martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.

No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.

No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.

At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.

The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.

So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?

Market value is set by supply and demand. One of the principles of supply and demand is this:

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price

How does that relate to the topic at hand? I don't see how multi-bidding translates to increased demand. 1 trader kiosk (supply) satisfies the demand of 1 guild, regardless of how many bids they placed.

Merlight wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.

No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.

No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.

At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.

The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.

So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?

there is nothing wrong about growing something like a backup to defend in hard time. if you always bid max of your taxes and donations, you cant defend if you are really "attacked by someone who wants your spot, even if his guilds totally underperforms on that spot. imagine user xy, playing 4 years, growing a bank acc of 150m and decides to make a trade guild bcs its fun and then yolos high bids from his private bank on a guild which is running pretty decent. why shouldnt a guild be allowed to rely on funds. thats the point of economy - beeing in financial win zone to be able to invest when necessary. do you have any idea what your guild members tell you, if you ask each week for donations from those who didnt trade at quota level and ask them to have a quota and then a random pve guild appears yolo and you're not able to defend your spot?

Merlight wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Dont_do_drugs wrote: »

But the pressure on all hubs will increase bcs one troll can hit 10 guilds and make them bid higher.

No, one troll cannot hit ten guilds. One troll can try and hit 10 guilds but will only ever hit a maximum of one guild. Just like they can now.
I do understand your anxiety, but the confusion between 10x more bids (true) and 10x more bidders leads to some people becoming irrational.

No a troll guild can multi bid on 10 guilds meaning that the 10 guilds have to bid high to fend off the troll.

At the moment the troll can only bid on one so the ratio of risk is one in ten and the troll guild have to try and guess who will be unsuspecting and low-balling that week.

The ratio of risk will go up to ten in ten. As in whoever of those ten guilds bids the lowest will loose. So no-on can afford to low ball.

So the problem is that established guilds won't be able to keep their spot while bidding way below market value of that spot?

Market value is set by supply and demand. One of the principles of supply and demand is this:

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price

How does that relate to the topic at hand? I don't see how multi-bidding translates to increased demand. 1 trader kiosk (supply) satisfies the demand of 1 guild, regardless of how many bids they placed.

Because the chances of being bid against by another guild goes up considerably. Multi bidding favours troll guilds, and factions with the most gold and influence.

Therefore bid prices go up. At the moment if a guild expects an attack they push up their bid amount. With multi-bidding the chance of an attack goes up massively.

Currently only a handful of guilds lose on each platform every week. The fallout of this has significant impact and varies according to the reason for the loss. One of the things we keep pointing out is that the impact is also on well-being and relationships.

The chance for a lesser guild to be displaced by one with more money which has spread its backup bids is going to go up.

The amount of bids on trade spots will go up, thereby pushing up prices and excluding weaker guilds.

Its been explained quite a lot of times on this thread and the other two threads about this subject and unfortunately I'm too tired to go through it again which is more of a reflection on me than you

Update 23 and the multi bidding is a wonderful addition to the game. I am sure it will need some tweaking as 10 is a bit much. 4-5 seems ample but I suspect you will make that change before it goes live. If not no biggy as no one is forced to bid on 10 spots each week.

This very positive inclusion will help me in some ways and adversely affect me in others but it is VERY good for the game as a way to protect hardworking guilds from trolls and other nefarious sniping that goes on and enable newer hard working Guilds to get a foot on the ladder.

I would like the ability as I have previously said to amend a bid down or delete it, in case of erroneous extra digit and also amend permissions so all my members that now pay fees or just donate in Guilds that still use the voluntary system, can see them without exposing the Guilds bid.

Thx ZoS for introducing this system. The first few weeks and months maybe crazy but once the excess gold starts to get drawn from the game it should be wonderful.

[removed baiting comment]

I think it will cause troubles but after consideration, I have revised my opinion and the good outweighs the bad and I am sure it will be tweaked as needed.

Rinser69 wrote: »

There is proof that this will benefit the rich and powerful. The faction this Grand Vizier faces is not shy about the most deceptive behavior when it comes to transactions. With multi-bidder he hope that x 10.

HHmmm... let me summarize, or at least try to.

If you're in favour of multibidding, and NOT a GM of a major trading guild, your opinion is worth nothing, because you know nothing ?
But if you're in favour of multibidding, AND a GM of a major trading guild (trading empire, in IIrenicus' case), then you opinion in also worth nothing, because you're a GM and you're biased and only fighting for your own interest ?

Make up your minds, guys... or simply accept and discuss different opinions. Attacking the person instead of the opinion itself is pretty much a proof of lack of arguments.

On a side note, I'm frankly amused to see (once again) how quickly guild drama is taken over here. So much for "stability, friendhsip, partnership and all the wonderful things we GMs have achieved over time and the wonderful world we've created for the benefit of our beloved members". Okay, okay, I'm being snarky. A little bit. But really, series' authors should make movies out of guild drama. Game of thrones would look so pale.

SteamKitten01 wrote: »

I was doing some playing around on the PTS with the multi-bidding system and testing out placing more than one bid and noticed when placing identical bids, the order I bid in is not necessarily the order they show up on the bid list. Take the example below with bids # 4-7 for the guild in the image below. All 4 have the same bid but they are not listed in the order the bids were placed. I placed the Alinor bids first and then ported to Belkarth to place bids on traders there. I encountered the same issue when bidding for all 3 of my guilds that bids were not listed in the order they were placed. If I went back and added 1 gold to a bid, the correct bid would jump to the top, but if bids are exactly the same, it seemed to be random which bid was listed at the top of the list.

Question?
Where or how did you access that screen? I am on PC/NA, non steam. I looked for that screen on PTS but didn't see it.
What am I missing?
Thank you & Huzzah!

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, there's one benefit of multi-bidding that I haven't seen mentioned before, and that's the ability to test lower bids.

On live today, there's no way to experiment with lowering one's bid without risking losing your trader entirely. That risk ensures that once prices are high, they stay high.

If there's a backup bid system in place, you can experiment with lowering bids while keeping a strong secondary backup bid in the next tier down and another safety net bid in a weak hub.

Thoughts? Is that something that any GMs might actually consider doing?

silvereyes - That will 100% happen but I would strongly advise against it in the first few weeks

silvereyes wrote: »

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, there's one benefit of multi-bidding that I haven't seen mentioned before, and that's the ability to test lower bids.

On live today, there's no way to experiment with lowering one's bid without risking losing your trader entirely. That risk ensures that once prices are high, they stay high.

If there's a backup bid system in place, you can experiment with lowering bids while keeping a strong secondary backup bid in the next tier down and another safety net bid in a weak hub.

Thoughts? Is that something that any GMs might actually consider doing?

In today's market, I'd guess there aren't lots of people standing in line to bid on our standard kiosk. They're busy locking in with their one bid on a kiosk they think they can win.

In tomorrow's market where everyone has X backup bids and can poke a ton of kiosks without risk? Nope. I'm not dropping my bid.

reoskit wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, there's one benefit of multi-bidding that I haven't seen mentioned before, and that's the ability to test lower bids.

On live today, there's no way to experiment with lowering one's bid without risking losing your trader entirely. That risk ensures that once prices are high, they stay high.

If there's a backup bid system in place, you can experiment with lowering bids while keeping a strong secondary backup bid in the next tier down and another safety net bid in a weak hub.

Thoughts? Is that something that any GMs might actually consider doing?

In today's market, I'd guess there aren't lots of people standing in line to bid on our standard kiosk. They're busy locking in with their one bid on a kiosk they think they can win.

In tomorrow's market where everyone has X backup bids and can poke a ton of kiosks without risk? Nope. I'm not dropping my bid.

I agree with @reoskit here.

Just when keeping in mind all these guilds which are currently jumping a lot on PC EU server, I can't imagine guilds on prime hubs dropping their bids lower any time soon, if they intend to stay there due they can never know exactly when someone puts a bid on every single spot in that hub and just see who is lowering down aka who will be easiest to knock out of the zone first.
That's a risk to come, if ZOS really intends to keep their 10 bids idea.

I'm not gonna drop my bids either when multi-bidding system will provide perfect opportunity for snipers for "poking the ice with a stick" so to say.

Grimm13 wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

And that in an of itself is indicative that there is a massive problem with the current system.

Why are they recruiting 100% of the time?

But, as they say, there's none so blind as those who refuse to look.

I am recruiting all the time as there is a constant stream of players that stop playing. I am up front about cutting inactives after 21 days, used to be 30 days but I still see about 10 - 16 players a week stop playing ESO. Past year I have had about 10 players come back after a 3+ month hiatus.

Why is there 60 - 80 players stop playing eso in a months time? I am not even counting on those that come in during free eso trials. I do see an increase of quits around updates first announced, tapers off then again when Updates released then tapers off again.

With the guild finder I now have hundreds of apps to instantly replace the attrition. I no longer have to go bug zone chat with ads for hours of my play time trying to be in the right place at the right time.

I would really love to see the game attrition rate and find out why ESO has a problem with player retention.

Call me old fashioned. A Guild is a place Members go to to feel "at home" no matter what game style they prefer, no matter how frequently they are active. A place for them to be among friends.

The idea of dumping someone from a GAMING guild because they "don't pull their weight" is, I am not at all ashamed to admit, 100% totally alien to me.

I can log into my LOTRO Guild right now - a game I have up to date but have not played for 6 months or more - and know I will be immediately welcomed back, asked how I am doing, and advised what planned content we have coming up so I can sign up to it if I choose to.

There are people in that guild who have not logged in for 2 or 3 years who will receive the exact same treatment when they do log back in.

Because we are all friends, made exclusively in-game, but friends nonetheless.


No one would even dream of ejecting a Member, a friend, if they hadn't logged in for 21 days, or hadn't posted goods to the AH for 21 days. It simply would not happen.

That is does in ESO, and that it is seen as acceptable is in my opinion testament to just how badly designed the Guild System is.

Because you can be in 5 guilds most players really don't care that much about any of them, so they don't feel the need to give them any loyalty, and in return the Guild offers no loyalty back.

Change it so each Account can only be in one guild, and people will commit to it, make it work, not just for themselves but for the rest of their friends too.

And when each Account can only be in one Guild, and so only take listing slots on ONE Kiosk you'll find more kiosks available for medium and lower tier guilds.

All The Best

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

ZOS is trying to increase convenience (getting a trader if your first choice fails) and reduce or remove bid manipulation.

If the ability of smaller guilds to secure a trader is critical, or if guilds are worried about retaining a trader, we could try to reduce the impact of not having a Trader at all https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/485284/guild-stores-proposal-to-help-smaller-guilds-refunding-the-listing-fee

That's just it, They really have not explained fully what is their desired outcome so everyone is guessing at the small parts they have revealed. Most of what they have revealed is not liked. Context can also change when the whole is considered making it either fully disliked or makes sense. We just don't know.