we've gotten derailed here, like to get back to the intent of asking ZOS. Can @ZOS_JessicaFolsom or @ZOS_GinaBruno see that the right devs see this thread? thank you


Can we have dev notes on why and what they are attempting to change with this drastic bidding change?

Is there a problem you are trying to correct? If so, what is it?

What is your end goal with these changes?

Can we have a forum list that is for discussion of Guild and Trader, issues, wants and needs?

Which dev is responsible for tracking guild and trader forum concerns/ posts?

Is this change solely for the purpose to increase a goldsink?



What other question would people like to see answered within the scope of guilds/traders?

if guild disbands then the next guild with higher bidder should get it?

Leaving it empty for the week may seem harsh and wasteful, but it is still a good, simple solution. The practice would quickly cease if the trader location could not be transferred to a different guild. No use for making gold, no use as a back-up. Trolls can still troll, nothing to stop that. But better to solve 90% of the problem rather than 0%.

Grimm13 wrote: »

we've gotten derailed here, like to get back to the intent of asking ZOS. Can @ZOS_JessicaFolsom or @ZOS_GinaBruno see that the right devs see this thread? thank you


Can we have dev notes on why and what they are attempting to change with this drastic bidding change?

Is there a problem you are trying to correct? If so, what is it?

What is your end goal with these changes?

Can we have a forum list that is for discussion of Guild and Trader, issues, wants and needs?

Which dev is responsible for tracking guild and trader forum concerns/ posts?

Is this change solely for the purpose to increase a goldsink?



What other question would people like to see answered within the scope of guilds/traders?

This^
I have been following both threads on the subject.
IMO this is a TERRIBLE idea ZoS. And the BIG question is..... WHY?
I am GM of a social guild that has been around since launch. We have had the same trader for over 2 years and done so with no dues or fees. I dont want to bid on 9 others. We are happy here. But now with this, the odds of losing our spot makes it to where we have to set up "back up' bids which takes more guild gold, more work etc.... And this is a good idea?
I am in 2 mid to large trading guilds. My "big" trade guild has no fees or dues, but may have to start.

All in all, just some communication from @ZoS on WHY you want to this would be appreciated! Whose idea was it? What is your reasoning as to WHY this is a good idea? PLEASE! Tell us!
My 2 drakes is this is a horrible idea.
Huzzah!

Sordidfairytale wrote: »

I was in favor of this change when I first heard about it. Wholeheartedly, I felt like this would help stabilize one of my guilds trader situation. But after reading all of the insight here I'm confident I was wrong and that this will in fact not stabilize things for us.

I wonder if a cap were placed on the amount of gold that can be bid total, might help. Throwing out an arbitrary number like 5 million. Throw all your 5 million in your top choice bid and nothing in the other 9 spots would be dangerous, ties would have to be dealt with some way (first bidder?). So having a backup becomes even more important. But spreading 5 million over 10 traders gives small or medium trade guilds a better chance of securing a trader.

But Ghost Guilds have to be dealt with. Easiest method would be to lock a trader until next bid period.

A cap would not work well as ties are done by first to post wins. a cap would just make it a posting race.

Sordidfairytale wrote: »

But the ghost guilds should be the first priority, admittedly.

ZOS has had plenty of opportunity to contemplate an overt "fix" for ghost guilds, and this new bidding thing would be the perfect time for them to take action. There are a number of things they could do, from not selling the kiosk if the guild disbanded to making the kiosk price, after disbanding, the same as what they ghost guild paid, to having guild trader inventory requirements to even bid (and win) on a kiosk, to making ghost guilds a ToS event and banning people who do it. If they wanted to, they could take action.

I know some people think that ghost guilds sprang up because ZOS did not include this feature from the start, and I might be inclined to agree with that. I do agree that the muilti-bid feature should have been in the game from the start, and that if it had been, ghost guilds would not be widely used for backup kiosks.

I don't think multiple bids or U23 will eliminate them, though. Ghost guilds are just handy to have around, and a backup kiosk is only one reason to use them. Those guilds that went to the effort to make them for the purpose of a backup are free to stop, but other uses will continue on.

Anyway, I don't think that ZOS is interested in "fixing" ghost guilds. The multi-bid feature fixes a deficit in the kiosk bidding system that is associated with player pain points documented right here in the forum. They are interested in fixing how the system works. I think they are less interested in being involved with the squabbling between guilds over the kiosks, and ghost guilds are a big part of that.

Putting it bluntly: I don't think ZOS sees ghost guilds as a problem.

My 2 cents.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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

Let's say, MegaGuilds, BigGuilds, AverageGuilds, SmallGuilds, spread on MegaSpots, BigSpots, AverageSpots, SmallSpots.

Right now MegaGuilds are concentrated in MegaSpots, and MegaSpots only. MegaSpots only have MegaGuilds.
BigGuilds are in Bigspots, AverageGuilds in AverageSpots, etc... and so on.

As a result, buyers go to MegaSpots only, because they know there are MegaGuilds out there, and MegaGuilds have the best offer, the best prices (due to enhanced competition) etc... on the opposite side, noone cares to stop at the SmallSpots because it's more than likely that they will only have 2Ta, 20 standard green items and the like.

Now if things were less stable and more mixed :
- People would be more enclined to visit the SmallSpots and AverageSpots - because a MegaGuild could have ended up there and have that extra rare item that we're looking for
- Small Guilds could end up in a MegaSpot or AverageSpot. People would discover them and they could build up a name and recruit more members. Their members could become more aware of markets and prices just by looking at the other guilds around and sell better items at more appropriate prices.
- People would be encouraged to travel around more and visit more remote places because there might be good stuff to buy out there (thinking of outlaw refuges for instance, which are gorgeous places that noone currently visits unless they need a fence).
- After a while of this "mix" the hierarchy between all these guilds and all these spots would blur, and all places would be considered more or less equally worth for bidding on a trader and for shopping. Goods and players would spread out better among all available spots and also among the guilds. Making the market more homogenous and the shopping experience more pleasant.

That's, very generalized, what I believe the positive consequences of trader rotation would be.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

What do you mean by "availability of gold" ... ?
Sometimes a bit of imagination helps. For instance when I read here and there "there's no way my guild can afford multiple bids, we don't have that kind of money". The answer to that one for instance is "borrow it from your members !".

NB : There's a dedicated official feedback thread to this topic here

Thank you for taking the time to lay out your vision.

Sorry Anita I think you are missing a crucial point here and that is the amount of gold it takes to acquire and maintain Mega and Average spots. The mix in the hierarchy will not blur as you anticipate. The amount of gold available will mean that under the new system bids are likely to go up, therefore squeezing smaller guilds even more. This has been explained variously in numerous posts.

Your are also leaving out another crucial factor and that is human nature. Guilds do not operate independently in a vacuum, just blindly bidding against each other. There is just so much going on in the background and this is what we are trying to tell you. Guilds are run by people with all their foibles good and bad. Blind bidding across the board will cause friction, pain, stress, arguments and in-fighting.

The picture you paint just misses out so many variables. For example the notion that "these guilds and all these spots would blur, and all places would be considered more or less equally worth for bidding on a trader and for shopping" will just not happen. The reason the top spots are top is that they are in capital towns, with the most footfall and located near to a wayshrine.

People do already shop out of town, a lot of mega traders and people looking for bargains. I do most of my buying away from main towns and it amounts to millions a week. The difference between a mega-guild and a smaller guild is not just simply location it is very much recruiting, minimum sales and donations policies, lotteries and events and a huge amount of politicking. Some guilds even fake sales by officers reselling or selling at a loss to boost sales figures. Yes they sell at a loss, because the sales stats attract mega sellers. You just arent getting it

I am very sorry and hope that I don't sound patronising but your vision is completely missing a lot of the realities of the politics and effort that people put in. It is totally an completely based on hypothesis and there are no examples based on the very real things needed to run a trade guild. I wish you all the best, but i am done trying to explain this to you. The only way you will find out clearly is being involved in running guilds yourself.

How much do you think you would need to borrow from members to challenge a top spot? 5 / 10 million? Baby you better make that 100 million! I can tell you that when a lesser guild moves on top guilds they very quickly fizzle out because the donations and sales needed is massive and they just don't have the organisation to manage it.

How did I get my spot, by working bloody hard for years, by getting to know all of my neighbours and their friends, by getting in an alliance, by managing my bottom line to such an extent that I look at sales figures constantly, by having a team of officers running events, lotteries and admin tasks, by using a myriad of addon management tools - the list goes on. I literally talk with other trading guilds on a daily basis via a network of platforms, big and small guilds.

No established trading guilds so far want this change.

I am going to stick with my view based on my experience and the opinions of every GM who has posted in these threads because I can totally identify with what they are saying.

girlpoison wrote: »

I don't think I've seen a single post or talked to a single player who is in favor of this idea. Let's hope it's revoked before the update hits.

me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ME!!!!!!!

let it play out!

not you, BUT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE OPTIONS and everybody is freaking out.

calm down! :-)

Lord_Eomer wrote: »

ZOS felt for top guilds and ensured they never lost a trader

If you read these threads, you will find plenty of "top guilds" opposing this change just as much as smaller guilds. We can see past the singular benefit of always having a kiosk.

Lord_Eomer wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Lord_Eomer wrote: »

ZOS felt for top guilds and ensured they never lost a trader

If you read these threads, you will find plenty of "top guilds" opposing this change just as much as smaller guilds. We can see past the singular benefit of always having a kiosk.

Anyway it feels top guilds will benefits more than small or poor guilds

If we're all in the same boat of opposing the change, why does it have to be an us v. them stance? Why does it have to be x has it worse? Why not unite and speak up against it?

Smaller guilds will get shut out when the cascade of failing bids from above trickles down to their kiosks.

EVERYONE'S bids are going to go up. At the top, well, I don't even want to get into what our bid prices will look like as we attempt to defend our spots against anyone who has the money to poke at our kiosk.

EVERYONE'S QoL is going to go down in trade guilds. Dues will be imposed or raised. You will end up giving back more of the money you're making simply to maintain your spot in a guild, simply because the cost of securing a kiosk has gone up. As someone in one of these threads pointed out "I'm going to have to decide whether to play the game or go farming so I can maintain my spot in my trade guild."

This benefits no one. It doesn't need to be a matter of small v. medium v. large. That sort of inward fighting does nothing to stop this change. Instead, we need to oppose it collectively.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm confident, though, that less established guilds will see this with a more open mind and a sense of freedom and use the opportunities there.

But they don't, the small less established ones are complaining too

Its only two people not involved with running trade guilds who think it is a good idea and posting profusely in these threads.

She clearly has no experience bidding for either a large or small guild. She speaks for neither. And, yet, she says she is “confident,” despite her limited knowledge.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Yeats was such a great observer of human nature.

Only one person here keeps coming back and back and back to tell everyone else that they are wrong. Why not just let people leave their feedback and move on?

I am not belittling you. I am attempting to provide perspective. You are one voice attempting to drown out—by your own admission—at least 20. And I do not make assumptions about your role. You have told us your role, and I simply take you at your word. This discussion is not just about my view, and not just about your view. It is not meant to see if you can raise your voice loud enough to drown out all others. That is the only thing I take issue with here. It is not a personal attack.

Pevey wrote: »

I am not belittling you. I am attempting to provide perspective. You are one voice attempting to drown out—by your own admission—at least 20. And I do not make assumptions about your role. You have told us your role, and I simply take you at your word. This discussion is not just about my view, and not just about your view. It is not meant to see if you can raise your voice loud enough to drown out all others. That is the only thing I take issue with here. It is not a personal attack.

Well, if it wasn't a personal attack, you should reconsider your writing style.
And back to topic, just because I'm a minority HERE doesn't mean that I'm wrong (I don't even pretend to be right, I'm just being optimistic about the new system and explaining why).

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Its a crying shame this topic got hijacked and derailed

Hijacked and derailed ? How ? Aren't we discussing the pros and the cons of the upcoming multibidding system ?

SammiSakura wrote: »

Anita. The other posters here are getting agitated from your responses as you are speculating from a base of inexperience. Even I am appalled at some of the things you have said.

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.

For the rest of us however, we would not be making so much noise if we weren't horribly concerned about the implications this will have across ALL servers. And it's not just the big guilds. I am GM of a small-mid tier guild. This could potentially ruin us. The main thing is we just don't have the gold to support this system. And once big guilds get pushed down the ladder, so will we. bid prices rise. and guilds start falling off the end.

There is no logical reason for this change. What we need is for npc's to not be released for hire when a guild disbands. it's simple. problem solved.

i likely have other things to say, but frankly, im tired, and ive just read through 3 pages of utter cowpoop, when this thread should have been kept factual and free from bickering

I agree with you. There is no logical reason for the change. I don't see this benefitting smaller, midsized, and newer guilds. Many just don't have the capital to make multiple bids. With more guilds bidding all over the place, even in less traveled spots, it has a potential to cause inflated bids for already struggling and newer guilds. The PTS is just not offering a large enough testing population for this particular change imho.

Btw, this was a very well written set of statements. Players should stick to the facts, and make more informed statements. Players don't need to turn each comment into a personal war, just because some people don't agree with their statements. I really don't like when some people throw nothing, but snarky comments into a discussion to derail a sensible and productive discussion. I like it even less, when players chop out important parts of statements to bolster an opinion no one, or very little people agree with. It's dishonest, and it doesn't help find viable solutions. Thank you, for being one of those, who likes to help find a solution.

Best of wishes mate