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

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich. Cheers mate

Jayman1000 · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder tool that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders, but it may be necessary later if player population keeps increasing and all the trade guilds gets booming full of members.

Urigall · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Just a couple weeks back, one of my guilds lost an expensive spot to an almost completely empty vendor, who was selling only 1 stacks of worms and 2 stacks of insects

Seen that on many occasions. Good way to recover the cost of the bidding fee. Or not.

I've seen guilds where inventory starts at 29 days old or 30 day listings of only 10-15 or so items. Another good way to recover the cost of the bidding fee. Not really. If only half of a guild with 50 members lists 15 items, that's...quick arithmetic...750 items.

Yesterday, I saw two guilds with zero inventory for sale. Both were in spots that get a fair bit of foot traffic too. I don't visit a lot of traders so there could be other guilds with zero inventory.

Shelling out a lot of dosh and then not taking every effort to recover the outlay is a bit...strange.

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots free in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder too that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders.

There is definitely a need for more traders, with more an more guilds being created, and a need to remove the exploits within the system. Players should be able to run the type of guilds they want, and still be able to participate in the trade system. So what, if there are free slots in some of other guilds? They, obviously, want to stay in their guilds, or they wouldn't have come here to voice their opinions. Plus, they would have already joined other guilds, if they wanted that. Pushing for people to consolidate guilds isn't being fair to them, and their play styles. I stand by my statements. Everyone should be able to participate in the trade system, even if they aren't already rich. Small guilds, medium guilds, and newer guilds aren't benfitting from this change, and ZOS should do something to ensure they can enjoy the trade system too.

Jayman1000 · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots free in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder too that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders.

There is definitely a need for more traders, with more an more guilds being created, and a need to remove the exploits within the system. Players should be able to run the type of guilds they want, and still be able to participate in the trade system. So what, if there are free slots in some of other guilds? They, obviously, want to stay in their guilds, or they wouldn't have come here to voice their opinions. Plus, they would have already joined other guilds, if they wanted that. Pushing for people to consolidate guilds isn't being fair to them, and their play styles. I stand by my statements. Everyone should be able to participate in the trade system, even if they aren't already rich. Small guilds, medium guilds, and newer guilds aren't benfitting from this change, and ZOS should do something to ensure they can enjoy the trade system too.

Arguably anyone IS able to participate in the trade system. You are not bound to only join one guild, you can join 5 guilds. One of those could be a trade guild, surely players can use just ONE of their available guilds to join a successful guild with a trader so they can participate in the trade systems. So I stand by my statements too; as long as there is tons of trade guilds with a trader that has tons of free member slots, I really dont see the issue you are describing with players not being able to participate in the trade system.

Arrodisia · July 2019

Urigall wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Just a couple weeks back, one of my guilds lost an expensive spot to an almost completely empty vendor, who was selling only 1 stacks of worms and 2 stacks of insects

Seen that on many occasions. Good way to recover the cost of the bidding fee. Or not.

I've seen guilds where inventory starts at 29 days old or 30 day listings of only 10-15 or so items. Another good way to recover the cost of the bidding fee. Not really. If only half of a guild with 50 members lists 15 items, that's...quick arithmetic...750 items.

Yesterday, I saw two guilds with zero inventory for sale. Both were in spots that get a fair bit of foot traffic too. I don't visit a lot of traders so there could be other guilds with zero inventory.

Shelling out a lot of dosh and then not taking every effort to recover the outlay is a bit...strange.

Yes very strange indeed. Yet, they keep doing it. One would almost think there was an exploit in play. Oh wait. I almost forgot. There is an exploit in play.

Best wishes

reoskit · July 2019

Urigall wrote: »

Why not remove ghost guilds at the outset? ZoS probably regard us as responsible adults, who are willing to play fair with the new system:

If there is an exploitable system, someone will exploit it. We don't need to keep proving that over and over again.

There is absolutely no harm in turning off the ability to hire a trader after a guild disbands. The only people who will complain about it are those who use ghost guilds, either as a backup or as a ransom/revenue source. Neither of whom I'm remotely concerned about having fair representation here.

Urigall wrote: »

ZoS might not want to seem heavy handed.

The proposed system is heavy-handed.

Urigall wrote: »

If some players can't be trusted to play fair with the new system, there is the justification for stepping in. Then ZoS will either have to ignore - a lot of - loud complaints or intervene.

They've already ignored the complaints about ghost guilds. When they finally propose a change to the bidding system, it works in favor of the ghost guilds. It's no small thing that they've rewritten how the bidding system works - it's not a flipswitch change. This took time to develop. I'm just utterly perplexed why THIS is the change they created.

(To be clear, none of my frustrations are with you, Urigall. Just responding.)

martinhpb16_ESO · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots free in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder too that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders.

There is definitely a need for more traders, with more an more guilds being created, and a need to remove the exploits within the system. Players should be able to run the type of guilds they want, and still be able to participate in the trade system. So what, if there are free slots in some of other guilds? They, obviously, want to stay in their guilds, or they wouldn't have come here to voice their opinions. Plus, they would have already joined other guilds, if they wanted that. Pushing for people to consolidate guilds isn't being fair to them, and their play styles. I stand by my statements. Everyone should be able to participate in the trade system, even if they aren't already rich. Small guilds, medium guilds, and newer guilds aren't benfitting from this change, and ZOS should do something to ensure they can enjoy the trade system too.

Arguably anyone IS able to participate in the trade system. You are not bound to only join one guild, you can join 5 guilds. One of those could be a trade guild, surely players can use just ONE of their available guilds to join a successful guild with a trader so they can participate in the trade systems. So I stand by my statements too; as long as there is tons of trade guilds with a trader that has tons of free member slots, I really dont see the issue you are describing with players not being able to participate in the trade system.

Being forced out of bidding because there are too many guilds vs. available vendors, and exploits doesn't allow for them to participate and enjoy the system. Having up to 5 slots doesn't change anything. They want to run their own guilds, the way they see fit, and not be forced out by deep pockets with unfair advantages. The system should be fun for all. Already rich players have the clear advantage here. There's no fun in it for smaller, midsized and newer guilds.

Jayman1000 · July 2019

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it that has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

Well, they will lose their bids, and it will cause higher bids across the board. since there will be ten times the amount of already existing bids already out there. The supply and demand is already out of sync, which is one of the reasons why the system is currently being exploited. So yes, it will have something to do with how many traders each guild real or fake can bid on at one time.

Jayman1000 · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots free in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder too that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders.

There is definitely a need for more traders, with more an more guilds being created, and a need to remove the exploits within the system. Players should be able to run the type of guilds they want, and still be able to participate in the trade system. So what, if there are free slots in some of other guilds? They, obviously, want to stay in their guilds, or they wouldn't have come here to voice their opinions. Plus, they would have already joined other guilds, if they wanted that. Pushing for people to consolidate guilds isn't being fair to them, and their play styles. I stand by my statements. Everyone should be able to participate in the trade system, even if they aren't already rich. Small guilds, medium guilds, and newer guilds aren't benfitting from this change, and ZOS should do something to ensure they can enjoy the trade system too.

Arguably anyone IS able to participate in the trade system. You are not bound to only join one guild, you can join 5 guilds. One of those could be a trade guild, surely players can use just ONE of their available guilds to join a successful guild with a trader so they can participate in the trade systems. So I stand by my statements too; as long as there is tons of trade guilds with a trader that has tons of free member slots, I really dont see the issue you are describing with players not being able to participate in the trade system.

Being forced out of bidding because there are too many guilds vs. available vendors, and exploits doesn't allow for them to participate and enjoy the system. Having up to 5 slots doesn't change anything. They want to run their own guilds, the way they see fit, and not be forced out by deep pockets with unfair advantages. The system should be fun for all. Already rich players have the clear advantage here. There's no fun in it for smaller, midsized and newer guilds.

I dont understand why you say having 5 guild slots change nothing. Surely you can devote ONE of those slots to join a successful trade guild with a trader?

What is an "unfair advantage" exactly? I don't understand what it is you are referring to.

Urigall · July 2019

placeholder text

reoskit wrote: »

(To be clear, none of my frustrations are with you, Urigall. Just responding.)

Np resokit. I understand your frustrations.

How the proposed system will work is unclear until it goes live. If ghost guilds are not proscribed/hobbled there will definitely be huge problems. That's the pressing issue in my humble.

Atm, there are two guilds with zero inventory for sale. Could be others.

If these were acquired through back up bids, they'd have been populated with items for sale. They are not.

Either someone though "nah, this trading lark is boring...not going to bother with it" or a guild that had already secured a spot bought a kiosk they didn't need for a back up. Latter answer is the more likely one. Maybe the buyer couldn't sell the second spots.

I thought the purpose of back up bids was to provide a fallback in the event that the main bid was unsuccessful.

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

Only guilds that are already very large and have a huge amount of money in the bank will benefit.

You need to have that money in order to make the multiple bids.

Small and medium guilds do not have that kind of cash up front.

Those are the guilds that will not be able to make use of this system and will suffer as a result.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

What you are describing here are less strong guilds trying to bid out of their league. If they aint got the cash they need to bid on less valuable traders.

Which will already have been bid on by many of the stronger guilds as back up traders. They are not going to chase the trader next door as a backup - they will chase cheaper ones - thus pushing the traders out of those spots. The very traders who won't have a backup bid because they cannot afford it.

There is no infinite money pot for most guilds to throw on multiple trader bids in the hope of getting 'something'.

What we need is a system that gives more guilds the chance to get a trader - not less.

The only thing that will fix this, the only thing that will allow for genuine competition on prices, is a huge increase in trading slots. There is no genuine competition on prices if large numbers of guilds are shut out of the market.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Again, as I said before, less strong guilds should take care then to not bid out of their league. If they are getting outbid and they cannot afford to bid higher, they need to choose less valuable traders to bid on. If they are already bidding on the very least valuable traders, and are losing, and cant afford to bid more, then I would say such a trade guild was just not strong enough to win over the competition.

All vendor's prices will become more inflated, including those in less traveled spots. They will be forced out, and the competitive prices will dwindle until it is no longer fun for players to buy things anymore. We aren't on wall street. We're in a game, and other players want to participate in buying and selling too, not just the already rich.

If they get forced out that's because another guild that was more successful could afford to outbid the previous owner of that trader. Currently I dont think there is need for more trader slots, because there is already lots of free member slots free in many many trade guilds. This is something you we can actually verify easily now that we have the guild finder too that also shows amount of members in the guilds. As long as that it is the case I dont see a need for more guild traders.

There is definitely a need for more traders, with more an more guilds being created, and a need to remove the exploits within the system. Players should be able to run the type of guilds they want, and still be able to participate in the trade system. So what, if there are free slots in some of other guilds? They, obviously, want to stay in their guilds, or they wouldn't have come here to voice their opinions. Plus, they would have already joined other guilds, if they wanted that. Pushing for people to consolidate guilds isn't being fair to them, and their play styles. I stand by my statements. Everyone should be able to participate in the trade system, even if they aren't already rich. Small guilds, medium guilds, and newer guilds aren't benfitting from this change, and ZOS should do something to ensure they can enjoy the trade system too.

Arguably anyone IS able to participate in the trade system. You are not bound to only join one guild, you can join 5 guilds. One of those could be a trade guild, surely players can use just ONE of their available guilds to join a successful guild with a trader so they can participate in the trade systems. So I stand by my statements too; as long as there is tons of trade guilds with a trader that has tons of free member slots, I really dont see the issue you are describing with players not being able to participate in the trade system.

Being forced out of bidding because there are too many guilds vs. available vendors, and exploits doesn't allow for them to participate and enjoy the system. Having up to 5 slots doesn't change anything. They want to run their own guilds, the way they see fit, and not be forced out by deep pockets with unfair advantages. The system should be fun for all. Already rich players have the clear advantage here. There's no fun in it for smaller, midsized and newer guilds.

I dont understand why you say having 5 guild slots change nothing. Surely you can devote ONE of those slots to join a successful trade guild with a trader?

What is an "unfair advantage" exactly? I don't understand what it is you are referring to.

I'm saying it, because it doesn't change anything about these issues. If a gm wants to run a brand new guild, or a smaller guild and have a chance at being successful in the future, while they are building their guild up from the ground, they'll need a fair ground to start on. Also, they'll more than likely, want to invest all of their time in that guild. They probably won't have the time to join other guilds, and may not even want to join other guilds. Many players have jobs, school, and families to take care of in this life. Many don't have time for 2 guilds much less 5. Your thoughts seem to be too one sided, in favor of already established larger guilds.

The unfair advantages were stated by myself, and many others all throughout this thread. You just choose to ignore it all. I'm, basically, proposing the system should be fair and fun for all, and you're proposing it should only be fun for the already rich. At this point, I'll just agree to disagree. Best wishes.

ezio45 · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

Well now ghost guild that existed as back up if you lose your bid wont have a reason to exist at all since the real guil now do the joob of 9 ghost guild+real guild and only end up keeping one so in the end potentionally 1 more available trader per ghost guild wich is avaiable to smaller guild

this is very flawed.

shell guilds exist mostly for profit and an occasional backup. they also can use this to meaning there is a greater chance of the shell guilds getting a spot to sell. This is really just fuel on the fire for the whole trader situation.

If you lost your trader to a shell guild you bid too low if that shell guild can resell the trader. Which they probably can if they won the bid; why would the bid so high that they can't resell? Think about that.

there are shell guilds buying for 14m and flipping for 20m in grahtwood to people that lost in mornhold which is 24m. Shell guilds are bidding full price because they can flip to who ever lose the next tier up

Pevey · July 2019

Some people are good at chess, and some people are not.

Some people look at this and can’t see beyond the first order effect, while others can envision the second and third order effects and beyond.

I think it is telling that the people commenting who have the most practical experience with the system can see pretty quickly where this will lead—significantly more gold sunk each week. Higher average bids. That is probably Zos’s one and only goal with this change. It has nothing to do with ghost guilds, unfortunately. So it will likely not be changed based on any feedback we provide here.

The days of establishing yourself in a long-term spot and being nice to other guilds so that hopefully your spot is not contested too often, allowing you to bid conservatively most weeks and save a tiny bit of gold so that you can fight back in the event that suddenly another guild does make a play for your spot...those days will be over soon. It’s a whole new ballgame now, and the cost of playing the game is going way, way up.

ezio45 · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

Arrodisia · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

I agree with that. The gold sink for vendors is already high. If they become higher small, medium and newer guilds won't be able to get vendors anymore. There is nothing fun or inclusive about that.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

there are shell guilds buying for 14m and flipping for 20m in grahtwood to people that lost in mornhold which is 24m. Shell guilds are bidding full price because they can flip to who ever lose the next tier up

Except that with the opportunity to bid on multiple guilds the likelihood to remain without kiosk after the flip is greatly reduced, which will reduce the demand for ghost back up and crush such prices. Maybe up to the point where ghost bidding for backups becomes an unlucrative business and simply disappears.

See the big picture and don't assume everything will remain the same, because everything will change with multibidding.

Jayman1000 · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

Well now ghost guild that existed as back up if you lose your bid wont have a reason to exist at all since the real guil now do the joob of 9 ghost guild+real guild and only end up keeping one so in the end potentionally 1 more available trader per ghost guild wich is avaiable to smaller guild

this is very flawed.

shell guilds exist mostly for profit and an occasional backup. they also can use this to meaning there is a greater chance of the shell guilds getting a spot to sell. This is really just fuel on the fire for the whole trader situation.

If you lost your trader to a shell guild you bid too low if that shell guild can resell the trader. Which they probably can if they won the bid; why would the bid so high that they can't resell? Think about that.

there are shell guilds buying for 14m and flipping for 20m in grahtwood to people that lost in mornhold which is 24m. Shell guilds are bidding full price because they can flip to who ever lose the next tier up

The only reason these shell guilds can flip is because the other bids were too low to actually match the demand value for the trader. Im not saying flipping is a nice thing to do mind you but this is how it is and I doubt it can ever be fixed unless you impose some super restrictive measures and limitations which comes with its own problems that is much much worse.

But with the new bidding system you can actually get another trader if your guild gets flipped. It's not a drawback, it's an advantage.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »

I agree with that. The gold sink for vendors is already high. If they become higher small, medium and newer guilds won't be able to get vendors anymore. There is nothing fun about that.

Do you have any idea how offer and demand work ?
As long as there are more vendor spots than super-rich guilds, (which is the case) the lower- and middle-tier guilds will always get a spot at a price they can afford. Prices are self-adjusting.

reoskit · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

It may be important to specify which platform you're on when saying things like that. None of the large guilds I'm aware of on PCNA engage in such tactics.

It also seems to me that, if you're the sort of enterprise which makes money off of disbanding your guilds, you aren't the sort that also keeps a functioning guild running.

If I were to jump into ransoming kiosks, I'd:

Buy 50 accounts (on the legit, this costs $500 - probably way cheaper ways to get them)
Add all 50 accts to 5 guilds
Ensure I have startup cash to buy a kiosk/kiosks
Buy kiosk(s)
Ransom the kiosk for more than I paid to a guild that really wants it
Disband one of my guilds to free the slot to the ransomee
Rinse repeat for 4 more kiosks
Readd my 50 accts to 5 new guilds, and do this whole process again and again and again...

Not to spell out how easy it is, but... that's how easy it is. It's gold selling via ransom. If you cut out the ability to free a kiosk by disbanding, you've completely killed this exploit.

Edit: typo

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

Not to spell out how easy it is, but... that's how easy it is. It's gold selling via ransom. If you cut out the ability to free a kiosk by disbanding, you've completely killed this exploit.

Ghost guilds can only "ransom"-sell kiosks if they find a buyer. Which they may find much more difficult with the multi-bidding system.

That being said, I agree that ZOS should lock a kiosk after the first bidding in any given week and the problem woud be solved once and for all.

Jayman1000 · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes? Im a member of multiple of the largest trade guilds, none of these sells stalls, they need to get their main trader. If they were to sell stalls how would they get their main trader? Can yuo explain exactly how big guilds is selling stalls? Because I dont understand how that would work?

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes? Im a member of multiple of the largest trade guilds, none of these sells stalls, they need to get their main trader. If they were to sell stalls how would they get their main trader? Can yuo explain exactly how big guilds is selling stalls? Because I dont understand how that would work?

It works more or less like this : Guild A has 30millions. They use 15 millions for their main bid and create guild "G" (Ghost). They give guild G the remaining 15mio to bid on some other spot - which they win, too. Since they have no need for it, they look for a guild that lost their bid and resells them the second spot for 20mio (they free the spot simply by disbanding the "G" guild).

In the end they have their main trader spot AND 5mio benefit (to reinvest in next week's bidding).

I can't say if it's such a common practice as some people say it is, but in theory, that's how it works.

Pevey · July 2019

It abundantly clear to me the people who are commenting who have no practical experience with this system.

Trader prices are already well above the actual value of the spot.

Guilds don’t want to be without their spot for a week because of the effect on their members. So they are (sometimes—not all the time) willing to pay a high ransom for the week to get their preferred spot back. But that is not a sustainable price. It is not an equilibrium price. The reason they lost the bid was because they bid a sustainable amount. To pay the ransom, they beg, steal, and borrow so as not to spend the week bleeding members who only want a stable place to sell, not to play corporate takeover simulator.

ezio45 · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

there are shell guilds buying for 14m and flipping for 20m in grahtwood to people that lost in mornhold which is 24m. Shell guilds are bidding full price because they can flip to who ever lose the next tier up

Except that with the opportunity to bid on multiple guilds the likelihood to remain without kiosk after the flip is greatly reduced, which will reduce the demand for ghost back up and crush such prices. Maybe up to the point where ghost bidding for backups becomes an unlucrative business and simply disappears.

See the big picture and don't assume everything will remain the same, because everything will change with multibidding.

shells can outbid most if not all small- medium guilds. Thats every location that isnt grahtwood, mounhold or wayrest. some even can pill bids there. there will always be a demand for them as long as they are allowed to exist. It works because there always selling to guilds in the tier above that lost a stall they can afford the higher price off in the tier below. The only thing that multi bidding changes is now the shell guilds can get guaranteed a shall to sell. rather than possibly losing to some guild in that tier and wasting that shell guild for the week and losing out on that income.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Pevey wrote: »

Trader prices are already well above the actual value of the spot.

Define "actual value of the spot" ?
In theory the cost of the spot should be covered by the 3.5% guild fees, and that should constitute the "ceiling".
But if people agree to either weekly fees and/or voluntary donations, it adds to the pot and raises that ceiling, and if they do that, it means that they see enough value in the spot to invest that much... with enough return on investment.

Currently on PC/EU, any Belkarth guild could ask for a 20K weekly fee and find 500 people who happily agree to pay them, because that's how profitable the spot is.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

ezio45 wrote: »

shells can outbid most if not all small- medium guilds. Thats every location that isnt grahtwood, mounhold or wayrest. some even can pill bids there. there will always be a demand for them as long as they are allowed to exist.

I don't worry too much about that. If things go as bad as you actually describe (which I'm not denying can happen), 2/3 of trader stalls will be empty with no listings and ZOS will have to do something about it (finally).

Arrodisia · July 2019

Jayman1000 wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

I have a feeling about this,

Oh great, you have a feeling.

Meanwhile all of us GMs who have to manage the trade system are all in complete agreement that this will be a total sham.

My GM's in my trade guilds have the opposite opinion, this will work wonders for how safe you can be in the knowledge that you wont be without a trader. But yes, you have to actually use the opportunity that this new system presents to you. I have seen no compelling argument that in any way explains how this will be sham or the like.

u are aware that chances of getting a trader or getting no trader isnt changing in any ways, since the amount of traders is still the same and the same amount of guilds are getting outbid while the same amount of guilds are getting a trader? simple mathematics.

Again what you are describing here is simply less strong guilds losing bids because they are not strong enough. That's how competition works. The advantage is that guilds can now bid on multiple traders, so if they lose their main one, they will most likely get their backup, especially if the GM's just bid a little clever. This is a major advantage and lessens the risk of losing the trader a lot. I agree that if player population continues to rise and guilds become entirely full maybe zos would have to consider somehow adding more traders or similar. But currently there are plenty of free spots in so many many good trade guilds. Just check the guild finder and you'll see.

Errm Jay, the big guilds are just going to spread bids on weaker guilds mate. Bids are going to go up in price across the Board

Big guilds bids on weaker traders wont matter unless those big guilds actually lose their main trader. Which they usually don't. I don't see why this should cause higher bids across the board. What does increase the bids would be more trade guilds with more members, and if player population rises then I would expect bids to rise too as a result, just simple supply and demand mechanic at work there; and if the supply/demand ratio gets out of sync too much then yeah maybe ZOS would have to consider adding more traders or similar. but that's not where we are now. And it has nothing to do with the change to how many traders a guild can bid on.

the problem is the big guilds are the ones selling stalls. everyone not selling stalls cant make those kinds of bids. this system feeds into that loop and makes the problem worse.

Big guilds selling stalls? You can document this postulate yes? Im a member of multiple of the largest trade guilds, none of these sells stalls, they need to get their main trader. If they were to sell stalls how would they get their main trader? Can yuo explain exactly how big guilds is selling stalls? Because I dont understand how that would work?

I can explain it, and it has been mentioned in threads before. There are two ways to do it. A fake guild gets a vendor then disbands the guild after they receive payment for the spot, while the person they just sold it to waits at the spot to take the trader as he disbands. The second way is making the buyer into the guild master of the disposable fake guild, after the seller already got payment. So yes. It is very doable. No player, in their right mind, is going to film themselves exploiting the system for you, because they fear being made an example of afterwards.