Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »And that in an of itself is indicative that there is a massive problem with the current system.
Why are they recruiting 100% of the time?
But, as they say, there's none so blind as those who refuse to look.
I am recruiting all the time as there is a constant stream of players that stop playing. I am up front about cutting inactives after 21 days, used to be 30 days but I still see about 10 - 16 players a week stop playing ESO. Past year I have had about 10 players come back after a 3+ month hiatus.
Why is there 60 - 80 players stop playing eso in a months time? I am not even counting on those that come in during free eso trials. I do see an increase of quits around updates first announced, tapers off then again when Updates released then tapers off again.
With the guild finder I now have hundreds of apps to instantly replace the attrition. I no longer have to go bug zone chat with ads for hours of my play time trying to be in the right place at the right time.
I would really love to see the game attrition rate and find out why ESO has a problem with player retention.
Call me old fashioned. A Guild is a place Members go to to feel "at home" no matter what game style they prefer, no matter how frequently they are active. A place for them to be among friends.
The idea of dumping someone from a GAMING guild because they "don't pull their weight" is, I am not at all ashamed to admit, 100% totally alien to me.
No one would even dream of ejecting a Member, a friend, if they hadn't logged in for 21 days, or hadn't posted goods to the AH for 21 days. It simply would not happen.
That is does in ESO, and that it is seen as acceptable is in my opinion testament to just how badly designed the Guild System is.
Because you can be in 5 guilds most players really don't care that much about any of them, so they don't feel the need to give them any loyalty, and in return the Guild offers no loyalty back.
Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »The idea of dumping someone from a GAMING guild because they "don't pull their weight" is, I am not at all ashamed to admit, 100% totally alien to me.
I have to ask, out of your 5 guilds, how active are you in all of them?
silvereyes wrote: »
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »SteamKitten01 wrote: »I was doing some playing around on the PTS with the multi-bidding system and testing out placing more than one bid and noticed when placing identical bids, the order I bid in is not necessarily the order they show up on the bid list. Take the example below with bids # 4-7 for the guild in the image below. All 4 have the same bid but they are not listed in the order the bids were placed. I placed the Alinor bids first and then ported to Belkarth to place bids on traders there. I encountered the same issue when bidding for all 3 of my guilds that bids were not listed in the order they were placed. If I went back and added 1 gold to a bid, the correct bid would jump to the top, but if bids are exactly the same, it seemed to be random which bid was listed at the top of the list.
Question?
Where or how did you access that screen? I am on PC/NA, non steam. I looked for that screen on PTS but didn't see it.
What am I missing?
Thank you & Huzzah!
Image capture from an officer in our guild:
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »but my question is....
Why is there crickets here now?
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »but my question is....
Why is there crickets here now?
Crickets from whom? If you mean ZOS, *shrug*.
If you mean the users:
I, for one, feel like I've said what I have to say on this matter for now. The only change made to the UI/bidding system with this patch was to continue on the same development path originally stated. Did I expect them to scrap the system immediately, even after 35+ (tbh I've lost track of how many) pages of feedback? No.
That said, I'm not interested in being used as free QA for a system I do not support and especially not on a system that cannot be fully tested.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »but my question is....
Why is there crickets here now?
Crickets from whom? If you mean ZOS, *shrug*.
If you mean the users:
I, for one, feel like I've said what I have to say on this matter for now. The only change made to the UI/bidding system with this patch was to continue on the same development path originally stated. Did I expect them to scrap the system immediately, even after 35+ (tbh I've lost track of how many) pages of feedback? No.
That said, I'm not interested in being used as free QA for a system I do not support and especially not on a system that cannot be fully tested.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Lol.. Yes, I meant the devs and crickets.
I know they tend to be REAL quiet with LOTS of threads, but , this is a subject that they should discuss with us.
That wouldn't protect you from typos or theft at all. What it would achieve is eliminating the dilemma "do we split bank among 3 bids, and how, or do we go all in on our main trader?" and everyone would bid on 10 spots (or whatever the maximum will be).JHartEllis wrote: »Only have the highest bid withdraw from the guild bank. This reduces many risks associated with high gold balances.
JHartEllis wrote: »Only have the highest bid withdraw from the guild bank. This reduces many risks associated with high gold balances.
FlopsyPrince wrote: »Why do you need the gold for each build if it is going to be refunded except in the winning case (if that happens). Allow bids below the current max and take enough money to make up the difference if a higher bid is made.
While it seems like a good idea, this leads to an even steeper slope of bid increases.
Instead of having to plan how to distribute your gold over the various bids you want to make, you can throw all your money behind the same bid on 10 kiosks. The only cap is how much you're willing/able to spend on your kiosk.
This means you can, and will, bid higher than if you were distributing your gold over various bids.
So will everyone else. Each week.
You'll know where you lost bids at that price. So, if you want to move, you'll bid higher next time.
So will everyone else. Each week.
Climb climb climb. See?
Dusk_Coven wrote: »- they are adding a quality of life improvement in no longer having to scramble for a backup trader in case your one bid fails
WolfStar07 wrote: »Also, has anyone noticed they haven't been putting traders in the wild in new zones? It's only the base game that has them, whereas every zone after that has them in 1 or 2 cities. Adding another half dozen or so traders by putting 1 in the wild of all the DLC and expac zones could help bridge the gap between demand and supply without having as big an impact on the servers as an entire new zone.
Dont_do_drugs wrote: »Actually I'd be fine if they would add additional traders into the hubs, and maybe move the open zone Single ones at least a bit better than into the complete wilderness. Zos can track were people are moving. Add those single ones into a secondary group of traders and use a secondary hub in each quest zone,, add 1 or 2 traders there maybe, all better than more single traders. Sobe dlc and chapter zones made it good. They just used second and third hubs with at least 3 or 4 traders next to the primary 5 or 6 traders hub.
RavenSworn wrote: »Dont_do_drugs wrote: »Actually I'd be fine if they would add additional traders into the hubs, and maybe move the open zone Single ones at least a bit better than into the complete wilderness. Zos can track were people are moving. Add those single ones into a secondary group of traders and use a secondary hub in each quest zone,, add 1 or 2 traders there maybe, all better than more single traders. Sobe dlc and chapter zones made it good. They just used second and third hubs with at least 3 or 4 traders next to the primary 5 or 6 traders hub.
Actually I rather they have more traders in the wilderness than in cities. At least, since its a non preferred spot, mega guilds don't really want that slot and it offers more places for medium to small guilds.
Well, usually anyway.
Dont_do_drugs wrote: »The problem with bringing more unattractive spots for buyers is a growing gap of power selling and poor guilds. People are lazy, people want auction house.
Dont_do_drugs wrote: »RavenSworn wrote: »Dont_do_drugs wrote: »Actually I'd be fine if they would add additional traders into the hubs, and maybe move the open zone Single ones at least a bit better than into the complete wilderness. Zos can track were people are moving. Add those single ones into a secondary group of traders and use a secondary hub in each quest zone,, add 1 or 2 traders there maybe, all better than more single traders. Sobe dlc and chapter zones made it good. They just used second and third hubs with at least 3 or 4 traders next to the primary 5 or 6 traders hub.
Actually I rather they have more traders in the wilderness than in cities. At least, since its a non preferred spot, mega guilds don't really want that slot and it offers more places for medium to small guilds.
Well, usually anyway.
The problem with bringing more unattractive spots for buyers is a growing gap of power selling and poor guilds. People are lazy, people want auction house. They don't want that solo traders in the middle of nowhere. Bad "infrastructure" leads into major guilds going on growing with low competition, whike tge rest is starving away. More equally attractive hubs leaves more room for guilds to develop in attractivity equally and helps eating away sales from the biggies. And I am a biggies gm. 😉
Hey ZOS, thanks for asking.ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Do you have any other general feedback?
Except, they are trying to change the system, and are arguably making it worse. I'd much rather have no changes at all than what ZOS is doing with multi-bidding this patch.So yeah, any kind of change to the system would make it better.