Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Outside of the this CM's "fluff posts" the Dev response to ongoing issues is still non existent, they show no signs of listening to players, nor of even caring what players want.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »For example, if they said Light Attack Weaving was never intended? Hell it'd be the end of the world.
anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Thing is, ZOS is not opening a dialog as in a two way conversation.
- Why should they ? We're not game designers, we are players with the point of view of players (and only this point of view). They have many other constraints and points of view. Besides, I'm not even sure we know what's good for us as players in the long term.
- This "conversation" would not be "two ways", it would be multiways, or infinite-ways. What you described as "we" doesn't exist. Some people (that includes myself) have disagreed with you all over those threads, and the vast majority of GMs and trading players haven't even participated. There's no consensus on this issue - unlike what you try to make it sound.
- A proper conversation requires both sides listening to each other. You claim that they haven't listened to you... but have you listened to them... ? Really ... ?
anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »
I believe this will turn out for the better. they think it will turn out for the worst. So far so good - but the problem is, they don't "believe". They think they "know".
Knowing is like I can show something or tell possible outcomes with respects to know-how,, science, logic, math etc.
.../...
I know that, the guy who will try to take your craglorn spot and lose, will use his/her other 9 chances also in similar or the ones that is ok for its level. And this chain reaction will hit me hard in the end.. Thats why me and lots of people will plan to increase their bids, due to knowledge. They plan and act accordingly to this knowledge, not because of believing.
.../...
A hardcore trading GM has money to bid 10 similar or below places; craglorn, mournhold, alinor, rimmen, wayrest, grahtwood, morrowind. In same week. And he/she probably wins one of 10 in all cases. A troll / jumper guild sniped them which happens once in 6 weeks ? worry no more.
.../...
anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »So, if we took your stand, we would still be doing trader flip at 5:30AM and setting alarms just to do trader bids.
If we just stayed silent we would still have guild history and bids seen by all...
Has we just rolled over and not criticized or given our thoughts and feedback, MANY changes would not have happened.
We are not children who have to take whatever ZoS hands us without question.
Just to clarify : I was referring to the demand of having a two-way conversation.
It's more than OK to provide feedback, express disagreements with ZOS choices, criticize and make suggestions. ZOS may or may not take those into consideration.
But it's not okay (in my opinion) to expect, let alone demand a proper two-way conversation where each side explains and defends their arguments and reach some sort of compromise.
The only time a dev from ZOS held a proper "conversation" (basically, a chat, not a prepared Q&A with pre-filtered questions) was Rich, it lasted about half an hour before he started getting insulted and provoked, and we all know how it ended.
Even if we were all perfectly civil and polite (I think most of us in these threads are) : explaining is one thing, justifying is another. ZOS needs to explain (they did), but doesn't have to justify themselves.
And yes, we're the customers. Not the boss of them.
I'm not sure the current true bosses of ZOS make the best choices for the game, but I believe that if we, players, were the true boss of ZOS, the result would be worse (that's assuming we'd agree amongst ourselves).
But I digress. I just wanted to clarify that my remark was about a two-way-conversation, a debate. Not general feedback which is, of course, okay, even if negative.
(EDIT
NB1 : sorry english is not my native language and I'm not sure I use the 3rd person singular/plural properly when applied to ZOS/they...
NB2 : I like your "Huzzah" :-) May "borrow" it for some other forums, if you'll let me ;-) )
1. Indirect consequences are still consequences. In a blind bidding system, perception equals reality. If someone bidding has no way of knowing if hypothetical threats are real or not, the safest course is to assume that they are.anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »What I have seen so far on PC EU as a consequence of multi-bidding
1. Flat fees are being introduced in many guilds e.g 10k
2. Sales quotas are going up in some guilds
3. GMs thinking about stepping down and actually stepping down
4. Bickering between some GM's, as some are trying to avoid bidding against people and others are planning to spread bids
5. Big alliances are strategically planning
6. People have been leaving guilds
7. The priority is shifting towards income rather than community
Way to go Zos, what was already a high pressure environment has gotten even more salty.
1. That's not a consequence of multibidding (which is not even implemented on live yet). That's the consequence of what some GMs think multibidding will lead to, rightly or wrongly. My guild (a big Craglorn guild) hasn't introduced any fees.
2. Same as point 1. My guild (a big Craglorn guild) hasn't increased its (already fairly low) sales requirements.
3. Their call. Others will take over. Do I sound ungrateful ? I am not ungrateful. But new people will do the job too.
4. Always has been this way, nothing new under the sun.
5. Always has been this way, nothing new under the sun. Nothing wrong with that anyway.
6. Always has been this way, nothing new under the sun. New people will join. Not an issue.
7. In a trading guild, the communities are created around the common interest of making income. Both goals are linked and cannot "shift".
I believe these threads have gone quiet because we have finally come to acknowledge that our feedback is worthless to ZOS.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »I believe these threads have gone quiet because we have finally come to acknowledge that our feedback is worthless to ZOS.
Also they are TL;DR after the first page.
I think we should try for a Closing Arguments thread where we do NOT discuss each other's closing argument to ZOS as that would quickly inflate the thread into TL;DR and be a non-starter with devs.
Instead, try to get to your point concisely with reasoned arguments so ZOS can skim the data quickly one last time before the window for changes closes.
This thread is already 11 pages with a lot of back and forth. If (big IF?) they were paying attention, I don't think they'd want to wade through it anymore.
I'm not posting much anymore because instead of enjoying playing the game, I am farming my tail off every moment I can to try and build up extra coin for back-up bids. This is my life for the rest of this month.
VaranisArano wrote: »They've already officially announced Multi-bidding, 10 bids and all.
The die is cast, Rubicon crossed, and its going Live.
Dont_do_drugs wrote: »I'm not posting much anymore because instead of enjoying playing the game, I am farming my tail off every moment I can to try and build up extra coin for back-up bids. This is my life for the rest of this month.
If you're at this point, you should stop. This is nothing which will make u happy on the long run.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Remember when Summerset was being released? Zo$ invited 12 people to come and test it. PvP'rs, streamers, and casual players all went to ZoS Studios for a week to test and discuss with the devs. They have done this several times, invite people to the studio to test and discuss the game.
Well, there was a group of GM's that communicated with ZoS every month or so and I was just wanting to know what happened to them and if we could PLEASE have a roundtable with ZoS and GM's to discuss these Guild Changes.
(Multi bidding & Guild History).
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »And no, I'm am not going to beg and borrow from my guildies.
DragonRacer wrote: »I'm not posting much anymore because instead of enjoying playing the game, I am farming my tail off every moment I can to try and build up extra coin for back-up bids. This is my life for the rest of this month.
anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Remember when Summerset was being released? Zo$ invited 12 people to come and test it. PvP'rs, streamers, and casual players all went to ZoS Studios for a week to test and discuss with the devs. They have done this several times, invite people to the studio to test and discuss the game.
Well, there was a group of GM's that communicated with ZoS every month or so and I was just wanting to know what happened to them and if we could PLEASE have a roundtable with ZoS and GM's to discuss these Guild Changes.
(Multi bidding & Guild History).
If I remember correctly... some/most of the people who have been invited, this year or last year, weren't all too happy when they read the patch notes and wondered why they even bothered going... The Class Rep programme went through troubled waters... I remember clearly those meetings over TeamSpeak back in the days, but I don't know how they went nor why they were stopped. Obviously, even in such a restricted, organized and structured way, "two-way conversation" isn't that easy...
Also, regarding multibidding and trading guilds in general, I believe the starting points of view are far too divergent for a dialogue to lead anywhere - but I've explained that plenty already, let's not repeat and run around in circles.wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »And no, I'm am not going to beg and borrow from my guildies.
That really boggles me. Why ? It's not "begging", it's simply making it a collective effort instead of a single person's. And lending money for bids isn't even "work" nor "effort". Are you too shy, too proud, or want to concentrate the power in your hands only ? (Just thinking out loud here, I don't believe any of those 3 applies to you). Or maybe not enough truly trustworthy people in the guild (spies issues ?). Really, I don't get that. It's like if a PVE guild leader said he wants to beat a raid alone because it doesn't want 11 others to join him...DragonRacer wrote: »I'm not posting much anymore because instead of enjoying playing the game, I am farming my tail off every moment I can to try and build up extra coin for back-up bids. This is my life for the rest of this month.
I don't get that. Really. Why not make this a bit of a collective effort ? Besides, people are generally happier when helpîng and participating than with having to pay - even if it's the same gesture in the end...
anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »
I believe this will turn out for the better. they think it will turn out for the worst. So far so good - but the problem is, they don't "believe". They think they "know".
First of I totally understand your idea. And yes you are right if I put myself in your position, as I had to agree. But for my position things are different thats why I am like #1 in anti-multi bidding
For me, believe and knowledge is also different
Believing is like I cannot show evidence but I feel/hope that it will happen.
Knowing is like I can show something or tell possible outcomes with respects to know-how,, science, logic, math etc.
so, I wish I can say I believe/hope things will be better.
But I cannot.
I know that, the guy who will try to take your craglorn spot and lose, will use his/her other 9 chances also in similar or the ones that is ok for its level. And this chain reaction will hit me hard in the end.. Thats why me and lots of people will plan to increase their bids, due to knowledge. They plan and act accordingly to this knowledge, not because of believing.
A hardcore trading GM has money to bid 10 similar or below places; craglorn, mournhold, alinor, rimmen, wayrest, grahtwood, morrowind. In same week. And he/she probably wins one of 10 in all cases. A troll / jumper guild sniped them which happens once in 6 weeks ? worry no more.
A casual trading GM has no money to bid 10 similar or below places, and now he or she has more competitors ( losers) for their spot. He/she cannot fight every week against these losers.
I may be in X spot for months. but after update 23 I know I cannot.
I don't know if it is really African or not, but it suits here.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Thing is, ZOS is not opening a dialog as in a two way conversation.
- Why should they ? We're not game designers, we are players with the point of view of players (and only this point of view). They have many other constraints and points of view. Besides, I'm not even sure we know what's good for us as players in the long term.
- This "conversation" would not be "two ways", it would be multiways, or infinite-ways. What you described as "we" doesn't exist. Some people (that includes myself) have disagreed with you all over those threads, and the vast majority of GMs and trading players haven't even participated. There's no consensus on this issue - unlike what you try to make it sound.
- A proper conversation requires both sides listening to each other. You claim that they haven't listened to you... but have you listened to them... ? Really ... ?
So, if we took your stand, we would still be doing trader flip at 5:30AM and setting alarms just to do trader bids.
If we just stayed silent we would still have guild history and bids seen by all...
Has we just rolled over and not criticized or given our thoughts and feedback, MANY changes would not have happened.
We are not children who have to take whatever ZoS hands us without question. We are the consumers. They are the company who is dependent on consumers, i.e. "us". ( I myself have 9k+hrs ingame and subbed every month since early launch. My thousands of dollars spent say I can voice my opinion.) And when SO many consumers agree on a point, i.e. multi-bidding is bad, then Zo$ should listen.
Not sure the GM's you have consulted with, but the GM's I have talked to (Mournhold, Rawhl, etc), are concerned and only one have I found like the change. (They have a very small fishing guild and have a hard time keeping a kiosk).
Bethesda and Zeni were always about communicating and listening to it's players all the way back to TES1:Arena. (Akatosh was names after a forum poster).
There once was a group of GM's that got together with the Dev's once a month or so, which is where a lot of changes became reality in first years of ESO. So yes, our voice is necessary and should be heard.
We understand you like the change, thats ok, but don't look down on the majority who voice their opinion or ask us to be silent on this matter. Will Zo$ listen? maybe, maybe not, but it is our right and obligation to tell them what we think anyway..
And they should open a discussion with us about it as @Grimm13 suggested.
My 2 Drakes..... Huzzah!!
P.S. Zos, this is a bad idea.....
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Can we talk about Guild History bugs and changes? Not sure the add on but my history is blank!!! Luckily I have kept up to date on it up to today.
wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Well, it went live...
50+ pages of feed back over multiple threads. One response....
Thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for that one response.
Yup, lost our trader which is in a town but not a main hub. Cost- 250k-350k a week avg. Lost to a bid over 650k.
Small guilds now have no chance if they don't have a GIANT amount of gold in their coffers.
Thanks for listening ZoS! You make us feel special!! (sarcasm intended).
[/b][/i]
Dusk_Coven wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Well, it went live...
50+ pages of feed back over multiple threads. One response....
Thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for that one response.
Yup, lost our trader which is in a town but not a main hub. Cost- 250k-350k a week avg. Lost to a bid over 650k.
Small guilds now have no chance if they don't have a GIANT amount of gold in their coffers.
Thanks for listening ZoS! You make us feel special!! (sarcasm intended).
[/b][/i]
I'd still like to see ZOS devs do guild kiosk bidding in the live system so they can have a real sense of what goes on in each platform.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Well, it went live...
50+ pages of feed back over multiple threads. One response....
Thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for that one response.
Yup, lost our trader which is in a town but not a main hub. Cost- 250k-350k a week avg. Lost to a bid over 650k.
Small guilds now have no chance if they don't have a GIANT amount of gold in their coffers.
Thanks for listening ZoS! You make us feel special!! (sarcasm intended).
[/b][/i]
I'd still like to see ZOS devs do guild kiosk bidding in the live system so they can have a real sense of what goes on in each platform.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Well, it went live...
50+ pages of feed back over multiple threads. One response....
Thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for that one response.
Yup, lost our trader which is in a town but not a main hub. Cost- 250k-350k a week avg. Lost to a bid over 650k.
Small guilds now have no chance if they don't have a GIANT amount of gold in their coffers.
Thanks for listening ZoS! You make us feel special!! (sarcasm intended).
[/b][/i]
I'd still like to see ZOS devs do guild kiosk bidding in the live system so they can have a real sense of what goes on in each platform.
And use legitimate means to come up with all the gold required to keep a guild afloat, if you please.
Dusk_Coven wrote: »Dusk_Coven wrote: »wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »Well, it went live...
50+ pages of feed back over multiple threads. One response....
Thank you @ZOS_PhilipDraven for that one response.
Yup, lost our trader which is in a town but not a main hub. Cost- 250k-350k a week avg. Lost to a bid over 650k.
Small guilds now have no chance if they don't have a GIANT amount of gold in their coffers.
Thanks for listening ZoS! You make us feel special!! (sarcasm intended).
[/b][/i]
I'd still like to see ZOS devs do guild kiosk bidding in the live system so they can have a real sense of what goes on in each platform.
And use legitimate means to come up with all the gold required to keep a guild afloat, if you please.
When I made the suggestion, I didn't mean it as a sarcastic or spiteful challenge to ZOS. It meant it genuinely.
And it's totally feasible, IF we have some guilds willing to "take one for the team" and turn over control of bidding to the devs for about a month.
They would let their assigned dev know their previous bidding behavior, and strictly follow instructions.
Then win or lose, they'd update the dev on what their guild experienced -- roster changes, methods to raise gold to support the next bidding objective, etcetera. Basically, they would only react to the bid outcome but not decide on how to bid at all.
So in this way you have LIVE server insight with real guilds undergoing realistic consequences and taking realistic responses.
[removing Gina ping]
The issue on the whole is so, sooo much bigger than the technical mechanics of bidding. Unless you're putting in the work behind generating funds, I don't think you're getting the whole experience.
Again, perhaps I'm just not understanding the objective of the experiment.