Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

PTS Update 23 - Feedback Thread for Multi-Bidding

  • reoskit
    reoskit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    To help ZOS see what their community is saying, I figured I’d consolidate some feedback.

    These quotes are extracted from only the first 5 pages of ~21 pages of feedback on multibidding.

    (Please don’t quote this post in its entirety or we may break the forums.)

    This Section: Reactions, logical and emotional.
    SirAndy wrote: »
    WTF.gif ZOS???
    This is just insane.
    Starlock wrote: »
    common sense leads me to conclude that this is not a good change.
    Flaminir wrote: »
    In the long run this is going to be very negative I think:
    I think this is a bad decision.
    Please don't go live with this ZOS. This is something that nobody wants except the ones that want to see chaos happen.
    ezio45 wrote: »
    Not a fan of this idea.
    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.
    EllieBlue wrote: »
    Utter madness.
    Vicinia wrote: »
    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.
    Sorcery wrote: »
    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.
    As a GM of a medium sized guild that has been around since launch, I am very worried about this change.
    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.
    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.
    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...
  • anitajoneb17_ESO
    anitajoneb17_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    reoskit wrote: »
    To help ZOS see what their community is saying, I figured I’d consolidate some feedback.

    What a strange notion of "consolidation"... I'd call it "subjective filtering".

  • reoskit
    reoskit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    To help ZOS see what their community is saying, I figured I’d consolidate some feedback.

    These quotes are extracted from only the first 5 pages of ~21 pages of feedback on multibidding.

    (Please don’t quote this post in its entirety or we may break the forums.)

    This Section: Impact to Small/Mid-tier Guilds:
    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?
    SirAndy wrote: »
    How is this going to help anyone except the large trading guilds?
    Gariele wrote: »
    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
    This only benefits guilds/alliances with a lot of gold. Where's the benefit for the smaller guilds?
    Starlock wrote: »
    Only the large multi-guild consortiums will have the funds to plop down multiple competitive bids.
    Tandor wrote: »
    So a restrictive trading system becomes an even more restrictive one, probably even an elitist one.
    reoskit wrote: »
    As one of the big guilds, I absolutely agree. This does nothing to help smaller guilds get a kiosk.
    My small guild cant afford this!
    Flaminir wrote: »
    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.
    SirAndy wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    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.
    OsManiaC wrote: »
    the chance of new guilds? the chance of low-tier trading guilds? do they have money to bid on 10 spots? really?
    Fiktius wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    And this murders any chance of small guilds from getting spots........
    Vicinia wrote: »
    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.
    Eyllora wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    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.
    OsManiaC wrote: »
    I cannot fight against chain reaction losers of big fights
    Gariele wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • reoskit
    reoskit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    To help ZOS see what their community is saying, I figured I’d consolidate some feedback.

    These quotes are extracted from only the first 5 pages of ~21 pages of feedback on multibidding.

    (Please don’t quote this post in its entirety or we may break the forums.)

    This Section: Ramifications. The links point to longer lists; you’ll need to click to read.

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6177956/#Comment_6177956

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6177921/#Comment_6177921

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178026/#Comment_6178026
    Pevey wrote: »
    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.

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178220/#Comment_6178220

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178194/#Comment_6178194
    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.

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178254/#Comment_6178254

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178710/#Comment_6178710
    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.

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178762/#Comment_6178762

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178797/#Comment_6178797

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6178811/#Comment_6178811

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6179174/#Comment_6179174

    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6179357/#Comment_6179357
  • wenchmore420b14_ESO
    wenchmore420b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    I'm sorry, it might just be me, but how is doing this on PTS going to show anything?
    There are very limited GM's on PTS and it will not be reflective of how this is going to work on Live.

    Please, @ZoS, look at the other threads. Most ALL GM's think this is a bad idea and we implore you to reconsider this action.
    My 2 Drakes...
    Huzzah!
    Drakon Koryn~Oryndill, Rogue~Mage,- CP ~Doesn't matter any more
    NA / PC Beta Member since Nov 2013
    GM~Conclave-of-Shadows, EP Social Guild, ~Proud member of: The Wandering Merchants, Phoenix Rising, Imperial Trade Union & Celestials of Nirn
    Sister Guilds with: Coroner's Report, Children of Skyrim, Sunshine Daydream, Tamriel Fisheries, Knights Arcanum and more
    "Not All Who Wander are Lost"
    #MOREHOUSINGSLOTS
    “When the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, they end up running the companies. The product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products.”

    _Steve Jobs (The Lost Interview)
  • Grimm13
    Grimm13
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dusk_Coven wrote: »
    Grimm13 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.

    Not expecting a response to every and each posting. There is not one response, not even posting up the Dev Notes on the changes without comment. There is not an excuse for the PTS Feedback thread on the subject that they created has no responses for asking to clarify what is being tested.

    What type of response do I expect? "Hello I am (fill name), the lead for this change or responsible to keep the lead informed. We have seen you concerns, discussing the issue. We are working on the Dev Notes and have a eta of (fill in). Continue to keep us informed of your opinions and reactions as we really are listening"
    Not word for word but something along those lines would be nice. Please show me where in any of the threads about this change that ZOS has responded. A rework of an entire system to a big change and deserves 2-way communication.
    Edited by Grimm13 on July 10, 2019 7:24PM
    https://sparkforautism.org/

    Season of DraggingOn
    It's your choice on how you vote with your $

    PC-NA
  • kojou
    kojou
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    I support the change. I hope it goes live as well.
    Playing since beta...
  • Dolgubon
    Dolgubon
    ✭✭✭✭
    This change is being billed as a QOL change, which suggests that it was added in an attempt to make the lives of trade guild GMs easier. But it's not going to do that, nor will it fully deal with ghost guilds like some think it will.

    This change, while well intentioned, doesn't seem like it was fully thought out. Unless it's 100% meant to increase the gold sink. If that's the case, then it's not a QOL change, and there's other ways to add gold sinks to the game.

    If it's meant to help deal with the bugs that exist with bidding, this is, again, well intentioned, but just not the right way to go around it. I hope those bugs were fixed, but if they weren't, while patch fixes are often cheap and easy, they also aren't always the way to go.

    This change sucks for trade guild GMs all across the board, both small and large, despite what many think. And even if it only affected the small trade guilds, that's still a big problem. Small and medium trade guilds are necessary. Just like beginner PvE or PvP guilds are important. If trade guilds have to raise minimums (and if this change goes through, they will) then it becomes harder for new players to get into them. An often cited reason for inflation in games being bad is that it makes it more difficult for new players to start, and even if inflation is lowered, the entry barrier will still get higher if minimums are higher.

    Even one backup bid is bad, and 10 is just complete overkill.

    First, MM is disabled (temporarily, and I fully agree with the reasoning, but it still sucked)
    And then this change. And not only is it just one backup bid, it's 10. And, as the final kicker, it's being billed as a QOL change?! I know it's most likely not the case, but it really feels like someone at ZOS has it out for trade guilds. I know a lot of players have hate for trade guilds, but they don't know better. ZOS does.

    When looking at the feedback about this, you need to look at who is giving the feedback. There are many people who don't understand how trade guilds work, and then there's trade guild GMs and officers, who know exactly how it works, and how this change will affect them.
    Relthion: CP810 DK Tank - vMOL HM, vHOF HM, vAS HM, vCR +2
    Malorson: CP810 Mag Sorc - vMOL HM, vHOF, vAS HM

    Addons:
    Dolgubon's Lazy Writ Crafter
    Dolgubon's Lazy Set Crafter
  • wenchmore420b14_ESO
    wenchmore420b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    kojou wrote: »
    I support the change. I hope it goes live as well.

    If I may ask, why?
    Will it help your guild and how?
    Will it make it easier for you to get a kiosk or make it better for you to make bids?
    Will your members and officers benefit from this without having to implement dues and fees?
    Will you have to increase your special events and donation system to accommodate the changes?

    If you are a GM of any size guild, this is a bad move from ZoS, but I would like to hear why you support it.

    Huzzah!!! :)
    Drakon Koryn~Oryndill, Rogue~Mage,- CP ~Doesn't matter any more
    NA / PC Beta Member since Nov 2013
    GM~Conclave-of-Shadows, EP Social Guild, ~Proud member of: The Wandering Merchants, Phoenix Rising, Imperial Trade Union & Celestials of Nirn
    Sister Guilds with: Coroner's Report, Children of Skyrim, Sunshine Daydream, Tamriel Fisheries, Knights Arcanum and more
    "Not All Who Wander are Lost"
    #MOREHOUSINGSLOTS
    “When the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, they end up running the companies. The product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products.”

    _Steve Jobs (The Lost Interview)
  • Grimm13
    Grimm13
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    https://sparkforautism.org/

    Season of DraggingOn
    It's your choice on how you vote with your $

    PC-NA
  • wenchmore420b14_ESO
    wenchmore420b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Grimm13 wrote: »
    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.

    I vote lowering it to 2... :)
    But agree on PTS!
    As I have said, there is now way PTS can replicate the Live Trading System and it wont be reflective of how it will impact the Live Server. Bugs and such, yes it will be kinda useful, but, how bout they just not do it? Lol..
    Maybe we need a poll to show just how many GM's don't want this...
    Huzzah!
    Drakon Koryn~Oryndill, Rogue~Mage,- CP ~Doesn't matter any more
    NA / PC Beta Member since Nov 2013
    GM~Conclave-of-Shadows, EP Social Guild, ~Proud member of: The Wandering Merchants, Phoenix Rising, Imperial Trade Union & Celestials of Nirn
    Sister Guilds with: Coroner's Report, Children of Skyrim, Sunshine Daydream, Tamriel Fisheries, Knights Arcanum and more
    "Not All Who Wander are Lost"
    #MOREHOUSINGSLOTS
    “When the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, they end up running the companies. The product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products.”

    _Steve Jobs (The Lost Interview)
  • Fiktius
    Fiktius
    ✭✭✭✭
    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.
    Edited by Fiktius on July 11, 2019 11:01PM
  • Sorcery
    Sorcery
    ✭✭✭
    This is no QOL change, You've already got GMs doing weekly Auctions/Raffles/Events trying to fund raise gold for the weekly bid. Now you'll have all those GMs increase requirements, fund even more for a gold sink. So guilds without weekly auctions, raffles, requirements will now be forced out with ease, everyone will be playing musical chairs the moment a guild at the top gets outbid. Not sure how this is a good change, you'll have lots of guilds moving around every week and the stress of it all will be forced onto the members who will be given higher requirements, purged more often to stay competitive.

    Really, may as well have a global AH if you go through with this.
    Fiktius wrote: »
    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.

    Yep, you got it 100% right. I run a guild in Wayrest, we're pretty close to the top so if we end up losing our bid it'll just ripple down below us all the way to the bottom. The more guilds that lose at the top = more you'll see the effects at the bottom due to the ripple.

    This is a poorly thought out idea, and many GMs agree.
  • Runefang
    Runefang
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    All I know is that my two Mournhold guilds have almost doubled their minimum weekly charge since this change was announced. And what do I get out of the increased charge? Virtually nothing except some slight assurance that if we lose our trader spot (which rarely happens) then we'll still have a trader elsewhere.
  • Soundso
    Soundso
    ✭✭✭✭
    ZOS should consider that this mostly hit new and casual players. As far as i see this is the target customers group.

    Right now i can recommend any new player to join a trading guild without requirements. There are enough that can finance a trader in some low/mid tier town. Download a price addon and get into trading. At least materials sell fine in most locations.

    I am afraid this will change with multi-bidding.
    And it's more like "There are some guilds with just 3k donations a week that sometimes catch a low tier spot". But this is not what a new player with 15k gold want to join.

    We have a healthy mix between different kinds of trading guilds. And there is competition between guilds but in a similar league. Some are able to hold a spot. Some try to fight for a better one. Some need to step lower.
    Multi-bidding just turns this competition upside down.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zpX6iE96XA
    Yours faithfully,
    Shnurr from Shnurr's Traditional Skooma Manufacture™.

    Tamriels highest quality skooma! 100% organic! Very best prices! Don't forget that only Shnurr's Social Skooma Manufacture™ donates hot soup for poor hungry Khajiit orphans! Order now and get a 10% discount!

    What our customers say: "Without Shnurr's skooma, this one's feet were wet and cold, after using this amazing product, they were dry and warm. Thank you Shnurr!"
    -Raz-
  • ZOS_PhilipDraven
    ZOS_PhilipDraven
    ✭✭✭
    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.
    Philip Draven
    Lead Systems Designer
    Staff Post
  • reoskit
    reoskit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    First and absolutely foremost, thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for communicating with us.

    I'm excited to see that disbanding guilds will no longer free up a kiosk. This is a long-requested change and it's phenomenal that you guys are putting it on PTS.

    May I recommend that we start with that change and reinvestigate multibidding in a later update? Perhaps, without shadow guilds polluting the market, we'll find that trade stabilizes (especially on console) and that more legitimate guilds are able to enter the market.

    You noted:
    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.

    However, we've outlined the various ways in which multibidding actually increases bid prices, irrespective of ghost guilds. If exorbitant bids are a concern, I do hope you'll give the longer term ramifications consideration.

    Again, thank you so very much for posting. Knowing that someone is listening and considering goes a long way. Keep in touch!
  • TipsyDrow
    TipsyDrow
    ✭✭✭✭
    Get rid of trade guilds altogether and just use a universal auction. Being forced into a trade guild just to make gold is ridiculous.
    Oooh, what do we have here? Another scrumptious young plaything straight out of life and into my club? Mmm... you smell new, little boy, like fabric softener dew on freshly mowed Astroturf. Oh, I'm not frightening you, am I, duckling?
    Love, Mistress Pigtails
  • DragonRacer
    DragonRacer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    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.

    I could absolutely kiss you right now.

    First, for responding. At all. You have NO idea how comforting and genuinely humanizing that is for us who have felt unheard up until now.

    Second, for confirming you're killing the ghost guild trade. That has been such an issue, especially of enormous proportions on PS4 NA. I can't adequately describe my joy to hear this.

    Previously, I've only ever had cupcakes delivered to BioWare. You guys might have just forced me to expand my treat-gifting horizons...
    PS5 NA. GM of The PTK's - a free trading guild (CP 500+). Also a werewolf, bites are free when they're available. PSN = DragonRacer13
  • JHartEllis
    JHartEllis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The multi-bidding opens up some much-needed dynamism to the guild system. The guild trader system has always lacked transparency (and, to go with that, accountability of guild leaders), and this currently leads to the whole system being way too intimidating to NEW guilds. We've seen not enough new trading guilds grow over the last couple years, and this change should help alleviate some of the scariness of bidding. Being able to prod to see what bids are like will likely reveal that bids are more affordable than previously realized.

    Overall, this can only increase the total cost of guild traders, but it will be more smoothed out and more fair. Guilds will be in a gold-hoarding mentality for awhile, which I don't see as great for the in-game economy (deflation = slow sales = frustrated players). I'd like to see a rework of gold GENERATORS in the game--adding bigger gold rewards to various leaderboards, calendar rewards, and other player incentives would keep the gold flowing and give newer guilds more opportunity to catch up.

    10 bids is probably too many. Considering it's mostly arbitrary, I think 6-8 is closer to the optimal amount.
    Guild leader of Spicy Economics and Spicy Life on PC/NA
    ESO Stream Team Partner on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/jhartellis
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/JHartEllis
    YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/JHartEllis
    Website: https://spicyeconomics.com/
  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    to me your adjustment seems very unlogical, also the reasoning for it. u want to make sure, guilds have more safeties when bidding? how is that supposed to happen, when stil only the same amount of guilds get a spot. there will always be guilds which wont get a trader. just beeing able to bid 10 times, doesnt increase chances in any ways. it only gives the feeling of safety, but its no statistical safety.

    once its live, there wont be any adjustments necessary anymore. just saying so. some people played a lot and gave in a lot of efforts into their guilds, and you might destroy that, while making trollish jokes in the announcement - "hey you just need to have gold for that hahaha"...

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • Mewpers
    Mewpers
    The point of concern for me is why all bids have to be made with “hard money”. Requiring a pool of money sufficient to place multiple competitive bids only further distorts the already uneven playing field. Especially because only the richest will be able to wield their money as a weapon by placing 10 bids. I sure hope that this patch is just a stepping stone and a future implementation will allow multiple bids to be placed reusing the same pool of money.
  • Nicky33
    Nicky33
    ✭✭✭
    Multi-bidding system increases chances of being sniped in 10 times. So it puts much more pressure on GMs to win a DESIRED trader. Why would anyone want to get just ANY trader?
  • SammiSakura
    SammiSakura
    ✭✭✭✭
    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.

    DEAR GOD THANK YOU. Finally removing the backups. Also, thank you for communicating with us. It's really important to all us GM's to feel heard.
    Also thanks to @reoskit for those summaries, nice work
    @SammiSakura - EU Server - CP 1600+ - Here Since 14th October 2016
    Visit my home at the Alinor Townhouse
    Guildhall with All Set-Stations etc at Grand Psijic Villa


    Guildmaster of The Forbidden Guilds (PC EU)
    ~ The Forbidden Cleavage (in Elden Root, Grahtwood)
    ~ Brave Cat Trade (in Alinor, Summerset)
    ~ Demonic Baanditos (PvE/Social Guild, in Markarth, The Reach)
    PM @SammiSakura In-Game for Invites.

    Curator & Middleman of Crown Black Market Crown Trading Discord
    Click Here to Join & Start Trading Today!
    My Characters!
    * Samara Nevanni - Dunmer MagDK DD (PvE/P) (Master Crafter)
    * Adriana Silvani - Altmer MagSorc DD (PvE)
    * Tsanji-Ko - Khajiit StamDen DD (PvE)
    * Waits-For-Darkness - Argonian MagPlar Healer (PvE)
    * Lilith Valeine - Breton MagPlar DD (PvP)
    * Luna Rosalie - Bosmer StamBlade DD (PvP)
    * Mithrandir the Healer - Nord Magden Healer (PvE)
    * Talia Scythe-Song - Redguard Necro Tank (PvE)
    * Loki the Theif - Khajiit MagBlade (PvE)
  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    cool, they responded. 10 bids are fine now. we are happy. good thing. done.

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • Dusk_Coven
    Dusk_Coven
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    The guild trader system is a cornerstone of the in-game economy in ESO

    It would be nice to have some transparency around this. "Cornerstone" in what way? What are the objectives behind the design? Competition? Gold sink? Immersion?
    And what is the desired outcome of the system? We have been told what symptoms are NOT desired. But what is considered acceptable?
  • martinhpb16_ESO
    martinhpb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dear Zos please do not implement this!

    I am a GM of a large trade guild and can predict that this will not be a change for the better.

    This will be bad for larger guilds as well as not much help for medium and smaller guilds.

    I cannot understand why this is being proposed without any consultation with trading guild GMs. Of all the improvements that are needed or could be implemented this feature is not helpful.

    On the PC EU server the majority of trade guilds cooperate to some extent via a network of communication, alliances, friendships and rivalries. We have a discord channel for GMs and it is not just for large guilds. We have networks, we cooperate and communicate. The purpose of this is stability.

    You are lobbing a chaos grenade into a system that needs less chaos, more opportunity for smaller guilds and less work for the GMs!

    Most GMs, officers and members want stability for their guilds. Trade guild admins invest a huge amount of time and effort into their guilds. Both large and smaller guild gm's, officers and members also put in large amounts of their own money to boost trader bids as sales tax alone is not enough.

    Most trade guilds do not want to move around, this is human nature. People like some level of predictability, cooperation and stability. Most of us don't want to bid against our neighbours.

    With any economy demand will create competition. In this case demand for limited trader spots creates competition between guilds, pushing bids higher. There are more guilds than trader spots. There is inequality between the location of trader spots as some are better than others. Competition is not always good as it can manifest bad behaviour.

    There is a small minority of guilds on EU that dont want stability. They move around and more than often over-bid 10 million, 15 million bids every week. Their gold sources are not primarily from sales tax. On top of gold buying, crown selling has introduced even more gold into the game. You can literally buy-to-win in trading.

    People are people, so there is not always cooperation. There is also inter-faction rivalry that is often subversive and based on personality and ego. Sometimes small guilds are given money by one guild to hit a rival guild. So now a faction will be able to fund an attack on multiple guilds, causing even more disruption.

    This new proposal means that me and other large guilds are going to have to constantly bid massive bids to maintain our spots. This will create a higher glass ceiling for smaller guilds. At the moment there is a chance that we can lowball now and then and will not be hit by the 2-3 troll guilds.

    This new bidding idea is chaotic: will disrupt the status quo and not for the better; will cause more stress for GMs; will not help smaller guilds and just feels like a random, poorly consulted idea with little thought about the consequences.

    Can we please have:
    - Communication - a dedicated name and forum thread for trading so that ideas can be proposed and thought through
    - Improvements to trader locations in certain zones e.g. Riften, Hew's Bane etc.
    - More trader locations in each zone, is this possible?
    - Consultation on the bidding system to come up with something that is actually useful and helpful.

    I am already tired of the effort, gold, diplomacy and time I have to invest into this labour of love and you are about to make it worse. With the recent fiasco with guild history I am not sure how much more I can take. This could be the last straw for a guild that has been trading since week 1.

    Thanks for listening
    Edited by martinhpb16_ESO on July 12, 2019 11:08PM
    At least the spelling is difficult for you.
    Hew's Bane*
  • ezio45
    ezio45
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    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.

    Ok, I get what your trying to do. The removal of shell guilds helps out the game and lowers the harm of the multi bid system.

    The problem though is its still going to preform against the intentions zos has for it and goes against what players what. Zos wants to increase competition and reduce the over all price of stalls to a less exorbitant amount. I would say guilds are generally fine with that as well.

    The way you obviously intent for this to work is that we will start splitting up our bids between main and backup traders. As the second officer of a trader guild I can tell you with 100% certainty that me gm and i will not do that and that already is not the plan we have worked out for when this goes live.

    Look at this from are perspective. With this new system we have 2 options for trying to secure a trader. We can raise more funds to bid higher on a traders that our competition or we can raise more funds to still bid on our normal locations and with the extra funds bid on a backup. Either way we are required to raise more funds. The problem though and the biggest determining factor in out decision is that any trader we can raise funds to bid on as a back up isnt good enough for our guild. Thats not meant to sound cocky, its just the reality of the situation. After 2 years of us advertising as and being a trader that has a stall in a major city every week, telling our guild that we secured a trader in an outlaw refugee or in skywatch sounds just as palatable to our members as not getting a trader. Either way we are going to hemorrhage members that week. However not having a trader for the week has some advantages over wasting some of the funds from that week on a trader that wont satisfy our member. First off it gives us a larger safety cushion to help make up for the members we lost not providing funds anymore. It also give has the can be spread out for a few weeks and be added to out normal funds raised to increase bid for the next few weeks or be used to come back swinging to a higher tier location to help boost moral and bring more players in to replace the ones we lost. Every trading guild is now also faced with having to raise more funds for one of those 2 options. Which gives another down side to splitting the extra funds. That being it makes us an easier target for any guild in our tier that doesnt split there funds and for any guild that has been pushed out of the tier above us because they couldnt afford the increased prices.

    Which beings me to the problem with this system and zos second goal, increasing competition. Guild that can no longer afford the increased prices of the traders in their tier being pushed into the lower tier seems like it would have the effect of increasing the competition in the lower tier. Until you remember that the lower tiers prices also will rise pushing guilds out of that tier. So what about the bottom tier? They dont have any lower tier to move to right? Expect that not how things work. Traders an the bottom will be pushed out all together and lose members from not having trader, lowering there income of funds decreasing the likelihood of them re-entering the bidding system. Also at the very top tier their will be less competition as guilds are pushed out with no guilds from a tier above entering into their tier. Both decreasing their competition and as a result further cementing there security of holding those traders. As for the backups for the traders that choose to utilize this new system, that should increase competition in at least the lower tier, right? Technically yes, however its not really competition as opposed to shooting fish in a barrel with the fish being smaller guilds. Any guild that has the ability to raise the extra funds for a lower tier back up has the ability to raise enough funds to blow the lower tier guilds out of the water standing no chance. If they didnt they wouldnt split their bid, the purpose of a backup is for security. If your going to split your bid and have less of a cushion for your main bid for a backup that is already going to disappoint your guild, you are going to be 100% positive that you put enough into the backup that the tier its in cant out bid it. Otherwise there is no point. Also guild is those tiers have alot less experience with the trading system as far as location price, how to pick good spots by observing whose bidding where, less connections to know who bids where. Its increased competition sure, its not an increased in balanced competition thought. Its like taking lvl 10s and making them fight 810's, of course their going to get slaughtered.

    Personally, if i was you zos I would wait off on implementing this system. By eliminating shell guilds you have done alot for the overall health of the the current trading system. Your goals are to lower bids and increase competition. Removing shells guild will have an effect on lowering stall prices. Guilds wont have to try to outbid shells and it will give the guilds at the top running the shell guild to raise funds for their bids less and more difficult access to funds for their large bids. That might just be enough to combat how much more we bid to secure at trader. As for competition, Alliances will always exist. Now that we arent beholden to the guilds running shells guilds, literally telling us where we can bid in those alliances if we want continued access to their benefits (Access to buying backups) those alliances are alot less binding and useful and more likely to being broken. Wait and see if this fulfills your goals. This way we can keep everyone playing by the same page as to how bidding works, make it fairer with everyone raising their funds bidding where they can. Keep one less system from putting load on already struggling servers and avoid screwing over the smaller guild. Really it should be in the interest of both zos and the eso community for the lower tiers to be easier for new trader guilds. Ideally we would want the trader system to work like a reverse pyramid, with it being easier at the bottom for would be trading guilds to get there footing and it increasing in difficulty and competition as you go up the tier until you reach the top with the most competition. Its not very encouraging or good for overall competition or health of the system if new guilds looking to join in on trading are slammed with a high entry barrier and rough competition. That should be at the top for the most valuable traders.
  • Dont_do_drugs
    Dont_do_drugs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @ZOS_PhilipDraven Maybe something short an simple, what I do not understand about all this. 2 years a lot of people, including me came up with a lot of constructive ideas, how to improve the system. We had a "massive influx of new players" as some other ZOSlings said, but no massive influx of new NPC for new traders - as example. We have a massive inflation, also made by ZOSlings with all that login rewards (I mean, did you check how much gold you brought into the game that one single day where you gave 100k as login reward?). People over and over again giving in ideas. I am sure, noone ever said, that we would want a 10-bid-system. I really wonder, how you guys came up with that idea, also just announcing it 3 or 4 weeks before update, rolling over all those people running the trade guilds like a bus, when never ever someone wished for it, mentioned something like that and gave so many ideas and constructive thoughts on the system.

    Do we even have a chance, that ZOS entirely removes that - sry to say so - stupid idea or did you guys already progress so far, that you cant step back from it within that amount of time? I really wonder...and also I wonder, if ever some of the feedback about trade guild issues ever has been read. I know, we are the lowest in the food chain of who gets attention in the forums, since most trade guild threads get bombed and flooded with people talking bout auction houses and next to that, the people running trade guilds and really caring for that part are a super low amount of the community - still I can assure you, there arent a lot of people willing to do so, so you shouldnt turn off that few people. Whereever you look into guilds, wether its PvE, PvP or Trading, within the roster there are always only a few amount of people really wanting to contribute to the guild and take over duties.

    Get Stuff like this (but not this stuff)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    "I have too admit. People leading trade guilds in this game are quite stupid. Not stupid like fools, but stupid like leaders.
    They can only bla-bla and waste gold on feeding their ego. I am disappointed."

    Egal, wie gut du Schach spielst, die Taube wird alle Figuren umwerfen, auf das Brett kacken und herumstolzieren, als hätte sie gewonnen.

    Arkadius Trade Tools
    Modular framework, now open for authors who want to add own tabs.

    My Donation (Arkadius' Trade Tools Addon)
    First external ATT tab contribution.

    Port to Friend's House Addon
    Check out the new Port to Friend's House library and port to contributers houses:
    Deutsch | English

  • Nordic__Knights
    Nordic__Knights
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    1st off i aint no GM but found my guild's trader each week with 100's of k each week because dues are just 5k per but traders being at war on ps4 na millions go out to get our spots and even still big guilds takes over our spot some weeks leaving us without but thats ok but once this system go's into play my 100's of k will need to be a few million and dues up to 15 k just in hopes of getting an spot someplace and UNFORTUNATELY im not willing to give that output each week nor will i involve myself with an guild that has high dues to line GMs bank too
    2nd this as an QOL patch your saying you want players to have an bad QOL by letting big guilds run market solo because med/small guilds might as will stop even trying to bid they wont win old guilds have the extra gold to bid millions at every spot and push the lil guilds out full time with no harm to them
    3rd this opens ghost guilds up 100 times more then is now so you just killed trade for anyoe who aint in an big guild paying others way in game gg zos keep pushing 1 day players with 1000's of real money invested into your game away
Sign In or Register to comment.