Solo players are not going to have access to trials and other content either. The trading system is as much a part of the game as PvP or trials. If a player chooses not to participate that is on them.
On this point only, worth pointing out that this is a false equivalence because trials are a stand alone feature of the game. The player economy, meanwhile, plugs in to other features of the game and some of them in essence depend on it to be usable. While some people treat it as a gameplay component, it is in no way equivalent to, say, a chapter or a dungeon (or, yes, a trial). It is also a back end system.
Correct to a point but my premise still stands. The player is making a conscious decision not to participate. You can join a trade guild that has zero requirements and play solo if you wish. You do not have to interreact with guild mates in any way. I see no reason to change a system that works well and is considered by many to be one of the best features of the game because others do not want to participate in even the most miniscule of ways.
As I said above, casting judgment on people who play differently from you as if one type of player is a superior being to the other gets this debate absolutely nowhere (you just invite similar sentiments back, most especially because we are talking here about how a video game -- a toy -- is set up). The fact is, those players exist and to them -- they are also "many" -- the trading system is considered one of the *worst* features of the game.
They have different views on what constitutes a worthwhile experience to yours. And yes, you can dismiss their views, but that is not argument and that is not discussion. That is just saying "my view is better than yours".
Solo players are not going to have access to trials and other content either. The trading system is as much a part of the game as PvP or trials. If a player chooses not to participate that is on them.
On this point only, worth pointing out that this is a false equivalence because trials are a stand alone feature of the game. The player economy, meanwhile, plugs in to other features of the game and some of them in essence depend on it to be usable. While some people treat it as a gameplay component, it is in no way equivalent to, say, a chapter or a dungeon (or, yes, a trial). It is also a back end system.
Correct to a point but my premise still stands. The player is making a conscious decision not to participate. You can join a trade guild that has zero requirements and play solo if you wish. You do not have to interreact with guild mates in any way. I see no reason to change a system that works well and is considered by many to be one of the best features of the game because others do not want to participate in even the most miniscule of ways.
As I said above, casting judgment on people who play differently from you as if one type of player is a superior being to the other gets this debate absolutely nowhere (you just invite similar sentiments back, most especially because we are talking here about how a video game -- a toy -- is set up). The fact is, those players exist and to them -- they are also "many" -- the trading system is considered one of the *worst* features of the game.
They have different views on what constitutes a worthwhile experience to yours. And yes, you can dismiss their views, but that is not argument and that is not discussion. That is just saying "my view is better than yours".
I am not casting judgement. I am pointing out the consequences of having a certain play style. Nowhere have I ever said one type of game play is better or worse than another. We all can decide for ourselves in what part of the game we wish to participate. I miss out on part of the game because of choices I make. I wouldn't ask for others to have to change because of my choices.
The way the market works now there is a variety of levels in which players can participate. If the current system were broken then I could see some of the major changes requested. The system is not broken so a complete overhaul is not needed. Not wanting to participate is not reason to change a major feature of the game.
I also pointed out those that only want to play solo can find a guild with a trader that allows them that play style.
I honestly don't see the issue.
I've played the game since day one release on Xbox. Outside of a couple of things (like days swapping etc), it's worked pretty well.
I've easily made 50m on EU, while spending most of that time in PvP.
I started on NA about 9 months ago, and I've comfortably made 6m in that time.
All of this is with minimal time invested in trading.
Xbox EU has no fees at all. No guild charges them. NA has 10k usually. Which is peanuts. And that's mainly in Mournhold and Elden Root. Most others are free.
There are plenty of people that enjoy the role of running these guilds too. Some I know play the game FOR that.
Yes, buying was really annoying at one time. With the new filters and recent searches being saved, it's nowhere near as bad anymore.
Ultimately, it's not going to change. Auction houses have their own problem too. Price fixing on 6 megaservers would be rife. You can still do it now, but it takes a lot more effort, which is good.
warlordangel wrote: »Changes happen all the time. How many things that have come about in the game were at the insistence that there simply be a change?
The siege equipment I never buy or use because I avoid pvp/Cyrodiil like its weaponized plague?
If you tried to exchange tel var and ap for gold you'd run into issues of pvpers not happy with pvers like me getting pvp items, assuming once the exchange was made the buyer could do what they wanted with the tel var and ap.
The pvpers are quite vocal about the possibility of ever getting a pve version of Cyrodiil because pve shouldn't have access to pvp stuff without actual pvp being involved. I imagine being able to buy pvp stuff would prove equally rant inducing.
warlordangel wrote: »
Solo players are not going to have access to trials and other content either. The trading system is as much a part of the game as PvP or trials. If a player chooses not to participate that is on them.
On this point only, worth pointing out that this is a false equivalence because trials are a stand alone feature of the game. The player economy, meanwhile, plugs in to other features of the game and some of them in essence depend on it to be usable. While some people treat it as a gameplay component, it is in no way equivalent to, say, a chapter or a dungeon (or, yes, a trial). It is also a back end system.
Correct to a point but my premise still stands. The player is making a conscious decision not to participate. You can join a trade guild that has zero requirements and play solo if you wish. You do not have to interreact with guild mates in any way. I see no reason to change a system that works well and is considered by many to be one of the best features of the game because others do not want to participate in even the most miniscule of ways.
As I said above, casting judgment on people who play differently from you as if one type of player is a superior being to the other gets this debate absolutely nowhere (you just invite similar sentiments back, most especially because we are talking here about how a video game -- a toy -- is set up). The fact is, those players exist and to them -- they are also "many" -- the trading system is considered one of the *worst* features of the game.
They have different views on what constitutes a worthwhile experience to yours. And yes, you can dismiss their views, but that is not argument and that is not discussion. That is just saying "my view is better than yours".
I am not casting judgement. I am pointing out the consequences of having a certain play style. Nowhere have I ever said one type of game play is better or worse than another. We all can decide for ourselves in what part of the game we wish to participate. I miss out on part of the game because of choices I make. I wouldn't ask for others to have to change because of my choices.
The way the market works now there is a variety of levels in which players can participate. If the current system were broken then I could see some of the major changes requested. The system is not broken so a complete overhaul is not needed. Not wanting to participate is not reason to change a major feature of the game.
I also pointed out those that only want to play solo can find a guild with a trader that allows them that play style.
Was the vertern system broken? Were set bonuses broken before new sets came out? Was keeping Craglorn for veteran players a broken concept? Was keeping crafting materials zone specific broken? Was 2 handed weapons broken? Was the Champion Points System broken?
Changes happen all the time. How many things that have come about in the game were at the insistence that there simply be a change? Not wanting to participate because of the major feature IS the actual reason for change, that is actually the reason why these changes actually happen.
warlordangel wrote: »So the first what if gold was the only currency? Tel Var and Alliance points were taken out with AP being experience to level up in the alliance. I propose this because siege equipment is constantly in need of replacement and very usable. Also in both instances there are vendors that sell boxes with random loot of random traits. I think this has the potential of relating to the issue of the gold sink. However, I don't know how pvpers would feel about or if it would have a great affect on those elements of the game. I mean I always thought pvpers were there because that was their thing.
The other idea I had was an exchange rate. If we kept tel var and AP around, what about a one-way exchange of gold for alliance points and/or tel var. The exchange could be quite high, several games do something similar and the exchange rate is kinda one-sided. This may very well be a good gold sink idea. It would also include people who are not too keen on pvp related content to access pvp rewards.
We can also combine this with my earlier mention idea of commodity bidding. Did anyone read that one? Would anyone like me to repost that so it can be easier seen?
warlordangel wrote: »So the first what if gold was the only currency? Tel Var and Alliance points were taken out with AP being experience to level up in the alliance. I propose this because siege equipment is constantly in need of replacement and very usable. Also in both instances there are vendors that sell boxes with random loot of random traits. I think this has the potential of relating to the issue of the gold sink. However, I don't know how pvpers would feel about or if it would have a great affect on those elements of the game. I mean I always thought pvpers were there because that was their thing.
The other idea I had was an exchange rate. If we kept tel var and AP around, what about a one-way exchange of gold for alliance points and/or tel var. The exchange could be quite high, several games do something similar and the exchange rate is kinda one-sided. This may very well be a good gold sink idea. It would also include people who are not too keen on pvp related content to access pvp rewards.
We can also combine this with my earlier mention idea of commodity bidding. Did anyone read that one? Would anyone like me to repost that so it can be easier seen?
What problem are you trying to solve now? Your original post started with how much time you had to spend on farming to pay your dues and stay in a trading guild. Then it pivoted to how hard it must be for guild leaders to keep up trader bids week after week. Now this seems to be about introducing a new gold sink to counteract inflation? What does this have to do with a central trading hub vs. decentralized guild traders?
If I understand your concept of "commodity bidding" correctly, you essentially propose a brokerage system. Buyers and sellers place their bids and asks on a central platform and if there is a match, the platform executes the trade. The advantage is that both buyers and sellers can create listings, the trade is automated, and you can have high price transparency - basically how the stock market works.
Interesting concept, but still a centralized system that comes with some disadvantages, incl. easier manipulation. Also, you still haven't explained why guild traders need to be replaced, when joining a casual guild and some quality-of-life improvements could address the problems stated in your original post.
warlordangel wrote: »So the first what if gold was the only currency? Tel Var and Alliance points were taken out with AP being experience to level up in the alliance. I propose this because siege equipment is constantly in need of replacement and very usable. Also in both instances there are vendors that sell boxes with random loot of random traits. I think this has the potential of relating to the issue of the gold sink. However, I don't know how pvpers would feel about or if it would have a great affect on those elements of the game. I mean I always thought pvpers were there because that was their thing.
The other idea I had was an exchange rate. If we kept tel var and AP around, what about a one-way exchange of gold for alliance points and/or tel var. The exchange could be quite high, several games do something similar and the exchange rate is kinda one-sided. This may very well be a good gold sink idea. It would also include people who are not too keen on pvp related content to access pvp rewards.
We can also combine this with my earlier mention idea of commodity bidding. Did anyone read that one? Would anyone like me to repost that so it can be easier seen?
What problem are you trying to solve now? Your original post started with how much time you had to spend on farming to pay your dues and stay in a trading guild. Then it pivoted to how hard it must be for guild leaders to keep up trader bids week after week. Now this seems to be about introducing a new gold sink to counteract inflation? What does this have to do with a central trading hub vs. decentralized guild traders?
If I understand your concept of "commodity bidding" correctly, you essentially propose a brokerage system. Buyers and sellers place their bids and asks on a central platform and if there is a match, the platform executes the trade. The advantage is that both buyers and sellers can create listings, the trade is automated, and you can have high price transparency - basically how the stock market works.
Interesting concept, but still a centralized system that comes with some disadvantages, incl. easier manipulation. Also, you still haven't explained why guild traders need to be replaced, when joining a casual guild and some quality-of-life improvements could address the problems stated in your original post.
To be fair the game was still in its infancy so some of those early problems might have worked themselves out. I'm thinking if ESO tried to switch to a similar system now it would be an absolute disaster. If it were here from the beginning maybe it would be workable? With the vastness of the economy now and how much gold is involved putting everything in one spot would create problems beyond what games with similar systems experience.
To be fair the game was still in its infancy so some of those early problems might have worked themselves out. I'm thinking if ESO tried to switch to a similar system now it would be an absolute disaster. If it were here from the beginning maybe it would be workable? With the vastness of the economy now and how much gold is involved putting everything in one spot would create problems beyond what games with similar systems experience.
I think this sums it up quite well. If we were in the design phase of the trading system, you could still go for either a central or decentralized model and there wouldn't be a right or wrong answer - although I think ESO's megaserver structure still puts some limitations on a fully centralized option.
But at this point, OP is rightfully speaking about addressing "concerns involving the change". Imagine the disruption and uproar when dismantling a mature system that has 200+ guilds per megaserver, each with up to 500 members (incl. overlaps, as many people are in multiple trading guilds). It would be like turning Cyrodiil a new PVE area and ignoring the concerns of the PVP community...
Eclipse318 wrote: »I just want a LOT more guild traders so that small guilds have a prayer of getting one for a non-ridiculous amount. I don't understand what the benefit is to anybody to have this artificial scarcity of guild traders.
I'd rather spend my time actually enjoying the game than grinding through crafting dailies on multiple characters for the gold mat drops to sell to then run around and throw handfuls of cash at traders blindly. It sucks, especially for guildmasters. I can't figure out any actual reason for it either.
Agree with the OP and I quit the game because of it. It approaches impossible to participate in solo activities like housing that connect with the game economy without having any sensible, non-guild mechanism to sell stuff. If you are a solo player, you are not going to welcome having to spend endless time dealing with guild crap and tantrums just to be able to furnish your house. That is not entertainment.
But remember that on these forums people who want the game to stay exactly the way it is and who think that anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way as them is lazy are, er, quite prevalent.
PS Traditionally at some point someone will say "oh no not another auction house thread." Maybe, just maybe, the reason this topic comes up so much is that a lot -- A LOT -- of people really don't like the current system and see this as a fundamental problem with ESO's design.
Indeed, it feels completely incompatible with the supposed ESO ethos that the game can be played any way you like. In what sense? Any way you like as long as you like searching for, applying for and finally being accepted into a guild, checking in more than weekly, making sure you're paying the dues, and faffing around on the next login doing the precise opposite of what you wanted to be doing because your guild kicked you? Riiight...
NettleCarrier wrote: »Half my gameplay is playing market simulator, and it only really works because of the way trade is designed in this game. I love it! I've played auction house MMOs for years and while buying was easier there, selling was shallow and didn't have much strategy to it. If they took this away from ESO then I might just stop playing.
NettleCarrier wrote: »Half my gameplay is playing market simulator, and it only really works because of the way trade is designed in this game. I love it! I've played auction house MMOs for years and while buying was easier there, selling was shallow and didn't have much strategy to it. If they took this away from ESO then I might just stop playing.