EllieBlue wrote: »

You from the spectator arena and us, the GMs, from the gladiator rings

Yet another assumption. And attempt at a disguised "you have no clue".
Simply accept a different opinion. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing and I've never tried to minimize or deny your concerns.

@reoskit : I know you know how much I appreciate trading guilds and how respectful I am of the GMs' huge work.

And I know it's a bit unfair. You've done your best and succeeded in this given environment... and now this environment is being changed. Because you've made it close to immovable.
It's like when top players work so hard to reach 80+ DPS... and it leads to... their build being nerfed.

About anxiety : if leading a trading guild is so painful, you should consider stopping it ? Your description is nearly frightening, to be honest.
To a certain extent, you remind me of my mother who was complaining 24/7 about housework, but couldn't stop cleaning the kitchen. We kept telling her that we wanted her to just sit and be with us, but she preferred her stainless kitchen and complaining :-)

reoskit wrote: »

If one of your goals with this chaos is to see new guilds in kiosks, I’ll be the first to remind you, this change annihilates the entry points for new trade guilds. Make no mistake, the monopoly that we large guilds have on the kiosks will only grow.

Yes, that's my hope : to see new guilds, more rotations and more uncertainty with kiosks. Even if that should be detrimental to the guilds I'm in and as a consequence, to myself.
If I'm wrong and you're right (when you say it will comfort the current monopolies), I will acknowledge that (say, by Christmas, the time for the new system to settle in and for people to adjust).

I'm not "wanting" anything, I'm approving on one of ZOS' decisions, it's not exactly the same.

You could also notice that ALL opponents of this in these threads, with the one noticeable exception of @SantieClaws , are GMs of established guilds. It's normal for established people to wish for the preservation of the branch they're sitting on. It's not necessarily representative of the "common good" (I don't pretend to represent the "common good" either, though).

I fail to understand what the auction house debate has to do with it, really. People who want an auction house don't want to visit guild traders, regardless of what guilds own said guild traders.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm not "wanting" anything, I'm approving on one of ZOS' decisions, it's not exactly the same.

You could also notice that ALL opponents of this in these threads, with the one noticeable exception of @SantieClaws , are GMs of established guilds. It's normal for established people to wish for the preservation of the branch they're sitting on. It's not necessarily representative of the "common good" (I don't pretend to represent the "common good" either, though).

I fail to understand what the auction house debate has to do with it, really. People who want an auction house don't want to visit guild traders, regardless of what guilds own said guild traders.

Why youre ignoring the other thread, a lot of people also writing which hm smaller and medium sized guilds, but most won't discuss in multiple threads.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm not "wanting" anything, I'm approving on one of ZOS' decisions, it's not exactly the same.

You could also notice that ALL opponents of this in these threads, with the one noticeable exception of @SantieClaws , are GMs of established guilds. It's normal for established people to wish for the preservation of the branch they're sitting on. It's not necessarily representative of the "common good" (I don't pretend to represent the "common good" either, though).

I fail to understand what the auction house debate has to do with it, really. People who want an auction house don't want to visit guild traders, regardless of what guilds own said guild traders.

I am the GM of an established guild on PS4, yes, but am not one of the capital traders. I run a dues-free, donation-based guild that is 2 years old, which can be quite difficult to do on our platform and reliably win bids. I can usually place us in a decent trader 3 out of 4 weeks; never anywhere consistent because the larger guilds target us and consistently push us out of desirable cities if we sit too long in a place.

I am currently on a two-week losing streak which, of course, has left lots of my folks unhappy. Both bids *should* have been overpaying for the trader and city I targeted, yet I was outbid (and saw similar allies place similar bids in the same cities and win, so I know I'm simply on a bad streak of luck - but to others, it appears as incompetence of a trading guild GM).

It is already chaotic, from my perspective. I do not look forward to it becoming even MORE chaotic, nor do I look forward to what will most likely be inflation/soaring costs of traders mostly across the board. I do well to raise the funds necessary to place one strong bid a week - being now asked to come up with more funds to try and place back-up bids will be very challenging and more time-consuming, despite the appeal of having back-up bid ability. And if trader prices DO increase as a result of this, it will almost assuredly mean the following for my guild: 1) We can say goodbye to ever bidding in Alinor/Vivec/Craglorn and hope to win again; 2) Accept that we'll become a middle-tier city trader and/or 3) Cause the institution of weekly dues in order to try and compete at a "higher" level (which, after this change, would really be trying to compete for the level we already painstakingly try to compete on currently).

Just my two cents and perspective.

reoskit wrote: »

The reward of success far outweighs the anxiety.

Then stop complaining ?

reoskit wrote: »

Competitiveness is not the same as compulsion.

My mother would say "cleanliness is not the same as addiction".

But let's not derail.
My point (and I'm sure you understood it) is that I'd like the GMs to take things more lightly and have more fun and stop suffering & complaining, and the new system may help with that, due to the higher level of uncertainty and impredictability involved.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm not "wanting" anything, I'm approving on one of ZOS' decisions, it's not exactly the same.

You could also notice that ALL opponents of this in these threads, with the one noticeable exception of @SantieClaws , are GMs of established guilds. It's normal for established people to wish for the preservation of the branch they're sitting on. It's not necessarily representative of the "common good" (I don't pretend to represent the "common good" either, though).

How smart observation you've done here: since many posters here are GMs of established guilds and we know in what kind of league we are in, don't you think we know also exactly why this system is gonna be horrible for smaller guilds?

If this multi-bidding system is gonna become reality, developers will give ALL OF US a chance to bid on multiple spots and I will repeat what many have said already multiple times: This new system does NOT favor medium or small guilds.

As an example I use myself:
I'm a GM of 3 trade guilds on PC EU and I've been alreading checking out what kind of spots could be suitable, if worst case scenario happens and this multi-bidding system becomes reality. There's no need to be a genius to understand that bidding on "big fish spots" is as good as hitting an axe to my own knee. Why in earth I would do that? Guess where I will place my back up bids instead? Guess what kind of guilds are gonna be sacrificed as an exchange?

And since we care about our own communities, we of course try to maintain what drives benefits of our own guilds.
Yes: Many of us will be bidding on smaller tier spots as well, because having a trader is still better than having none.
Yes, we will be bidding higher than the spot is even worth and we do it, because our own community is priority in our own
minds.
This new system does not give much breathing room for smaller guilds and that's exactly why I'm telling this.
As medium/small guild you can be sure that your spot will be used as back up by someone higher on the ladder.
Does 3 M bid on each spot in Skywatch sound absurd? Soon it might become a reality.

You want chaos happen, but as an exchange medium and small guilds will be thrown under buss. How sweet of you.

Greetings travellers.

This one would like to clarify that she is an officer in a medium sized and well respected trading guild that has been around since beta.

We charge no fees, impose no minimum trade. We would like to keep it that way.

She speaks though not from any wish to preserve things as they are - this one only wants things to be better for all guilds - this change can only make them much worse.

This one has said many times over that the core problem with this system is that there are simply not enough traders. Finding different ways to divide them up won't change things.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

I said in one another post. The BEST idea is to increase the trade spots by allowing 2 or 3 guilds to bid and win on same trader.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6194176/#Comment_6194176

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

For some reason you are choosing not to listen.
If you do want us to be happier and less stressed then please please please support us.

I do listen. But what I'm hearing is in fact how unhealthy the whole thing has become. Noone wants to touch "big established guilds", either because they're "friends", or because of fear of trouble, and the smaller ones should stay where they are, and nothing should change, and the big guilds feel entitled to their usual trader spot for years and years.
That's not how the thing was supposed to work, it's deep frozen. Everything is agreed upon behind the scenes with minimum changes.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

If you do want us to be happier and less stressed then please please please support us.

The best way to be less stressed is to see it as a game and to realize (you, and your members too) that the sky isn't falling because you don't have a trader for a week or even more. And if your members let you down because of this, maybe it's not that much of a "community". Traders are supposed to rotate.

SammiSakura wrote: »

Yes, we are all presuming what will happen, but we are able to form an informed hypothesis due to our experience and expertise. If you think it'll be a good thing then just say that and move on.

It's you who keep talking to me :-)

As to the "experience" and "expertise", have you noticed that all the complainers these days - not only about the trader bids, but also about all the combat changes - claim to have the "experience" and the "expertise" ? And not only this time, but with every single damn patch ?

The vast majority of people who play this game just want an easy place to buy and sell things. About 40-50% of forums-goers (and although unsubstantiated I would guess an even larger percentage of game-playing non-forum-goers) support a global auction house over the system we have now because the current system is too complicated and not stable enough for them.

This change is 100% designed by some economist to sink even more gold each week. And it will be successful at that.

And it will also create some chaos. And most players will dislike that. Even among forum-goers, another poll about an auction house vs the trader system a month after this goes live will most likely show a majority in support of an auction house.

It will do nothing whatsoever about the ghost guild problem. Guilds do this to make money more than as a backup. That will continue. Especially as the appetite for gold each week to try to maintain a stable spot becomes insatiable.

I predict an increase in overall gold sunk in bids of 50-100%. Could be more. And for the average player who just wants to sell a few duplicate motifs— sorry, there is no longer an appropriate guild for you.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

As to the "experience" and "expertise", have you noticed that all the complainers these days - not only about the trader bids, but also about all the combat changes - claim to have the "experience" and the "expertise" ? And not only this time, but with every single damn patch ?

Giving negative feedback isnt exactly complaining. And these gm's literally have expertise in this area so I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate. Go get off your high horse somewhere else and stop trying to tell the people who actually know what theyre talking about that they are wrong
ta ta o/

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

And I believe trader rotation will do a lot positive for the game, its economy and traders in general (while fully respecting that you disagree with that vision).

Please explain why rotation will be better, if possible with practical examples of how it will work and add benefits.

I would also be interested to hear how rotation will actually happen with the proposed system that is based on the availability of gold. Like actually happen.

Rotation is better because it gives a chance to entry level guilds. Or it should do it. But for now it seems to benefit and counter benefit the large guilds only so far.