ZOS???
SammiSakura wrote: »This is just insane.
common sense leads me to conclude that this is not a good change.
In the long run this is going to be very negative I think:
chess1ukb16_ESO wrote: »I think this is a bad decision.
GarnetFire17 wrote: »Please don't go live with this ZOS. This is something that nobody wants except the ones that want to see chaos happen.
Not a fan of this idea.
sylviermoone wrote: »Giving guilds the ability to bid on TEN locations is just utter and complete effing madness and makes zero sense, to boot. Coupled with the crippling #DataPocalypse and other performance issues, this is beyond an ill-advised change. I have ZERO faith, given the issues of the past month, that this will be executed in a way that doesn't cause a severe headache for all members of the community involved in trader flip.
Utter madness.
It may be a different world on PC but this is going to be one hell of a mess on XBox/PS4. I didn't think it could get worse, but I stand corrected.
I'm a GM of a guild in Wayrest, i can't think of a worse update for guilds and i've played since beta. [...] Please rethink this choice and remove it entirely.
sirinsidiator wrote: »As a GM of a medium sized guild that has been around since launch, I am very worried about this change.
sirinsidiator wrote: »So please ZOS, rethink this change before you make one of the worst systems in your game even worse and drive off some of the most dedicated members of your community.
SantieClaws wrote: »Please be so good as to listen very carefully to what traders are telling you here. A lot of people have put in a huge amount of work into building up guilds and this is potentially very, very serious for the survival of many of them.
DragonRacer wrote: »Pretty heartbroken the more I think on this. I mean, I suppose it'll be nice to get hours of my life back weekly, but I didn't want it to be because ZOS potentially forces me out of it...
WardenofNirn wrote: »This will only help the biggest trading guilds out there to ensure a trader each week. What small or medium sized guild has tens or even hundreds of millions on their bank account, letting them bid on 10 locations at once?
How is this going to help anyone except the large trading guilds?
All it does is empower big trade guilds to have a 99.9999% chance of getting a trader. Small guilds will suffer in the long run
Banshee1505 wrote: »This only benefits guilds/alliances with a lot of gold. Where's the benefit for the smaller guilds?
Only the large multi-guild consortiums will have the funds to plop down multiple competitive bids.
So a restrictive trading system becomes an even more restrictive one, probably even an elitist one.
As one of the big guilds, I absolutely agree. This does nothing to help smaller guilds get a kiosk.
SammiSakura wrote: »My small guild cant afford this!
This is undoubtedly an overall benefit for the top tier trading guilds, but even then I see the potential for disruptive market behaviour which many may not like.
Rushinator wrote: »I 100% agree this is favors big guilds over small guilds and I say this as a GM of a large guild who'll be able to afford throwing out tons of gold if necessary.
Again, those changes will only benefit the large trading guilds with deep pockets.
Everyone else has already been pushed to the edge of the guild trader system, and this may very well push most of us mid/smaller sized guilds completely out of the system.
[...]
There simply isn't enough gold for us to maintain more than one bid that has any chance of actually winning.
GarnetFire17 wrote: »The very rich guilds will all bid against each other for the best spots and some of the lower tier spots for "back up" and the guilds in those tiers are just making ends meet to hold on to their own spot. They can't really afford to make a bunch of bids all over the place except maybe a few bids in much worse spots.
darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »This does nothing but further empower large established trading guilds, and screw everyone else in the process. It doesn't solve any of the problems I've seen people complain about, it just makes things worse. I'm worried about what this ultimately means for the future of trading for anyone not in one of these super-rich trading guilds.
the chance of new guilds? the chance of low-tier trading guilds? do they have money to bid on 10 spots? really?
Now rich guilds which can afford for multiple bids will continue spreading their bids for increasing their chances to get a trader. Smaller guilds have to pray that bigger guilds actually do win their primary bids, because there's no need to be a Sherlock to guess where these bigger guilds will find their back up spot if bids on major cities are lost.
VaranisArano wrote: »Because there are going to be rich guilds who can afford to bid big on their first and second traders, and a "low" amount on out-of-the-way backups...and "low" is entirely relative. Or those out-of-the-way traders are going to be the 2nd or 3rd backup bids for the moderately wealthy guilds.
So if your guild regularly uses out-of-the-way traders as your primary trader...the trader swaps have the potential to trickle down to that level much more than they did before.
jainiadral wrote: »So much for accomodating new players and the rise in population This is going to drive more people out of trading and exclude a larger percentage of the player base.
Kidgangster101 wrote: »And this murders any chance of small guilds from getting spots........
If this goes through, my heart goes out to mid/small trading guilds. Getting a capital city will be near impossible. I feel terrible for the new players/casual players who will be subjected to this nonsense.
As member of big guilds, I totally agree with people who say that this system is very bad and unfair for small-medium guilds who don't have enough income to secure many bids.
SantieClaws wrote: »This just gives the biggest and richest guilds an even bigger hold on traders and does nothing to address the most fundamental issue in the trading system - there are far too few traders and a greatly increasing number of guilds trying to get them.
It's not about getting a "good" spot for most guilds these days, apart from the exclusive few. It's about getting any spot at all.
juttaa77b16_ESO wrote: »I wish. They had considered the repercussions of this change to smaller and newer guilds before they proposed it. [...] Unfortunately, the system change, they're proposing, seems to have more cons than pros. I'm not insulting ZOS or the dev team, but imho, they should look at some other solutions/suggestions, and opt for something more beneficial and stable for all.
I cannot fight against chain reaction losers of big fights
I run three Social Guilds with over 1300 active members and I get Traders for them. I never have requirements such as mins or donations. All this does is try to push GMs like me out of trading and get guilds in that bet everything for one week and then go broke cause they don’t understand how much Traders cost and return.
DragonRacer wrote: »All this does is crush the little guy.
Neelanna48 wrote: »I run a medium sized guild. We have a trader almost every week. [...] I love running my guild even at times when it can be stressful and like to make sure all my members are catered for. I cant even begin to tell you how much my stress level has gone up this morning reading about this upcoming update.
ZOS somehow managed to increase the level of stress for trade guild GMs higher than it already was. I would call that quite a feat, but I don’t think I would call it a quality of life update. Some GMs just won’t want to deal with it.
WardenofNirn wrote: »How the *** am I supposed to hold my tiny guild a trader each week if the price increases even more. It is hard as it is. I am telling it aint gonna work.
Im a trader, 85% of the time ingame I trade. the other 15% I manage my guild. Ive done this since beta. Now ZOS has managed to destroy all of my occupations in the game within a month. Even if Guild History is somewhat back, but still not the same as before. More work now.
wtlonewolf20 wrote: »what you are going to do is create mega guilds with warring factions that will ultimately lock out new new guilds, new players, and cause a stagnate economy.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »Still no response. … Guilds deserve a named Dev that we know is looking at those concerns, asking for continual feedback and communicating back.
It's frustrating, sure. However if they responded to every post where someone called them to respond, there'd be no end to it because people would abuse it with petty posts.
They might even have an internal handbook of what to do/not to do with the forums and responding every time their @name is mentioned is on the not-to-do list.
I think there's been enough posts on this topic that, IF they are reading or even skimming the PTS forums, they'd know to pay attention and we can only hope they're in some kind of group huddle mashing things out.
I support the change. I hope it goes live as well.
10 bids a majority of GM's from large to small guilds alike believe is too many. What if the number was adjusted? Would it become palatable for many that oppose it?
1) Lower the multi-bids to 3
2) Traders locked from purchase when guild disbands ((removing incentive to disband) This is a deal breaker, must be done)
3) On Guild UI add in sub-section (Guild Bank: Bid History) to give one window to view bids and bid returns, allows easy
screen shot to use in tickets if need be.
4) Allow bids to be removed, solves accidental bids and adjustments.
5) On forums add in Guild Discussion section. Be it Crafting and Guilds or Guilds and Housing. Either makes
sense as those interests crossover. Guilds probably would be low traffic since a lower number number would post.
Keep in mind each of those posters represent up to 500 players or more (x1-x5'ish).
What is thought of this? It's a limited back up, limited added tracking/work, limited additional funds needed, limited chain reaction.
If multi-bids is a ZOS deal breaker, then compromising on the amount makes sense. IMHO 2) is a deal breaker for guilds, must be done.
6) PTS bid cycle needs to be permanently adjusted to add in Wednesday and Friday bid processing so it speeds up the test cycle from a weekly. Allows testing effects to be viewed more in PTS, hopefully caught and fixed easier.
I would think having a lower number of bids would encourage more GM's to use PTS. But expect it to behave differently as most GM's will not bid on their usual traders nor with what they do on live. No body wants to reveal trader secrets, why trader costing are not talked amount with hard numbers.
Seriously, it does NOT matter how many back up bids guilds can place. 2, 4, 10 or even 50 bids.
Every single time when a big guild is gonna get outbid, thanks to back up system the domino effect will be going down to bottom of the chain where a small guild will get a hit and be dropped out of the map entirely, just because they were unlucky enough to be in the same chain were domino went forwards.
That's not fine. Developers should discard multi-bidding idea entirely.
ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.
ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.
The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.
We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.
We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.
ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.
The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.
We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.
ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO
ZOS_PhilipDraven wrote: »The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO, but over time the enormous pressure on trading guilds to have a guild trader every single week has led to behaviors which reduce competition and negatively impact trader customers. Tactics employed to ensure guild trader ownership each week, such as the generation of alternate “shadow” guilds to bid on additional locations as well as guild trader speculation and resale through guild dissolution, often lead to fewer traders populated with goods and massive amounts of wasted gold.
The multi-bidding feature is part of an initiative to provide in-game supported methods for players to have fallback trader bidding options without the associated drawbacks for both guilds and their customers. In addition to multi-bidding, we are also removing the ability for guild traders to be transferred through guild dissolution in an upcoming PTS update for Update 23. We avoided making that change prior to the multi-bidding feature because we wanted to ensure trading guilds weren’t entirely dependent on winning their one single bid each week, which puts even more pressure on them to place exorbitant bids.
We appreciate the concerns being raised regarding this change and we are absolutely committed to monitoring the impact of this feature, as well as potentially making additional adjustments as necessary to ensure the ongoing health of the in-game economy.