PTS Update 23 - Feedback Thread for Multi-Bidding

Urigall · July 2019

Assuming the overall aim of the changes appears to be encouraging movement in the kiosk market, how will the changes lead to that outcome?

Bidding in the following weeks will trigger strategic bidding for all the guilds that win spots in the first week or two. Defend current spot at all costs? (risk of all or nothing) Defend current spot with less gold and attack better spots? (higher cost and more risk because less gold for bid spread) One, or both, of these and put highish sums into one or more fallback bids? (risky, even for bigger guilds, as I'll explain in a moment) Irrespective of how it's played, there will be uncertainty for every, incumbent guild.

Much has been said about smaller guilds losing out as bigger guilds use the cheaper spots as fallbacks (a pushing out effect) Wealthy guilds sniping cheaper spots as a fallback is not a good strategy. In fact, it could be a poisoned chalice.

Keeping the fallback isn't guaranteed. Other big guilds might target the lower tier spot as part of their fallback strategy. The "bet it all on red" guilds that won't be bidding for top spots will be prowling around too. Some of those smaller guilds won't need to worry about strategic bidding: some of them will be chucking all their resources at one spot. One of the smaller guilds might even get lucky, and snipe the bigger guild that occupies the lower tier spot, leaving the bigger guild with no spot that week. A small guild sniping one of the big boyz? Unpossible. Not at the lower end of the kiosk market. The only way to defend against that outcome is to keep chucking loads of gold at the lower tier spot. Even that's no guarantee of winning.

This is the scenario big guilds will want to avoid - losing their main bids, while winning a lowish spot at high cost. Once a big guild is in a lower tier spot, it is vulnerable.

Nor will the outcome at the top end of the kiosk market be guaranteed. Incumbents of top spots will be aware that kioskless, big guilds might be considering an all or nothing bid for top spots. This possibility will raise strategy issues for holders of top spots - defend existing spot vigorously, or think about contingency plans? Gold spread issues arise and there is also a risk of ending up in a lower tier spot with more issues next week. Don't rule out the scenario of a big guild losing its top spot, while winning a lower tier spot, only to be pushed out completely, two weeks down the road. All it would need is a big guild to be landed with a lower tier fallback and bad luck the following week.

Whether the new system is good, bad, or somewhere in between, ymmv. But it has the potential to create issues for big guilds as well as smaller ones.

reoskit · July 2019

silvereyes wrote: »

That said, I imagine that the disbanded guild kiosk change introduced this week will be an unvarnished improvement for the system. So, 1 step forward, 2 steps back, I suppose.

Precisely.

Let's start with just that first step by removing the disbanding exploit. Let's see what that does. The multibidding system and the disbanding fix are not the same mechanic; they can be introduced independently of each other.

Given all the negative feedback about multibidding, my guess is they're being released simultaneously so that people are led to believe that multibidding fixed ghosting. Spoilers: it didn't.

inb4 "ZOS said they wanted to make sure we had a backup kiosk option before fixing disbanding." - We've never had a legitimate backup kiosk system; players exploited a broken mechanic. So, why is it all of a sudden a requirement that we have a backup system prior to introducing a fix for that exploit? It makes no sense.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

inb4 "ZOS said they wanted to make sure we had a backup kiosk option before fixing disbanding." - We've never had a legitimate backup kiosk system; players exploited a broken mechanic. So, why is it all of a sudden a requirement that we have a backup system prior to introducing a fix for that exploit? It makes no sense.

The mechanic, broken or not, that was used/"exploited" in order to ensure a backup kiosk and therefore reduce some of the pressure of bidding showed a need for a backup system. By introducing multibidding, ZOS provides a legitimate backup system. ZOS may disapprove of an abuse (in this case the "ghost" or "backup" guilds) but still acknowledge as legit the need showed by such abuse.
You may or may not approve (we've discussed that long enough here), but it still makes perfect sense.

Dont_do_drugs · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

reoskit wrote: »

inb4 "ZOS said they wanted to make sure we had a backup kiosk option before fixing disbanding." - We've never had a legitimate backup kiosk system; players exploited a broken mechanic. So, why is it all of a sudden a requirement that we have a backup system prior to introducing a fix for that exploit? It makes no sense.

The mechanic, broken or not, that was used/"exploited" in order to ensure a backup kiosk and therefore reduce some of the pressure of bidding showed a need for a backup system. By introducing multibidding, ZOS provides a legitimate backup system. ZOS may disapprove of an abuse (in this case the "ghost" or "backup" guilds) but still acknowledge as legit the need showed by such abuse.
You may or may not approve (we've discussed that long enough here), but it still makes perfect sense.

yeh and exploiting bleakers showed a desperate need for ap, as well as using writ exploit showed a desperate need for more tempers, not to mention the desperate need for specific skins and raid-exploits lol. awesome logic.

Nefas · July 2019

I personally still don't agree with the multi-bidding going up to 10 spots. It's a good concept/quality of life idea but 10 is a bit too extreme.

2-3 would have been a better testing the waters, considering the implications it may have (such as diminishing the blind bid system + another potential skyrocketing in Crowns->Gold which will definitely, again, have an impact on the ingame economy) and if it is indeed a Quality of Life improvement aimed towards those who are bidding/managing trade guilds, I don't really see it as QoL improvement, just more stress which most people I know don't need or want.

Unfortunately absolutely no one can test the organic behavior of guilds on PTS so I have no real idea of how this change will affect a lot of guilds. Regarding Philip's post, I'm curious as to if they've predicted certain long-term results?

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

yeh and exploiting bleakers showed a desperate need for ap, as well as using writ exploit showed a desperate need for more tempers, not to mention the desperate need for specific skins and raid-exploits lol. awesome logic.

Yes, every "abuse" shows a need. Or at least, a want. I'd leave the "desperate" out. Yes, people want gold tempers, which are meant to be rare. Yes, people want AP, which is an in-game currency. Yes, people want skins and achievements, especially if they're meant to be hard to get.
ZOS can do whatever they see fit with that need - ignore it, integrate it into game's mechanics, respond to it with a crown store offer, etc.
Yes, backup guilds show a need for more security when bidding, by having more than 1 bid opportunity each week. And ZOS chooses to comply with that demand by instating multibidding.
Whether you personally think it's a good design or not is one thing, but you definitely cannot say that it makes no sense.

Dont_do_drugs · July 2019

Ure not even inside it. You're talking about a need which never existed, most of the guilds using the exploit on pc EU weren't in any need fir it ever. They already had been on the top of the food chain and had been known as some of the richest people on pc EU. There never has been a need für that backup idea, because those who used it, never heeded it to survive and those who would be in a need for zos support about trade guild mexhanics were the losers in that situation as well as they will be from u23 on. But why am I even discussing with someone who defends exploiter.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

Ure not even inside it. You're talking about a need which never existed, most of the guilds using the exploit on pc EU weren't in any need fir it ever. They already had been on the top of the food chain and had been known as some of the richest people on pc EU. There never has been a need für that backup idea, because those who used it, never heeded it to survive and those who would be in a need for zos support about trade guild mexhanics were the losers in that situation as well as they will be from u23 on. But why am I even discussing with someone who defends exploiter.

So now you're saying that guilds wasted a huge chunk of resources on something that they had no use for ? You're the one who's making no sense here.
And no I don't defend exploiters. Where have you seen this ? I'm just not sure the system of backup guilds can be considered an exploit.

Dont_do_drugs · July 2019

If ure misusing a mechanic in an unintended way to gain a personal advantage over others then it's the exact description of what happened and also what defines an exploit. That easy.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

So now you're saying that guilds wasted a huge chunk of resources on something that they had no use for ? You're the one who's making no sense here.

Denying the competition a Trade Kiosk is "the use" they had for it.

I really am surprised at how many people discussing this topic don't have even a basic grasp of how trade works, or feign such ignorance to enable them to defend an exploit.

1) Have something to sell.
2) Have somewhere top sell it.
3) Make profit.

OR

1) Have something to sell.
2) Have somewhere top sell it.
3) Prevent competition from taking sales away from you.
4) Make MORE profit.

It really isn't rocket surgery.

All The Best

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

If ure misusing a mechanic in an unintended way to gain a personal advantage over others then it's the exact description of what happened and also what defines an exploit. That easy.

No it's not. Building a backup guild can easily be considered a clever way of securing a trader.

On the other hand, what is definitely NOT an intended way of playing is to do what you've been doing for YEARS : big trading guilds sitting together and forming alliances to agree on bids and strategies when the bidding system is purposedly BLIND. It's a market-twisting strategy. In real life, you'd be fined and possibly imprisoned for market manipulation, abusive dominant behaviour, price agreements and monopoly-building. But you'd see it as clever and fair.

I'm not saying you are wrong by doing this. I'm saying that you should be careful when calling others exploiters and abusers, because it's very subjective and depends on anyone's particular point of view.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

So now you're saying that guilds wasted a huge chunk of resources on something that they had no use for ? You're the one who's making no sense here.

Denying the competition a Trade Kiosk is "the use" they had for it.

You keep assuming that the major use for backup guilds was to leave kiosks empty in order to draw the flow of customers to one particular kiosk. That's not true. And many people here have pointed out that it would be a loosing strategy because the increase in sales would not compensate the cost of hiring nearby kiosks and leaving them empty (negative return on investment).

The main use for backup guilds is simply, as the name suggests, to get a trader when you happen to lose your regular bid. Nothing more.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

You keep assuming that the major use for backup guilds was to leave kiosks empty in order to draw the flow of customers to one particular kiosk. That's not true. And many people here have pointed out that it would be a loosing strategy because the increase in sales would not compensate the cost of hiring nearby kiosks and leaving them empty (negative return on investment).

The main use for backup guilds is simply, as the name suggests, to get a trader when you happen to lose your regular bid. Nothing more.

Fair point.

However, I keep suggesting it is just ONE possible reason for backup guilds.

Of course if by doing this short-term you can drive a competitor out of business, or prevent competitors even bidding on nearby Kiosks, you will long-term reap the benefits of a short-term loss.

All The Best

Grimm13 · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

So now you're saying that guilds wasted a huge chunk of resources on something that they had no use for ? You're the one who's making no sense here.

Denying the competition a Trade Kiosk is "the use" they had for it.

I really am surprised at how many people discussing this topic don't have even a basic grasp of how trade works, or feign such ignorance to enable them to defend an exploit.

1) Have something to sell.
2) Have somewhere top sell it.
3) Make profit.

OR

1) Have something to sell.
2) Have somewhere top sell it.
3) Prevent competition from taking sales away from you.
4) Make MORE profit.

It really isn't rocket surgery.

All The Best

It's not so much as people not grasping what you have stated, it's understood. Yes that is a tactic but comes under business ethics and cost evaluation. Not everyone agrees to be that cut throat in a game. All costs have to be added against where you get your monetary return. The higher of all your costs the riskier & harder to make a profit.

It is not really a tactic that many want to see widely used as it leads to higher costs very fast. So people do not make comments.

It every game that I have played the Traders pretty much do not want discuss business tactics openly. Do you really want to train your competition? There is a fine line of just how much to teach others. Much is on natural talent of people since not all tactics work the same for each person, server or market. So many variables to consider.

It is closer to rocket surgery to make sure you have a legal offset of the costs. How many will the system support before players turn to illegal means of keeping afloat? This is why Game Companies dedicate someone to economy. Dev's have to watch for exploits, seal them and react quickly on violations. This tactic should be a red flag to maintain that no gold selling, botting or other violations where used to support the tactic. A poorly designed and/or managed economy will ruin a good game.

WolfStar07 · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

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.

Elsweyr is a Chapter. Vvardenfell and Summerset both had 3 cities with traders. Wrothgar, arguably the first "chapter" before they came up with that sales idea, had 2 cities of kiosks.

I have no idea why Elsweyr was not included in this trend, with kiosks only in Rimmen. It was treated the same way the DLCs (Clockwork, Murkmire, etc.) were with only one city of kiosks.

Khajiit are the race of peddlers and traders, no? If they wanted to be lore-specific, they'd've put little convoys of trading kiosks/wagons all over Elsweyr along the roads. Missed opportunity, IMO.

Not all DLCs were created equal, being that Wrothgar has technically always been considered a DLC and not a chapter. Also the Gold Coast has 2 cities of kiosks. As to why they didn't add more for Elsweyr, who knows. They certainly had a couple other cities they could have placed a hub. Since they didn't, that's why I'm saying additional traders in the wild would help. Not everyone is eager to compete on the same level as guilds in the cities.

Does anyone remember what the trade economy and all this was like pre-One Tamriel? I was just getting my feet wet as a trader and not having much luck with it at the time and didn't know much of anything about the economy as a whole. I assume back then guilds pretty much just stayed in their alliance zones since that's all the GM would likely have access to bid on. If they completed Cadwell's, would they have been able to bid on traders outside their alliance? Was it easier for a guild to move from a trader in the wild to to traders in better cities when there was theoretically less competition? Obviously there were fewer guilds back then, but I assume guilds didn't have to compete against the entire server when bidding. Did that also make bids more manageable?

Urigall · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

it would be a loosing strategy because the increase in sales would not compensate the cost of hiring nearby kiosks and leaving them empty (negative return on investment).

Agreed. There is also potential for a negative return on sniping a lower tier spot under the new system.

Is a lower tier fallback a good thing for a big guild, now that 10 bids will be possible?

If a big guild lands in a lower tier spot, their problems will be trebled - has to keep funding the lower tier bid at way over cost (negative return to ensure a safety net) has to bid even higher in order to climb back up the ladder (we gotta get out of this place) and there is always the risk of being sniped for the fallback spot (many more guilds can now field the sort of firepower that could lead to a successful snipe)

Ending up in a very low tier spot is the worst outcome for a big guild. Far less potential challengers at the top of the ladder, so far less risk - few guilds with equal firepower. Agreements reduce the possibility of being challenged even further. At the bottom end of the kiosk market, the holder of a lower tier kiosk is fighting - potentially - everyone. Even some of the medium guilds could be a threat in mid-tier spots. Huge risk unless buckets of gold are chucked at defending lower tier spot.

If a big guild loses all its preferred bids, but "wins" a lower tier back up, it is vulnerable. Their relative immunity to challenge has now been removed. If big guilds want to avoid big risks, the cost of staying at the top will probably go way up. Sniping a lower tier fallback is risky for a big guild.

Increased gold sink here we come?

NBrookus · July 2019

This is not directly related to multi-bidding but there isn't another place for official guild trader feedback.

As a buyer, give me a better reason to visit the far-flung traders, particularly in the base game zones and outlaw refuges. Because they are low-tier locations, they tend to have low stock and odd prices both low and high. The time invested for visiting each of these trader locations is often not worth the potential cost savings.

If Deshaan/Rawl'kha/etc. are mega malls, improve the small trader locations to boutique centers. If you want 5 stacks of alchemy mats in a hurry, you are still going to go to the mega mall. But if I can shop 3 or 4 small traders in one location, it makes it more worth the visit to see what's there. So for those base game zones, you could either move the existing traders closer together, or add a second or third trader at many of those locations.

anitajoneb17_ESO · July 2019

Urigall wrote: »

Ending up in a very low tier spot is the worst outcome for a big guild.

Not necessarily. Talking from experience here, if a big trading guild has a "name" (they pretty much all have a "name"), then that name is likely to be stronger than the location.
Back in the days of the "Belkarth war" on PC/EU I was in a big trading guild (TTM) and we've been exiled to Baandari trading post (pretty much the middle of nowhere) for a few weeks until things got sorted out.
We were bombed with messages like "where are you this week ?" and people came to the middle of nowhere to shop. From us. Not saying the sales volume was the same as in Belkarth, but as a matter of fact, it didn't shrink as much as we primarily expected, and it remained very good.
Sales volume don't depend on trader location, it depends on guild name + trader location. If you have a name, it can compensate for a "bad" trader location.

In any case, the worst outcome is no trader at all. That definitely cuts sales down in a spectacular way.

Urigall · July 2019

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Sales volume don't depend on trader location, it depends on guild name + trader location. If you have a name, it can compensate for a "bad" trader location.

In any case, the worst outcome is no trader at all. That definitely cuts sales down in a spectacular way.

I'll defer to your experience on the location issue anita. Still leaves a question mark over why some spots are so heavily contested.

I should have thought...worst = no trader. I meant that securing a really low tier spot means big risk next week.

dvonpm · July 2019

Urigall wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

it would be a loosing strategy because the increase in sales would not compensate the cost of hiring nearby kiosks and leaving them empty (negative return on investment).

Agreed. There is also potential for a negative return on sniping a lower tier spot under the new system.

Is a lower tier fallback a good thing for a big guild, now that 10 bids will be possible?

If a big guild lands in a lower tier spot, their problems will be trebled - has to keep funding the lower tier bid at way over cost (negative return to ensure a safety net) has to bid even higher in order to climb back up the ladder (we gotta get out of this place) and there is always the risk of being sniped for the fallback spot (many more guilds can now field the sort of firepower that could lead to a successful snipe)

Ending up in a very low tier spot is the worst outcome for a big guild. Far less potential challengers at the top of the ladder, so far less risk - few guilds with equal firepower. Agreements reduce the possibility of being challenged even further. At the bottom end of the kiosk market, the holder of a lower tier kiosk is fighting - potentially - everyone. Even some of the medium guilds could be a threat in mid-tier spots. Huge risk unless buckets of gold are chucked at defending lower tier spot.

If a big guild loses all its preferred bids, but "wins" a lower tier back up, it is vulnerable. Their relative immunity to challenge has now been removed. If big guilds want to avoid big risks, the cost of staying at the top will probably go way up. Sniping a lower tier fallback is risky for a big guild.

Increased gold sink here we come?

Bigger guilds will have the resources to deal with an off week. The guilds they bump out will not. And getting a low traffic trader is not the worst outcome, getting no trader is. Which could still happen. You could lose all 10 bids.

We'll obviously have to wait to see how this shakes out, but my guess is this is going to be hardest on 2nd tier guilds long term. They'll be getting it from smaller guilds randomly angling for better spots and from first tier guilds pushing them out.

***

Sidenote - Mostly I just find myself super irritated that they purposely introduce more instability while knowing this is already a barely manageble unpaid part time job for their CUSTOMERS, for which we also must rely on modders to make tolerable. And now they just want us to do more effing work >.>

I don't even know how people even still play on PS4, tbh. Guild trader ganking and reselling should have resulted in permanent bans, imo. I'm assuming it didn't because it is still happening? Unreal.

Anyway, I have to go do 4 hours of game work now to make sure we have enough gold this week #infinitescream

therift · July 2019

dvonpm wrote: »

I don't even know how people even still play on PS4, tbh. Guild trader ganking and reselling should have resulted in permanent bans, imo. I'm assuming it didn't because it is still happening? Unreal.

It is a headache in some ways (we must charge dues and run bookkeeping daily), but for the most part, PS4NA appears to be much the same as PC/Mac, judging from PC player Forum posts.

We worry every week about competing bids. We worry about fundraising. We have occasional issues with snipe bids, but these are rarely successful. I identify 'snipe bid' as a bid from a competing guild that normally wins a similar-tier kiosk but suddenly wins our preferred kiosk... and I hear from the grapevine than was done for spite.

Fortunately, ZoS condoned reselling kiosks through Update 22. Whether you approve of kiosk reselling or not, the ability to buy one in an emergency was a relief.

After running the new bidding rules through my Trader's Dilemma game theory matrix a few times this past week, we've worked out a solid strategy for weeks 1-3 after Update 23 goes live. It involves more cash, of course, there was no way around that and remain a competitive guild. But it appears a new equilibrium will reached at an X% higher level of fundraising and bids.

I'm kind of curious to see if my forecast for X pans out.

Dusk_Coven · July 2019

dvonpm wrote: »

Sidenote - Mostly I just find myself super irritated that they purposely introduce more instability while knowing this is already a barely manageble unpaid part time job for their CUSTOMERS, for which we also must rely on modders to make tolerable. And now they just want us to do more effing work >.>

This is just one of the reasons I'd vote for a global trading house (no, not AUCTION like NWO, more like GTN in SWTOR or market board in FFXIV).
This is a GAME. Not a JOB.

Hell, we're not even sure what ZOS's objectives for the guild stores are. If it's a type of PvP minigame (i.e., guild versus guild), it's not a lot of fun.

DragonRacer · July 2019

Question from a console pleeb on the outside looking in, for those who have tested this multi-bid system so far.

I know currently when you place your one bid on live, it's stuck on the trader you selected. If you have enough gold in the bank, you can go increase your bid if you'd like. And that's pretty much all you can do once it's set up until bid close.

With multi-bid, is it the same procedure? As in, once you place bids across 10 traders, you're done? Or is it possible to go take away a bid from a trader and place it on a different one (like if you changed your mind on location)?

I'm trying to help answer some questions on how to bid for a new trading guild just getting their feet wet (God help them on this timing). They asked if their bid could be moved, and I explained how it can't be currently. But that got me wondering if that's a thing or not with multi-bid.

If that question was already answered somewhere, thus making this post redundant, I apologize. There has been SO much discussion across multiple threads on this issue that many of them are blurring together for me at this point.

reoskit · July 2019

@DragonRacer - I saw no option to retract a bid.

DragonRacer · July 2019

reoskit wrote: »

@DragonRacer - I saw no option to retract a bid.

Good to know, thank you!

JHartEllis · July 2019

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_PhilipDraven

Is there any reason the number of bids is set to 10 instead of 3 or 5 or 8 or 20? Most everyone thinks 10 is too high, and it seems unreasonable when no reason has been given. Similar to dev comments on balance changes, some notes on thought process would be appreciated.

OsManiaC · July 2019

I just cannot believe with all these responses you still go with this...

Please "never" again say "we listen community" in streams.

reoskit · July 2019

OsManiaC wrote: »

I just cannot believe with all these responses you still go with this...

QFT.

Dusk_Coven · July 2019

OsManiaC wrote: »

I just cannot believe with all these responses you still go with this...
Please "never" again say "we listen community" in streams.

Oh I'm sure they listen to us.
But I'm also sure they have hidden objectives around Guild Stores. These objectives would probably help us understand the changes better but they are also probably objectives we wouldn't like to hear. Therefore they're not gonna open a can of worms by telling us.

Like, what if they are meant to increase the gold sink by making guilds worried and therefore overbid.
Or limit the transfer of wealth via Guild Kiosks by deliberately limiting access to the wider market by more Kiosks or implementing a global market board?
Or it's some convoluted scheme to prevent RMT from listing million-gold trash transactions to transfer gold, because if all guild stores are under guild master oversight, they'd catch that nonsense right away and report.

We could speculate all we want but it's all speculation unless they tell us. And I don't think we're gonna like what we hear if they did tell us. So I wouldn't blame them for not exposing themselves to even more fire over this.

Grimm13 · August 2019

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

OsManiaC wrote: »

I just cannot believe with all these responses you still go with this...
Please "never" again say "we listen community" in streams.

Oh I'm sure they listen to us.
But I'm also sure they have hidden objectives around Guild Stores. These objectives would probably help us understand the changes better but they are also probably objectives we wouldn't like to hear. Therefore they're not gonna open a can of worms by telling us.

Like, what if they are meant to increase the gold sink by making guilds worried and therefore overbid.
Or limit the transfer of wealth via Guild Kiosks by deliberately limiting access to the wider market by more Kiosks or implementing a global market board?
Or it's some convoluted scheme to prevent RMT from listing million-gold trash transactions to transfer gold, because if all guild stores are under guild master oversight, they'd catch that nonsense right away and report.

We could speculate all we want but it's all speculation unless they tell us. And I don't think we're gonna like what we hear if they did tell us. So I wouldn't blame them for not exposing themselves to even more fire over this.

If they want to increase the gold sink in games then several of us have ideas that would keep more people happy. Thing is, ZOS is not opening a dialog as in a two way conversation Communication. They have not even given Guilds a sub forum to keep discussions from being buried under all the other complaints. The Crown Store has one, but no Guilds can not have one.

Again we are nothing but but mushrooms to ZOS.

Edited for error in intended wording.