DragonRacer wrote: »DragonRacer wrote: »DragonRacer wrote: »If the trading guild I’m in raises the weekly rate to 20k from 15k, I may have to quit trading guilds altogether and just try to survive on writ income. I’m a nurse IRL and I work 12-13 hr shifts, clocking in at 36-48 hrs every week, so I simply don’t have the free time to farm mats and keep my trader slots full 24/7. I’d rather spend my time in game doing what I enjoy (PVP). As it is, I’m barely making enough gold to justify the weekly 15k I’m putting in. I like my trading guild on a social level and would miss our awesome guild house, but... come on. 20k every week just to have the luxury of selling items in high traffic locations?
I’m increasingly starting to hate this trading system. WTB global AH.
I'll reiterate that dues-free/donation-based trading guilds exist. They could be a good option for you.
It's an option, not necessarily a good one.
Many players have a life outside of a video game, & don't have 50+ hours a week to waste away on a video game.
Career, family, school, etc...10-15h a week to play is a lot of hours for many of these players, & excluding this demographic from participating successfully in a system to sell their goods they earned in a "small" allotted play time is a bad system, & a poor business strategy.
I don't disagree, but I fail to see how copy-pasting your reply from the other thread had much to do with my suggestion?
A guild that does not charge dues and has a trader is at least an OPTION, right? I was merely suggesting it rather than the all-or-nothing approach of "pay 20k weekly dues" or "never sell anything ever again".
By the way, I am one of those people. I work a 40+ hour job and have a family and run my dues-free/donation-based guild. trust me, I understand what it means to have precious little gaming time and not be rolling around in personal in-game wealth.
We have two threads discussing same topic.
Yes your right, it's an option, not a good one though.
I don't think being in-game wealthy is much of an issue here, it's about a poor system that offers little to none as it locks many players out from participating successfully.
Agreed on most points.
But in the current system, why is joining a dues-free/donation-based guild not a "good" option? Those exist with traders secured not in the coveted capitals, yes, but many of them exist in cities better than just "we could only afford Outlaws Refuge".
Unless you mean if a guild isn't stationed at a trader in a capital, it's not a good option.
Free/donation based trading guilds (especially on console) seldom get traffic. It’s not even worth putting items up for sale in those guilds. Trust me, I used to be in a few until I started ponying up the cash for donation-based guilds in major cities.markulrich1966 wrote: »If the trading guild I’m in raises the weekly rate to 20k from 15k, I may have to quit trading guilds altogether and just try to survive on writ income. I’m a nurse IRL and I work 12-13 hr shifts, clocking in at 36-48 hrs every week, so I simply don’t have the free time to farm mats and keep my trader slots full 24/7. I’d rather spend my time in game doing what I enjoy (PVP). As it is, I’m barely making enough gold to justify the weekly 15k I’m putting in. I like my trading guild on a social level and would miss our awesome guild house, but... come on. 20k every week just to have the luxury of selling items in high traffic locations?
I’m increasingly starting to hate this trading system. WTB global AH.
well, you were strongly supporting a faction lock, that kicks out many players from cyrodiil, instead of finding a solution that suits everyone.
Now don't complain about the results.
Since I almost no longer can play Cyro, I profesionalized in trading.
Increased my sales from 20k before to 100k a day. Time I spent before with PVP, I now use to hunt dragons and doing dailies, selling motifs and furniture crafted with ingredients you get as reward.
We lately have a clear increase of very professional traders on xbox EU, hence it is logical that this change is reflected somehow in the PVE world, like increasing trading fees on NA systems in order to attract quality traders and keep off casual ones at the best locations.
Don't complain, enjoy your PVP instead, now that your wishes have been fullfilled.
(Btw. with the millions of AP you gain there, you can buy a lot of gold jewelry, Mothers Sorrow is listed for 200k in guildstores, so 20k are really peanuts).
LOL, you seem pretty obsessed with my faction lock stance @markulrich1966 , as you seem determined to bring it up in any thread I post in. Get over it, and stay on topic instead of trying to shoehorn faction locking into completely unrelated threads.
Location is not as big a deal some believe it is. I have sold over a million in a week at the worst locations in small trade guilds more times than I can now remember.
I have done it precisely to prove the point inventory/stock bundled and priced correctly is the real secret.
It is on console. Without addons to find deals, people seldom go to little out of the way traders in the middle of nowhere. Like I said, I was in a few free trading guilds in the past that had traders out in the boonies, and it wasn’t worth the time or effort. Even when I priced stuff well below the city trader costs, items used to sit in the listings for weeks. You’re better off peddling your wares in /zone. I’ve never played an MMO with a more frustrating trading/item selling system.
Gotta give you this one. Definitely on console location is a bigger deal if you want bulk sales for high end profit at a newly purchased trader.
I still think on console if a guild establishes a poor location as a good place for high value items at good prices it will do just as well as any main hub. Just need to brand the location and advertise to get it established.
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.
Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.
When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.
Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.
When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.
Agree.
GMs seem to have intuitively determined the correct strategy is to raise more bid capital, and that intuition is supported by math. Or logic. I guess Game Theory could be placed in either school. It's been many years since I had Game Theory class (an excellent elective for econ or MBA degrees), but it remains one of my favorite. I'm glad you find it interesting
Theoretically, just objectively looking at the game theory from the outside, this is fascinating stuff.
When you're up to your elbows in it, living it, fighting its implementation, it sucks. Especially because you cannot succinctly explain the situation with all its consequences and ramifications (short and long term) to the 500 people who trust and depend on you. Never mind trying to convince anyone who revels in claiming that GMs are corrupt that this is the hand we were dealt, that we saw the writing on the wall, and that many of us opposed it for the sake of everyone.
Agree.
GMs seem to have intuitively determined the correct strategy is to raise more bid capital, and that intuition is supported by math. Or logic. I guess Game Theory could be placed in either school. It's been many years since I had Game Theory class (an excellent elective for econ or MBA degrees), but it remains one of my favorite. I'm glad you find it interesting
And for me the question often in my mind is why are changes implemented, so often in ESO, with a stated intent obviously in contradiction to establised and tested theories. This is especially true in the economic field as it applies to ESO.
The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?
Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:
If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?
Edit: typo. tgif.
The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?
Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:
If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?
Edit: typo. tgif.
DragonRacer wrote: »The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?
Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:
If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?
Edit: typo. tgif.
My assumption would be yes.
I kinda always felt that way about dues. Whether your guild bank starts at 0k because no dues or everyone's starts at 7.5 mil (assuming 15k weekly x 500 members), you are all still starting from the same playing field. The difference comes from guilds who either charge higher or lower dues (but most of the competitive ones all seem to charge the same, and change at the same time) or who puts on better raffles/auctions or who has richer donors. The dues don't make the difference. All the other stuff does.
So, now it's an arms race of raising dues again... but if everyone is raising dues to the same level... is anyone really stockpiling more money for competitive advantage? The answer is no, not simply on the weekly dues alone and not with your fellow capital competitors who are all doing the exact same thing.
The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?
Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:
If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?
Edit: typo. tgif.
generalmyrick wrote: »The end result is that a premium of advantage is placed on raising more capital for a second, competitive bid, which means all competitive trade guilds obtain an advantage by raising more bid capital.
@therift - Can we go back to this point for a sec?
Running on the assumption that our top competitors are like-minded guilds who equally increase their fundraising:
If we all obtain an advantage by increasing fundraising, wouldn't the next logical step be to state that none of us actually gained an advantage?
Edit: typo. tgif.
also a fave game theory game of mine is "2/3 average"
short version = i have 5 dollars and the person who gets closest to {2/3 of the average of the numbers of the class} wins...
*pass out papers
*everybody puts a number they think will be closest to 2/3 average of everybody.
*turn papers in
*winner declared.
following logical extension = the best guess in the game is ZERO, because the players quickly surmise that their guess (average) was too low so start undercutting, the eventual result of everybody undercutting is reducing the guess to 0, (negative numbers now allowed)
HOW IT APPLIES HERE
AUCTIONS = BID WARS
fees and bids will ALWAYS go up because that's what we are in, a modified blind auction for guild spots. the only way to get better and/or win and/or play defense is to get more gold. we could have 1 bid or 100 million bids...the results are the same...
============
i am just curious what breaks or buckles first,
1. players throw their hands up and give up on guilds with crazy fees and therefore the system
2. or ZOS changes the system in a major way