Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

LOL. I’m sure in preparation for the multibidding change.

He needs to make sure the ghost guilds are properly funded.

Fwiw, the ghost guild exploit (if you'd like to call it that) is being addressed in a future U23 PTS patch; disbanding a guild will no longer free a kiosk.

Multibidding is the direct cause for many (trade) guilds raising their dues of late. There are dozens of pages of feedback on this system explaining why it is a bad idea; increased bid pricing being one of the chief concerns.

I’d really like to hear from these people directly in these posts.

I’m sure the tactics will evolve with the system. We’ll see.

I can foresee them still using the ghost guilds, but to bump out competition and funnel shoppers.

I'm one of those people*. What would you like to know? Alternatively, if you don't trust me, you can grab a cup of coffee (or 3) and read the feedback for yourself. Here are several threads:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/484090/pts-update-23-feedback-thread-for-multi-bidding/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482926/guild-bid-on-up-to-10-different-guild-trader-locations-each-week-with-update-23/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/483891/guild-multi-bidding-why/p1

Edit: *my guild has not introduced dues. I'm explaining where this stuff came from.

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

Zone chat is free remember.

Problem solved

therift wrote: »

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

Are we the only server having this issue? 20k a week is absurd to pay for a trading guild. The only ones with enough gold to take the top trading spots on a weekly basis are themselves so who are they raising the prices in fear of?

This is blatant greed at this point. It's already well know alot of the profits get pocketed but now you're just making it obvious.

This is why Zos needs to rework the trading system. Zone chat is free remember.

"...alot if the profits get pocketed..."

Got any proof of that? Because it's equally well-known that your claim is a pile of hooey.

Back when you could see guild history is your proof. You don't think people stopped just because they removed public guild history do you? LOL

I out bidded a top end guild trader that was charging 10k a week back when that was the price. They were bidding 1.1 million every single week and when the news got around I dropped 1.8 mil with me and my buddies free trading guild. I got threatened but people I didn't even know lol So again they was making 5 million a week and spending 1.1 and you really think that has changed?

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

therift wrote: »

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

Are we the only server having this issue? 20k a week is absurd to pay for a trading guild. The only ones with enough gold to take the top trading spots on a weekly basis are themselves so who are they raising the prices in fear of?

This is blatant greed at this point. It's already well know alot of the profits get pocketed but now you're just making it obvious.

This is why Zos needs to rework the trading system. Zone chat is free remember.

"...alot if the profits get pocketed..."

Got any proof of that? Because it's equally well-known that your claim is a pile of hooey.

Back when you could see guild history is your proof. You don't think people stopped just because they removed public guild history do you? LOL

I out bidded a top end guild trader that was charging 10k a week back when that was the price. They were bidding 1.1 million every single week and when the news got around I dropped 1.8 mil with me and my buddies free trading guild. I got threatened but people I didn't even know lol So again they was making 5 million a week and spending 1.1 and you really think that has changed?

I wish I had saved images of in-game e-mails showing that bids of 8 million and up on prime kiosks lost. What you say may have been true in the past, but for certain kiosk locations it most certainly is not true. Dues, sales tax, and raffles barely cover bids in this age of fierce competition.

There was a thread on this issue back in May when someone on PC outbid every long term trader in Rawl'kha and claimed he/she did so with bids as low as yours. Dozens of conspiracy nuts piled on, claiming this event was 'proof' that trade guild GMs were getting rich off of dues/tax/raffles/donations.

It all fell apart when one of the losing guild GMs posted a picture of the in-game e-mail showing the losing bid of 12 million or so gold... or maybe it was 13 million.

It's very important to have concrete facts when you accuse people of deceit. The player who claimed to have 'proven' that trade guild GMs were 'pocketing millions' was instead proven to be a liar himself.

Maxx7410 wrote: »

In pc now is normal for any decente trade guild to pay 20k+ per week

I'm in high end trading guilds on PC NA and all of them simply have minimum sales requirements. And so far none of mine have raised their min sales req. Don't know what you're talking about.

idk wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

BlazingDynamo wrote: »

Are we the only server having this issue? 20k a week is absurd to pay for a trading guild. The only ones with enough gold to take the top trading spots on a weekly basis are themselves so who are they raising the prices in fear of?

This is blatant greed at this point. It's already well know alot of the profits get pocketed but now you're just making it obvious.

This is why Zos needs to rework the trading system. Zone chat is free remember.

You always have the option to leave the guild...

This. I expect you can find decent guilds that do not charge 20k.

Agree. There are several highly successful PS4 NA guilds with lower dues or donations-based that routinely win capitol city kiosks. I imagine they are successful because they have attracted a solid core of members who donate/participate in fundraisers simply because that is thier preferred method of supporting bids.

The guilds that charge top dues are strictly for members who want the best possible guarantee that every member contributes to the largest war chest for bids. If dues are not to your liking (many players abhor the concept), or if having the biggest war chest is less important than minimizing your weekly commitment, then the highest cost dues guilds are not for you.

There is no reason to whine about it. Perhaps the dues increase will be more than the rosters are willing to pay. Just let it play out.

therift wrote: »

Perhaps the dues increase will be more than the rosters are willing to pay. Just let it play out.

That part, I am interested to see. As far as how guild populations may or may not fluctuate in response.

I've watched the capital trading guild fees go from standard 10k weekly... to 15k weekly... and had heard 20k weekly was in the winds a few weeks before this thread got created. I'm morbidly curious to see if and when it ever tops out as far as what folks are willing to pay to be in one.

DragonRacer wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Perhaps the dues increase will be more than the rosters are willing to pay. Just let it play out.

That part, I am interested to see. As far as how guild populations may or may not fluctuate in response.

I've watched the capital trading guild fees go from standard 10k weekly... to 15k weekly... and had heard 20k weekly was in the winds a few weeks before this thread got created. I'm morbidly curious to see if and when it ever tops out as far as what folks are willing to pay to be in one.

There certainly is an upper limit... and I suspect we're getting close. Every increase reduces the pool of players willing and able to pay the higher fee. Conversely, every increase creates a greater opportunity for a lower fee guild to siphon members.

The higher fee is driven solely by the multiple bid option. Guilds that routinely win the most desired kiosks are targets by strict competitors and by guilds intent on knocking the king off the hill. All serious trading guilds are now forced to plan for a second competitive bid. There will no longer be the kiosk reseller option (it was interesting to learn ZoS condoned 'ghost guilds' because they provided a fall back option for lost bids).

The increase is driven strictly by new uncertainties and the challenge posed by the fact every competitor can bid on those most desired locations without fear of loss.

There is a guild on PS4EU that is now charging 10k a week.

therift wrote: »

There will no longer be the kiosk reseller option (it was interesting to learn ZoS condoned 'ghost guilds' because they provided a fall back option for lost bids).

I disagree with your assessment. Yes, ZOS is providing a multi-bid option so that guilds have a back-up option, but their own words themselves make it clear they view ghost guilds negatively. That's hardly "condoning". I have bolded the relevant part to my assessment.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6208183#Comment_6208183

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 recognized that people were circumventing what was the intended system (lose your bid, sit out a week) and that there was a desire to have more than one attempt to win a stall, so they are enabling that. If they "condoned" the ghost guilds, they wouldn't make a change at all. Things would remain status quo. The change is coming BECAUSE they do not condone the ghost guilds and view them as negative to both guilds and customers.

But that's all I'll say on the matter as I already know you are a steadfast supporter of ghost guilds, and I am staunchly against ghost guilds, and no amount of discussion is likely to change either of our minds. We come from different worlds.

"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."

This statement from Phil is why I said ZoS condoned ghost guilds. It was in the quote you provided.

Condone: transitive verb meaning to accept or permit actions or behavior that are considered morally unacceptable or wrong.

When you provide a quote in an attempt to refute a statement, it is important to read theentire statement, lest you prove yourself incorrect, rather than supporting your refutation.

Further, nothing in my statement, nor any statement I have made, indicates whether I support or do not support so-called 'ghost guilds'. I merely made an observation based upon policy published by ZoS.

therift 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."

This statement from Phil is why I said ZoS condoned ghost guilds. It was in the quote you provided.

Condone: transitive verb meaning to accept or permit actions or behavior that are considered morally unacceptable or wrong.

When you provide a quote in an attempt to refute a statement, it is important to read theentire statement, lest you prove yourself incorrect, rather than supporting your refutation.

Further, nothing in my statement, nor any statement I have made, indicates whether I support or do not support so-called 'ghost guilds'. I merely made an observation based upon policy published by ZoS.

I did read the entire statement. Thank you for chastising me for my supposed inability to thoroughly read and comprehend; it is always welcomed in a civil discussion.

When you read my reply to reoskit, you will again see why I do not view the statement you highlighted as being indicative of condoning ghost guilds.

I was fairly certain I recalled you supporting the existence and use of ghost guilds in other threads within this forum in the past, but I admit that I could be wrong and mis-recalling your position on them.

DragonRacer wrote: »

therift 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."

This statement from Phil is why I said ZoS condoned ghost guilds. It was in the quote you provided.

Condone: transitive verb meaning to accept or permit actions or behavior that are considered morally unacceptable or wrong.

When you provide a quote in an attempt to refute a statement, it is important to read theentire statement, lest you prove yourself incorrect, rather than supporting your refutation.

Further, nothing in my statement, nor any statement I have made, indicates whether I support or do not support so-called 'ghost guilds'. I merely made an observation based upon policy published by ZoS.

I did read the entire statement. Thank you for chastising me for my supposed inability to thoroughly read and comprehend; it is always welcomed in a civil discussion.

When you read my reply to reoskit, you will again see why I do not view the statement you highlighted as being indicative of condoning ghost guilds.

I was fairly certain I recalled you supporting the existence and use of ghost guilds in other threads within this forum in the past, but I admit that I could be wrong and mis-recalling your position on them.

Phil's statement was the very definition of the word 'condone', which is why I used that word. English has more than 500,000 words. Many of them have precise definitions. It is often true that people believe they know the definition and precise usage of a word when in fact, they do not.

While only 2,000 words or so are needed to be considered fluent, there is always room to learn something new.

I’m not rising to your bait anymore. And you can seriously suspend with the insults.