guild-trader-locations-each-week-with-update-23#latest

Don't rely on forums to determine which opinions are "popular" and which aren't.

As it stands, multibidding makes it possible for trading guilds to ensure a backup trader without having to create a ghost guild (that involves 50+ players) solely for that purpose. That alone is a big plus.
Those who think that big guilds will become even more powerful : no argument will ever make them change their pre-conceived "opinion".

All I see is that "ghost guilds" becoming pointless is a good thing for the game.

Grimm13 wrote: »

Ghost bidding will not become pointless until the reason for doing it is taken away. The proposed changes with multi-bidding does not do that.

Pls explain ? It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me - and, as a result, maybe to a lot of people.

Grimm13 wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Grimm13 wrote: »

Ghost bidding will not become pointless until the reason for doing it is taken away. The proposed changes with multi-bidding does not do that.

Pls explain ? It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me - and, as a result, maybe to a lot of people.

Here is what I have on the first post of this thread.

I contend that if ZOS changes the trader system so that if you disband a guild that won a trader, then that spot is still not available until the next bid. This takes away the incentive to sell spots or to bid with the intention that it is a backup bid for another guild.

You take away the ability to disband and free a trader for another, then that removes why to make a ghost as a backup or to "resell" the spot.

The purposed change to a multi-bid system does nothing to stop guilds from creating a ghost so they have a backup spot or a ghost to bid so they can "resell" the spot. It is not hard to get 50 + people in a guild on any platform, especially now with the guild finder tool. Some guilds may think that they no longer need a backup but others will not or may think they now need one.

OK I got your point.

But... I still wonder...
There used to be a market for "backup spots", aka "ghost guilds spots".
According to your explanation, the multibid system won't stop big guilds from securing backup spots in order to re-sell them. The offer will stand. But the demand ?
Why would middle-tier guilds resort to buying spots from another guild (disguised behind a "ghost guild") if they can ensure one by themselves thanks to the multibid system ?

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Why would middle-tier guilds resort to buying spots from another guild (disguised behind a "ghost guild") if they can ensure one by themselves thanks to the multibid system ?

From my understanding of PS4 Platform there are so many ghost guilds that few traders have any amount of goods. So you either pay a ghost or go without. The ghost have amassed an amount of gold behind them so they will continue to do this without a change to stop that behavior.

As I said, changes to the system has to be the same on all platforms. Hence why I subscribe to removing the benefit of disbanding.

Yes you will still get those that will bid just to take the spot. ZOS will need to add in a report category for those that ask for ransom to stop doing something and for obvious guilds that are not trying to sell items on the Trader they been weekly bidding on & getting. The second is gonna take some research time for ZOS but they need a means to place possible abuse under scrutiny for review and investigation. ZOS finds abuse in these, then they need to take action against the accounts doing this including reviewing gold transfer to "follow the money" then acting with those as well.

Fiktius wrote: »

Note that there still are more guilds around than there are trade spots. Even when everyone have a chance to place 10 bids (if they got gold of course), remember that so does others have. If you underestimate the value other guilds are gonna place gold on each spots, it's very likely that there will be guilds who loses every single bid they placed.
And since demand of back up spots will increase, it's very safe to assume that bids will increase entire Tamriel wide.
As long as big/medium guilds will keep loosing and there will be demand for ghost/proxy spots, the business will flourish.

If this system was about to decrease the harm which Ghost guilds are causing, I see this only as an epic failure:
Now Ghost guild owners can place multiple bids in hot spot like Mournhold and every single guild there have to increase their bids and cross fingers they guess the amount right or Ghost will take the spot. And when this happens, Ghost guild will move legit guild to alternative spot, which will make another guild loose the spot and the domino effect continues to the bottom of the chain, where a small guild is gonna get a headshot.
So overall the harm which Ghost guild can cause is now increased and it seriously looks like developers did not think about cons this change is gonna have among traders.

100% correct. Even with 10 bids, there is no guarantee that a guild will get a spot because there are another 100 guilds doing the same thing as you are, putting another 10 bids on spots. What this change will definitely do is increase the bid on the spot exponentially.

Example:

Week1
Guild A - bid 6mil (lost)
Guild B - bid 8mil (lost)
Guild C - bid 8.8mil (win)

Week2
Guild A - bid 6.5mil (lost) - no idea how much the winning bid was so just raising bid as what they can afford.
Guild B - bid 9mil (lost) - same as above
Guild C- bid 9.5mil (lost) - WTF! Must increase bid next week.
Guild D - bid 12mil (win) - random number. Want that spot for that week for name exposure and recruitment so will pour all gold here and bid cheap elsewhere next week)

Week3
Guild A - bid 7mil (lost)
Guild B - bid 10.5mil (win) - thinking ah this is the sweet spot!
Guild C - bid 10.3mil (lost) - WTF! Must increase bid next week.

Week4
Guild A - bid 7.9mil - (lost) This is the maximum of what we can afford. Sad face. Drop out next week. Will try the next lower tier location.
Guild B - bid 10.6mil - (Lost) JFC! Must increase bid next week!
Guild C - bid 11mil - (Win!) Oh yeah!

Week5
Guild B - bid 11mil - (lost). FML
Guild C - bid 11.2mil - (lost) WTF. That spot was awesome. We must get more gold. WTS 21k Crown!
Guild E - bid 12mil - (win!). Ah, so 12m is the sweet spot.

(Rinse and repeat every week.)

Except it won't be 3 guilds bidding. It will be any number of guilds with any amount of bids.

The difference with the current system is that because you can only bid on one spot, there is that risk of not having a trader at all so every bid is calculated and done with enough due diligent because its the only one you have. So you will not be back bidding and losing on the same spot weeks after weeks because your guild simply can't afford the risk of not having a trader, losing your members and your good sellers.

With the new change, guilds will have 10 safety nets. All good and well but the risk is gone and you can keep going and hitting the same wall. Except for this time, there are also many other guilds doing the same thing as you. And it's a blind bidding system so the bids will just keep raising. Ask those complaining about low tier locations that cost 500k a year ago and you can't get them for 1.2mil now.

The ONLY thing that will work here is GOLD and how much you can spend. So naturally, everyone will try to get more gold in their guild bank to finance their bids. There is no stability anywhere. Gold. Where to find gold. Buy more crown. Sell more crown. Buy illegal gold. Bots. Buy 10 accounts so can sell more. Squeeze guild members for more gold. Guild doors revolve faster as members are not able to cope with the new requirements.

I dont see any winning here. I am not even going into the ransom bid, back-up bids, ghost guilds etc.

Actually, the demand for back up might even go up! Because instead of just 1-2 guild bidding on your spot, there will now be 50 others with some random amount of bids. The chance of finding an empty, unhired trader will be zero. And if you are an established trading guild losing spots for 2-3 weeks in a row, you will be so very tempted to save your arse and your guild's reputation and just pay for the spot. These backup guilds are usually owned by the ultra-rich anyway so gold is never an issue for them. They can bid however many they want and sell for more than what they paid for it. Desperados everywhere.

Most of us that are speaking up have been playing this game for a very long time. Most of us have GM-ed, run and bids weekly for medium to large trading guilds over the last 5 years. We have seen and lived through many of the scenarios we described in our posts. We have experienced (and still experiencing) a lot of what we have described. The difference is currently, it is on a small scale and because of that, we are able to breathe a little in between episodes (PC-EU. Consoles are a probably different story altogether). But with the new change, it will be a whole different monster altogether and there will be no breathing space for most. Not sure how many are willing to go through it every single week. Life is short. Game is for fun. We pay for fun. I am not sure how many will come back weeks after weeks, paying for stress, anxiety, rage, frustration and the feeling of hopelessness. Most of us experience this in real life every day. We game as a form of escape. We certainly don't want to go through the same crap in real life in our gaming life as well.

reoskit wrote: »

I usually reserve posting on PTS threads until I've gotten my hands on a change... but here's the rub:

We aren't going to see all the implications that this change has just by testing on the PTS. We're talking about upending inter-guild culture. We can never reproduce the high stakes or the volume of bidders/bids/kiosk flips on the PTS.

So, we are really at the same point as we originally were - where we are left to speculate what will happen to the business of trade.

This system, in its entirety (technically and culturally), cannot be tested.

Very true. Can not test a system when bidders behavior is totally not at risk and with access to gold greater than they do in Live. Nor can you test buyers reactions that drives continued bids at locations.

guild finder could not be tested for similar reasons. betting that group finder is the same way.

@EllieBlue : I agree that this new system will most probably lead to higher bids overall, which is probably what ZOS wants (increased gold sink) among other things. And it will also lead to more instability.

I'm not sure it's such a bad thing... Trading guilds on PC/EU have reached an amazing level of organisation, communication and structure around the current system. Craglorn has been held by the same guilds for YEARS now. Occasionally a Sheogorath guild will snipe a spot and then all goes back to normal within a few weeks.
I admire the work of the GMs of all those guilds and their ability to create such an environment. And I also benefit from it, being a member of at least one of those guilds at any given time.

But is this how it's supposed to work ? While I disagree with the notion of "cartels" and the negative connotation of that word, you can't deny that the current system leaves little to no space for upcoming guilds to compete. And the recent, significant influx of new players leads to more guilds and more trading guilds being created. They need their chance, too, imho, and this new system may lead to a big shake of dice and restructuration of trading guilds. That's a stress that GMs may not be ready to undergo - I sympathize with that, but I also see it as a possibility for more guilds to get involved in the game, which I see as a good thing.

Only time will tell... as @reoskit mentioned, there's no way this system can be "tested" on PTS, since there's no trading on PTS.

Doubly meh.

EllieBlue wrote: »

So you agree that 1. bids are going to rise (most likely without any kind of control structure/mechanism as it is random and blind), 2. More instability, volatile environment.

Yes and yes. And I believe that these two aspects are good things in the end. The current system is too "established" in my humble opinion. (And I say that as someone who's currently part of it and benefiting from it).

EllieBlue wrote: »

Do you really foresee any chance for any upcoming guilds with new players members that sells 1 ta here, 1 almandine there to be able to compete when the bids are raising upwards every week? Let alone sustain it? Meanwhile, the bids keep rising. And to be honest, do people really want a 2-page guild selling in Craglorn?

Guilds with 1Ta here, 1 Almandine there to sell should NOT access a trader spot. They currently do more often than not, and it's an annoyance. I'm tired of visiting remote trader spots just to see their empty inventory. The new system will wipe them out and it's a good thing. At the same time it will make more room for new guilds with dedicated sellers who know their stuff and take care of it.
I'm not sure I understand your point with a 2-page selling guild in Craglorn ? If the bids are higher, it's even less likely to happen than it is now.

Anita, I didn't call myself mafia, I just explained how it will become. I won't most likely experience that anymore, bcs before I will feel forced to join that kind of agreements for securing my position, I will disband my guilds. Not gonna go with fixed membership fees and other bs. This is not how a trading guild supposed to work. Ur members trade, make sales and earn ur guild tax by that. That's how the system had to run. I am not gonna run a donating guild. Shall I rename then? From just traders to just donators. I'd rather quit than bending to that kind of system to stay competitive. Tamriel donators guild, the traveling donators, divine donators lol. Whoever wants to that, shall do, but we're not serving anything which has to do with legit trading to the system. If zos wants goldsinks by bids, increase taxes on trading and make good and active trading worth more.

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Not gonna go with fixed membership fees and other bs. This is not how a trading guild supposed to work. Ur members trade, make sales and earn ur guild tax by that. That's how the system had to run. I am not gonna run a donating guild. I'd rather quit than bending to that kind of system to stay competitive.

If zos wants goldsinks by bids, increase taxes on trading and make good and active trading worth more.

I feel the same. I was told by many that you can't run a guild that way, you have to have mandatory dues and auctions. Nope. Been running my guild over two years now without it, not gonna change that. I have members that do make voluntary donations because they have made more than in guilds they paid dues in and had quotas.

Not saying doing the other way is wrong, just not how I want to run and play. Players are free to choose how they play.

Imagine if ZOS did a goldsink on being able to play in Cryodill, how everyone would scream about how unfair it is for them to pay a goldsink to play in a system/ style that they want. Well that is what is expected of Trading Guilds. We don't even get a forum section, we are expected to post to the general discussion where it quickly falls through the cracks. Guilds, Trading and the Economy are all after thoughts by ZOS that they seemed surprised by but wanted to build a full game.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

And those plans are... ? OK, you can't tell. Fine. But unless you can explain in details the why's and the how's, with all due respect, I won't take your argument for granted :-)

Your line of thinking works fine if, and only if, we believe a Guild bids on a Kiosk to, and ONLY to, secure a spot to sell their goods.

Selling goods is only one side of the trade equation from a seller's point of view.

The other side of that equation is "securing more customers".

There's three ways to do that:

1. Sell something people want that only you have.
2. Sell something a a price-point that attracts more customers.
3. Prevent buyers from having access to other sellers.

1) Is never likely to happen in a game were the sellers do not also create the commodities sold. A seller can't come up with something new and shiny that no one else can sell.

2) Works in theory, but means margins are low, which can make it hard to secure a Kiosk in the first place unless you are selling massive volumes, which doesn't happen in ESO because the Kiosk system makes it hard for buyers to find what they are looking for.

3) The only real option left. And this is where Ghost Guilds come in, buy up Kiosks they don't want, and only list a few items, and do it in a major hub and the Guild that has the Kiosk with actual stuff to sell has just made a killing.

Having 10 bids will NOT reduce the need for, or number of, Ghost Guilds, in fact it very likely to do the exact opposite.


All The Best

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Not gonna go with fixed membership fees and other bs. This is not how a trading guild supposed to work. Ur members trade, make sales and earn ur guild tax by that. That's how the system had to run.

It's very honorable of you, but the system already doesn't run like that. I don't know of ANY trading guild that secures its trader spot by taxes only. All rely to a variable extent on donations/fees. It was already like that back in House Zar times, that's 2015 !

Could ZOS regulate more ? Maybe... they could limit the bids to the amount of taxes collected, that way guilds would truly rely on their trading activity only to pay for the trader, and it would prevent bidding inflation... BUT... it would also prevent smaller guilds from investing to climb the ladder.
Maybe... they could increase the taxes that go into the void when the bidding is higher than a given threshold. For instance, gold sink taxes jump from 3.5% to (say) 5% when the bid is higher than (say) 10 million...
Many things ZOS could do. But, as any "economy regulations", they'll all have pros and cons.
In the end, it's the guilds' job to make trading worthwhile and rewarding, in both gold and fun.

I don't know which guilds you're in burlt I don't know a lot of established guilds with fixed membership fees. Maybe one or two, 2 or 3 recently already changed bcs of history issues, but besides that most run on taxes.

lordrichter wrote: »

Personally, this is one of those features that should have been in the game from the stsrt of kiosk bidding, and I am pretty sure it has been a requested feature. It is clesr to me that the biggest benefit is the elimination of the post-bidding kiosk race, and that has always been a problem.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

there's no way this system can be "tested" on PTS, since there's no trading on PTS.

That is the biggest problem, because if ZOS does not correctly assess how the system can be misused, it couod be months before they roll out a change.

Post Kiosk bidding race!

Do you not consider the ramifications of this disruptive multi-bidding idea will create hugely more chaos than the scramble for a free kiosk by 4-5 guilds. This will affect everyone.

Just for starters as a big guild I will not be bidding against other big guilds because; I know most of the GMs; it is too risky to bid against other alliances and I do not want to cause disruption. Where do you think my spare bids will go? on to lesser, unaffiliated, weak guilds. This decision will only benefit disrupters and big guilds and will have a detrimental effect on everyone.

This feature has significantly more impactful ramifications that are listed in the other thread.

Also you have no evidence that this decision has been made because of the minor 5 min scramble that a few guilds have to make on a Sunday.

Again I ask you like I did in the other thread, are you involved in running a trade guild?