I understand where you think people would just stay together and work it out.
It makes sense.
Logically, you can get more done as one massive group, than splintering into a dozen smaller groups. But people aren't logically driven, they're reward driven.
If the, "let's just work it out and own the server as one massive guild" argument worked. There would be no DoE or 4srs, both founded and ran by splinter Behe members. They were self motivated and wanted to do things their way, so they broke off.
Logically, I agree. Smart people say, sit on a castle, get lots of people in there to defend and rake in the rewards. You get rewards for sitting in a castle, what's so bad about that? Reality says- people don't like being underlings. People want power and the ability to control what's going on in their lives and what's happening to them, so there will be splinter groups.
As for if there are people that think wool scarfs and odins are good items, go and look at @main and @at-ers in Prontera. If they're so useless why do they still sell? People on this server think that castle loot is good enough to not directly NPC, so it must be good enough for someone, so why not get those someones involved in WoE?
Here's the worst case scenario with those items that are so lowly in your mind that they're worthless- they already have +7 wool/tidal combos for their guild and they get one from a chest, suddenly they're able to contribute to the market and bring down the inflated prices that people always complain about, thus helping out a problem that isn't even the point of this thread! Fixing the market, a potential zenny sink, making WoE more exciting, and helping new people join WoE. Wow, this thing just might work. . . .??
As for a big guild monopolizing multiple castles- what's the harm in that? Assuming that it takes 3 people to set up a precast (wiz, bragi, trapper) that would mean that to hold another guild a 20 person defense in a castle, just became 3 people weaker. For each person that you send off to another castle, that's one less person defending it and opening yourself up to attack at your 100 eco home, and suddenly things get interesting, because yet again, people get selfish and don't know when to stop. Holding one castle, doable. 2 castles, a bit thinner. 3, 4, 5? Sooner or later the big guild is going to stretch themselves too thin, or not enough people are going to show up for WoE, and get attacked and loose that 100 eco castle that they love so much to a smaller guild.
They might be able to take it back, but I think we've all see just how dangerous two/three guilds all going at one castle at the same time can be on WoE activity (FINALLY EXCITEMENT!) as well as the eco of the castle. And so just imagine if the announcement gets out that the ultimate 100 eco castle has just gotten broken and instead of 3 guilds being online all pushing through and trying to get their greedy little hands on it, there are 15 guilds that try to push in. Then, while those 15 guilds are out trying to be selfish, there's bound to be at least 3-4 rational minds that say to not go there, and they take the castles that were just left by the other guilds, which then creates more panic and confusion. HOLY COW! WoE JUST BECAME INTERESTING!
Also- I'm not saying that this is a permanent solution. If I'm wrong, and if people are as morally good and act for the greater good as you're saying they are instead of being self centered maniacs, and the open castles don't get used and it doesn't work, the GM's can just as easily close them down and mark it up as a mistake. What's the worst that's going to happen? 2 months of 20 castles? Even if nothing happens and the only thing that gets done is nothing but eco investments on 20 castles for 2 months straight, that's one really huge zenny sink (which the GM's like for the most part).
I have insomnia (again) so I'm going to do some more math on that, just for the fun of it. Feel free to skip to the next person's post.
If 20 castles were to all start at 0 eco and be held for 2 months, how much zenny would that cost? In this, we're going to assume that there are no lucky guild skill triggered double investments, that there are no breaks of castle ownership, and that the guild leader is a good guild leader and invests twice a day. I'm running off the chart found here
http://www.ro-guardians.com/forums/archi...-8246.html for this math. If it's different for our server, I apologize, it's the only one that I could find on a quick google search.
In 1 week, each castle would cost 440k, sucking 8.8 mil out of the server.
In 2 weeks (28 investments), each castle would cost 2,435k total, sinking 48.7 mil from the server, and that's only getting each castle up to 28 eco in 2 weeks.
In one month (60 investments), it would cost one guild 17,415,000 z to get their castle to 60 eco. That means that on the server as a whole, those 20 castles just sucked in 348,300,000 z.
Do I really need to go on?
60-64 costs 4,345,000
65-69 costs 5,060,000
70-74 costs 5,830,000
75-79 costs 6,655,000
80-84 costs 7,535,000
85-89 costs 8,470,000
90-94 costs 9,460,000
95-99 costs 10,545,000
For a grand total of taking one castle from 0-max eco being-
75,315,000 z.
20 castles would eat up
1,506,300,000 z.
As stated in one of my early posts in this thread: Hello zenny sink- my name is castle eco.
Back to the comment about investment vs rewards, look at the investment cost for chests at higher eco.
0 eco- 5k/ 4 chests = roughly 1k/chest
max eco 955k/ 24 chests = roughly 40k/chest.
You're paying 40 times more per chest than lower eco castles looting only once a day.
If you loot twice a day the second loot goes a bit like this-
0 eco- 20k/4 chests = 5k/chest
max eco- 3820k/24 chests = roughly 159k/chest.
Here you're paying about 32 times more per chest than a 0 eco castle.
My math might be wrong, feel free to check it and fix it because I know that I might have screwed up some of the mechanics in there somewhere. The exact percentages and rates might be off, but the fact is low eco castles get more chests for lest of an investment cost, and people will want that, so they will leave.
Why pay 40k a chest when you can pay 1k for the exact same chest? (and also all of that stuff about man hours per chest as well)
