Proposal for Improving ESO’s Trading System

Furyous · December 5

Proposal for Improving ESO’s Trading System

This proposal is based on discussion and feedback from two forum threads:

Poll results show a mix of opinions:

Positive (34%) – System is fine, enjoy the hunt and guild dynamics.
Negative (50%) – Want a global trader like other MMOs (24%), too much running around/blind bidding/reliance on add-ons (15%), small guilds and casual players can’t realistically participate (11%).
Neutral (13%) – Clunky but manageable (11%), don’t trade enough for it to matter (2%).

Proposal: Two-Part System

Keep the current system for players who enjoy strategic bidding, guild competition, and lower listing costs.
Add a global trader that charges higher listing fees but does not require bidding.
- Casual players and smaller guilds can list conveniently without joining larger guilds.
- If the current system is truly superior and costs less, guilds using it will still compete successfully against the higher-cost global trader.

This solution preserves choice, maintains the value of the existing system, and makes trading accessible to a broader range of players.

TL;DR: You get the best of both worlds: keep the thrill of the hunt and guild strategy, while giving casuals and small guilds a fair shot at selling their loot without begging for a spot in a trading-guild.

JavaRen · December 5

If you do a bit more research you can find quotes from devs saying they have no interest, desire or plans to implement a global marketplace, so good luck.

Radiate77 · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

I’d rather not encourage our devs to artificially push loot scarcity on us to breathe life into a system we don’t need.

Faltasë · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

Its worth a shot

Furyous · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

I’d rather not encourage our devs to artificially push loot scarcity on us to breathe life into a system we don’t need.

Funny, the source threads (that I linked in the original post) actually tell a different story:

robpr wrote: »

It's fine as it is.
Going fully centralized would destroy only true gold sink in the game and skyrocket inflation instantly. Official search site would be nice if Path of Exile could do it then ESO could too. Best if you could do it within the game for a small gold fee so we would control the gold sink a little bit more.

Suck for the buyer, yes, but I think its healthy for the game's economy in the long run. What I would change is to simply add more trader spots in lesser map settlements and move those absolutely in middle of nowhere that nobody without an addon even thinks to visit on their own.

It seems like these “prices will tank” or “prices will skyrocket” arguments are more fear of change than reality. I actually went through the threads, gathered data, ran a poll, and weighed the options. The two-part system I’m proposing is a compromise that addresses concerns from both sides while keeping the economy intact.

Radiate77 · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

Furyous wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

I’d rather not encourage our devs to artificially push loot scarcity on us to breathe life into a system we don’t need.

Funny, the source threads (that I linked in the original post) actually tell a different story:

robpr wrote: »

It's fine as it is.
Going fully centralized would destroy only true gold sink in the game and skyrocket inflation instantly. Official search site would be nice if Path of Exile could do it then ESO could too. Best if you could do it within the game for a small gold fee so we would control the gold sink a little bit more.

Suck for the buyer, yes, but I think its healthy for the game's economy in the long run. What I would change is to simply add more trader spots in lesser map settlements and move those absolutely in middle of nowhere that nobody without an addon even thinks to visit on their own.

It seems like these “prices will tank” or “prices will skyrocket” arguments are more fear of change than reality. I actually went through the threads, gathered data, ran a poll, and weighed the options. The two-part system I’m proposing is a compromise that addresses concerns from both sides while keeping the economy intact.

Did you read only half of what I wrote?
Here’s the other half for you.

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

“except for the rarest items”

Prices will plummet on everything desirable that is easily sourced, but the items that aren’t, will skyrocket.

Furyous · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

Radiate77 wrote: »

Furyous wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

I’d rather not encourage our devs to artificially push loot scarcity on us to breathe life into a system we don’t need.

Funny, the source threads (that I linked in the original post) actually tell a different story:

robpr wrote: »

It's fine as it is.
Going fully centralized would destroy only true gold sink in the game and skyrocket inflation instantly. Official search site would be nice if Path of Exile could do it then ESO could too. Best if you could do it within the game for a small gold fee so we would control the gold sink a little bit more.

Suck for the buyer, yes, but I think its healthy for the game's economy in the long run. What I would change is to simply add more trader spots in lesser map settlements and move those absolutely in middle of nowhere that nobody without an addon even thinks to visit on their own.

It seems like these “prices will tank” or “prices will skyrocket” arguments are more fear of change than reality. I actually went through the threads, gathered data, ran a poll, and weighed the options. The two-part system I’m proposing is a compromise that addresses concerns from both sides while keeping the economy intact.

Did you read only half of what I wrote?
Here’s the other half for you.

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

“except for the rarest items”

Prices will plummet on everything desirable that is easily sourced, but the items that aren’t, will skyrocket.

I’m growing weary of the constant hyperbole. Every suggestion to improve a clearly flawed system is met with cries that prices will tank or inflation will explode or some other "the sky is falling" claim.

Did you miss my point that the global trader would cost more? The higher listing fees naturally regulate participation and prevent market collapse.

This proposal is not meant to be the end-all solution. It is a set of suggestions intended to prompt thought on how to improve a broken system that currently only works because third-party add-ons carry the burden.

The two-part system preserves guild traders, maintains the economy, and gives smaller guilds and casual players a fair path to participate.

Radiate77 · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

Furyous wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Furyous wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

I’d rather not encourage our devs to artificially push loot scarcity on us to breathe life into a system we don’t need.

Funny, the source threads (that I linked in the original post) actually tell a different story:

robpr wrote: »

It's fine as it is.
Going fully centralized would destroy only true gold sink in the game and skyrocket inflation instantly. Official search site would be nice if Path of Exile could do it then ESO could too. Best if you could do it within the game for a small gold fee so we would control the gold sink a little bit more.

Suck for the buyer, yes, but I think its healthy for the game's economy in the long run. What I would change is to simply add more trader spots in lesser map settlements and move those absolutely in middle of nowhere that nobody without an addon even thinks to visit on their own.

It seems like these “prices will tank” or “prices will skyrocket” arguments are more fear of change than reality. I actually went through the threads, gathered data, ran a poll, and weighed the options. The two-part system I’m proposing is a compromise that addresses concerns from both sides while keeping the economy intact.

Did you read only half of what I wrote?
Here’s the other half for you.

Radiate77 wrote: »

I don’t see how Guild Traders survive with an Auction House.

In games with an Auction House, people viciously undercut others, and prices tank, except for the rarest items. This happened at a much lesser degree with Guild Traders, before Add-Ons told people how to price their gear.

“except for the rarest items”

Prices will plummet on everything desirable that is easily sourced, but the items that aren’t, will skyrocket.

I’m growing weary of the constant hyperbole. Every suggestion to improve a clearly flawed system is met with cries that prices will tank or inflation will explode or some other "the sky is falling" claim.

Did you miss my point that the global trader would cost more? The higher listing fees naturally regulate participation and prevent market collapse.

This proposal is not meant to be the end-all solution. It is a set of suggestions intended to prompt thought on how to improve a broken system that currently only works because third-party add-ons carry the burden.

The two-part system preserves guild traders, maintains the economy, and gives smaller guilds and casual players a fair path to participate.

Are you trying to have a conversation or to tell us why your opinion is right and none of our opinions matter? Conversation involves listening or in this case, reading. And in good faith, not trying to pick apart posts for individual half sentences that fit the narrative you’re trying to push.

I’m learning a lot about who you are as a forum poster through these past few threads of yours.

Thank you.

Northwold · December 5

Not sure how I feel about having two systems with completely different mechanics running side by side. It feels like it might end up splitting the economy into having two different mechanics on the selling side or just make the whole experience a bit, I don't know, split personality.

But I do think something REALLY needs to be done about the selling gate (that you can't sell effectively except by joining a guild -- and many players choose simply not to sell at all instead). This is a real issue in terms of leaving a whole set of players less plugged into the game.

As I mentioned in one of your own threads there have been a number of solutions proposed by various posters over the years that look for more of a compromise than literally two wholly different systems, whether on the selling gate side or on the lack of a more centralised search, but try to preserve the overall shopping / bargain hunt "feel" of the experience.

One I've talked about a lot is having some form of "pauper traders" -- traders just like the guild traders but open to selling by all with higher taxes. I think the last time I described this was here but can't remember: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/674610/guild-traders-keeping-the-system-but-finding-a-compromise/p1

But I'm all for continued discussion of changes to the trading system, whatever form they take. I really don't think it's good for the game overall as things stand and I simply can't fathom the resistance to any attempt to resolve issues like the selling gate.

Trading is a standard and important MMO system that supports other gameplay activities. The way ESO's trading system is designed really does seem to bury its head in the sand and pretend that trading is a minigame, like Tales of Tribute. And for some it is. For many, many others, though, no, it's *just trading*; it needs to be the easy to use lubricant for other activities that people actually enjoy. And the gating of it, the minigame aspect of, for people of that view, is quite exceptionally irritating and gets in the way of actually playing the wider MMO.

Radiate77 · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

Northwold wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about having two systems with completely different mechanics running side by side. It feels like it might end up splitting the economy into having two different mechanics on the selling side or just make the whole experience a bit, I don't know, split personality.

But I do think something REALLY needs to be done about the selling gate (that you can't sell effectively except by joining a guild -- and many players choose simply not to sell at all instead). This is a real issue in terms of leaving a whole set of players less plugged into the game.

As I mentioned in one of your own threads there have been a number of solutions proposed by various posters over the years that look for more of a compromise than literally two wholly different systems, whether on the selling gate side or on the lack of a more centralised search, but try to preserve the overall shopping / bargain hunt "feel" of the experience.

One I've talked about a lot is having some form of "pauper traders" -- traders just like the guild traders but open to selling by all with higher taxes. I think the last time I described this was here but can't remember: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/674610/guild-traders-keeping-the-system-but-finding-a-compromise/p1

But I'm all for continued discussion of changes to the trading system, whatever form they take. I really don't think it's good for the game overall as things stand and I simply can't fathom the resistance to any attempt to resolve issues like the selling gate. Trading is a standard and important MMO system that supports other gameplay activities. The way ESO's trading system is designed really does seem to bury its head in the sand and pretend that trading is a minigame, like Tales of Tribute. And for some it is. For many, many others, though, no, it's *just trading*, and the gating of it, the minigame aspect of it is quite exceptionally irritating.

I’ve been playing a lot of Warframe lately, and they have a Chat Channel dedicated to Trading, where people list what they’re selling, or what they’re buying, and it doesn’t detract from the game whatsoever.

You can also post up at a social hub and flag as a trader and others will walk around and trade.

Both would be better than an Auction House. 😂

manukartofanu · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

As a guild master, I can say that adding some kind of universal meta-trader will completely destroy all trading communities, except for the very smallest ones that cost next to nothing to maintain.
Not because the system is better, but because there will be absolutely no reason to compete for trading spots.

Right now, guilds are funded by guild masters or a small council, and enormous amounts of gold are being spent on them.
As soon as goods can be sold bypassing guilds, they will simply be shut down by the guild masters and guild councils, because there will no longer be any point in financing them.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad for the game or for players — maybe it isn’t.
But you will definitely lose trading communities, the idea of coming together for a common purpose, teaching newcomers so the guild can survive, and other similar activities will lose their meaning.

ESO_player123 · December 5

I'm one of those players that are not in any guild, so I can only sell in zone chat. I do so very rarely and only sell furnishing plans. If any change is implemented, I would prefer it to be a "list and forget" system (like current guild traders or a grand exchange) . I'm not a fan of posting my wares in chat and then waiting/sifting through it for replies.

JeroenB · December 5

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

I agree with Northwold. The current system works adequately enough for those who enjoy the trading mini-game (as part of a player trading guild). The interesting discussion would be what change or addition could be made to engage the players who do not want to spend time on the trading mini-game, or who do not want to join a player trading guild to do so.

I have no idea what the real numbers are, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if more than half of the playerbase are not in a trading guild and just vendor or destroy everything they find. That's not just a waste of a gameplay feature for those players, but also an impoverishment of the scale of goods available in the wider player economy.

I've seen proposed solutions which would address one of those -- the trading-mini-game or the guild membership -- but I do not recall seeing a proposed solution before that would address both.

Northwold · December 5

JeroenB wrote: »

I agree with Northwold. The current system works adequately enough for those who enjoy the trading mini-game (as part of a player trading guild). The interesting discussion would be what change or addition could be made to engage the players who do not want to spend time on the trading mini-game, or who do not want to join a player trading guild to do so.

I have no idea what the real numbers are, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if more than half of the playerbase are not in a trading guild and just vendor or destroy everything they find. That's not just a waste of a gameplay feature for those players, but also an impoverishment of the scale of goods available in the wider player economy.

I've seen proposed solutions which would address one of those -- the trading-mini-game or the guild membership -- but I do not recall seeing a proposed solution before that would address both.

One thing I've seen people suggest a lot on the search side has been some version of region by region searches, either with pricing information to tell you which trader to go to, no pricing, randomly picked trader pricing, etc. The traders themselves, in that vision, don't change in the sense that they're still physically distributed all over the place.

A fully centralised search with full price information would most likely wipe out the bargain hunting experience, but I suppose if people did want to go the centralised route you could do something like giving the price in a range (eg "you will find this item costing less than 1,000 gold in [X place, X region, or at C specific named trader, depending on how specific you want the information to be], you will find it costing 1,000-3,000 gold in.... Etc").

Theres a practical problem as I understand it on centralised (and presumably regional) searching regarding computing load but perhaps this could be resolved by not updating it in real time but eg every half hour or something.

LunaFlora · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

it seems okay.

The colours you are using to highlight parts of your post make some parts near impossible to read. For me the orange text especially.

it is a little ironic to propose something to make trading more accessible with a partially inaccessible post.

whitecrow · December 5

I don't mind separate traders but I just wish the game could offer a "suggested retail price" for items. Of course that would be intensive as it would have to scan all the traders.

Furyous · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

LunaFlora wrote: »

It seems okay.

The colours you are using to highlight parts of your post make some parts near impossible to read. For me the orange text especially.

It is a little ironic to propose something to make trading more accessible with a partially inaccessible post.

I’m color blind, so I don’t see things the same way you do. My intent was simply to make the post stand out in a colorful, lighthearted way. This is the first time I’ve heard that the text was difficult to read, and I’d be glad to adjust it. Unfortunately, polls can’t be edited once votes are cast.

I’ll keep your suggestions in mind for my next post.

Furyous · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

Radiate77 wrote: »

Are you trying to have a conversation or to tell us why your opinion is right and none of our opinions matter? Conversation involves listening or in this case, reading. And in good faith, not trying to pick apart posts for individual half sentences that fit the narrative you’re trying to push.

I’m learning a lot about who you are as a forum poster through these past few threads of yours.

Thank you.

It’s a bit ironic to be accused of “pushing a narrative” when my entire proposal is built around compromise, while your position is that the system should remain exactly as it is simply because you prefer it that way.

I’m not dismissing your concerns, I’ve read them carefully and even adjusted my suggestions to account for them. But insisting that no discussion should take place because you like the current setup is the very definition of shutting down conversation.

The point of my post was to explore ways to improve accessibility without dismantling guild traders. That means weighing multiple perspectives, not enforcing one preference as universal. If we’re going to talk about good faith, it has to apply both ways.

Furyous · December 5

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

manukartofanu wrote: »

As a guild master, I can say that adding some kind of universal meta-trader will completely destroy all trading communities, except for the very smallest ones that cost next to nothing to maintain. Not because the system is better, but because there will be absolutely no reason to compete for trading spots.

Right now, guilds are funded by guild masters or a small council, and enormous amounts of gold are being spent on them. As soon as goods can be sold bypassing guilds, they will simply be shut down by the guild masters and guild councils, because there will no longer be any point in financing them.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad for the game or for players — maybe it isn’t. But you will definitely lose trading communities, the idea of coming together for a common purpose, teaching newcomers so the guild can survive, and other similar activities will lose their meaning.

The key point that often gets overlooked is cost. From the start, the idea has been that a global trader would carry a noticeably higher listing fee, ensuring guild traders remain the better option for serious sellers. How much higher is up for debate, whether 50 percent or another figure, but the principle of it being more expensive has always been central to the proposal.

That higher fee also directly addresses the gold sink issue. Instead of removing gold from the economy only through guild trader bids, the global trader’s steep listing costs would continue to drain gold, helping to stabilize inflation while still preserving the incentive to use guild traders for cheaper rates.

This way, guild traders continue to offer the best deals and remain the preferred option for established trading communities, while casual or non‑guild players still have a way to participate. It is not about dismantling guilds, but about creating a compromise that balances accessibility, sustainability, and economic health.

Once again, this is just food for thought. I am not saying this is the only solution, only that it is the best system I can think of right now that addresses concerns from both sides.

shadyjane62 · 12:02AM

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

Missing the point, getting rid of guild traders should be the primary goal.

Furyous · 12:27AM

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

shadyjane62 wrote: »

Missing the point, getting rid of guild traders should be the primary goal.

That is one perspective, but 34 percent of the community has said they enjoy the trading mini game. That is a significant portion, and there is no reason to force them to change if both options can coexist. Players who prefer the guild trader system can continue to use it, while those who want the convenience of a global trader can do so if they are willing to pay the higher listing fee.

This way, everyone has a choice, and the system remains fair to both sides.

SilverBride · 12:28AM

I wouldn't mind having an easier way to sell, but after 11 years I just don't know if it would be wise to disrupt an already established system that guilds are formed around.

rothan117 · 1:50AM

Good idea – Makes trading easier and more accessible. Worth the effort, while keeping the current system for those who enjoy it.

I am an active trader in a trading guild with a trader in Mournhold and while I play the trading mini-game I find the system in this game vastly inferior the to the auction house system in WoW, LOTRO and SWTOR. It locks large numbers of players out of selling their stuff effectively. While out of the way cheap traders do get some traffic, it is the traders in the high traffic locations that are the most effective sales outlets. Out of the way cheap traders only seem to attract folks sufficiently into the trading game that they use TTC to find what they want.

ESO needs better gold sinks than the weekly trader bids. I am sitting on hundreds of millions in gold and the amount grows every week because there is nothing worthwhile to buy with gold, in particular nothing that is sold by vendors where the gold disappears from the game as opposed to just moving to another player. ZOS has become so addicted to the crown store sales that all really neat stuff gets sold for real money instead of being a gold sink.

Something needs to change.

kargen27 · 1:53AM

The two can't function properly together. Either you price items low enough nobody bothers with traders or you price items so high nobody bothers with the central system. There isn't some sweet spot in there.

manukartofanu · 3:28AM

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

Furyous wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

As a guild master, I can say that adding some kind of universal meta-trader will completely destroy all trading communities, except for the very smallest ones that cost next to nothing to maintain. Not because the system is better, but because there will be absolutely no reason to compete for trading spots.

Right now, guilds are funded by guild masters or a small council, and enormous amounts of gold are being spent on them. As soon as goods can be sold bypassing guilds, they will simply be shut down by the guild masters and guild councils, because there will no longer be any point in financing them.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad for the game or for players — maybe it isn’t. But you will definitely lose trading communities, the idea of coming together for a common purpose, teaching newcomers so the guild can survive, and other similar activities will lose their meaning.

The key point that often gets overlooked is cost. From the start, the idea has been that a global trader would carry a noticeably higher listing fee, ensuring guild traders remain the better option for serious sellers. How much higher is up for debate, whether 50 percent or another figure, but the principle of it being more expensive has always been central to the proposal.

That higher fee also directly addresses the gold sink issue. Instead of removing gold from the economy only through guild trader bids, the global trader’s steep listing costs would continue to drain gold, helping to stabilize inflation while still preserving the incentive to use guild traders for cheaper rates.

This way, guild traders continue to offer the best deals and remain the preferred option for established trading communities, while casual or non‑guild players still have a way to participate. It is not about dismantling guilds, but about creating a compromise that balances accessibility, sustainability, and economic health.

Once again, this is just food for thought. I am not saying this is the only solution, only that it is the best system I can think of right now that addresses concerns from both sides.

I understand, your idea may sound good on paper, but it is destined to kill trading communities. The only question is whether it will take weeks or months.
Let’s remember the 10th anniversary year, what it did to prices, and how it affected guilds.
No one will ever be able to find a percentage at which these two systems remain in balance. Either this new absolute trader will be useless, in which case, why develop it at all, or it will kill trading guilds.

Ei8htba11 · 12:36PM

Personally I like travelling around Tamriel to meet the traders, BUT, I think a global search function would be useful (ingame), currently that is only available via addons.

Possibly this function could be added to the bank, so you can at least find where the Guld Trader you need is situated.

As far as the system is set up? I have no idea, but I do feel sorry for our Guild Leader that has to gain enough (gold) in sales and contributions to bid, I hear it can be ferociously expensive

Gabriel_H · 2:49PM

Furyous wrote: »

[*]Negative (50%) – Want a global trader like other MMOs (24%), too much running around/blind bidding/reliance on add-ons (15%), small guilds and casual players can’t realistically participate (11%).

Want a global trader like other MMOs =/= too much running around/blind bidding/reliance on add-ons =/= small guilds and casual players can’t realistically participate

All three have very different solutions. It's a bad faith argument.

SummersetCitizen · 2:52PM

Bad idea – This would create more problems than it solves.

You cannot have it both ways.

You getting what you want would destroy the game’s economy as it was designed.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Proposal for Improving ESO’s Trading System

Proposal for Improving ESO’s Trading System 44 votes