Wth is this? Brigantine + 3 sloops vs brigantine?
Just watch my video here.
So you can't dive your ship using war map when another ship is close to you but you can surface when there's more of them? I understand the intent of this mode, but I think something went wrong here.
Honestly, that tactic is the only way that the PvE community will get the curses.
It may be unfair but with long matchmaking, people are forming alliances just to fight and get the curses. I was on a gallon and after an hour of matchmaking we decided to defend. We met a brigantine asking for an alliance. We made one knowing it was easier to find a brigantine then a gallon. It was 7 vs 3. Unfortunately for me, the brigantine sunk our allies and then sunk us. It was a good battle and I applaud the skill of that crew.
As for your situation, 4 ships against one is unfair. It’s unfortunate but it’s life. Life isn’t fair sometimes.
Rare wanted the ability for ships to "third party" in hourglass. But you've got to hand it to the ingenuity of the PVE'ers, they found a way to beat PVP'ers at their own game. This is what you get when you locked highly desirable curses behind PVP. If Rare didn't want this, they'd give the PVE'ers a way to get the curse.
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Rare wanted the ability for ships to "third party" in hourglass. [ ... ]
Third party is something else than having a group of several ships waiting. As Rare made the match making on ship size (and for sloops on crew size), this way of defending is probably not intended. Hopefully they fix it soon, just as they made the way to use the Shores of Gold red sea no longer possible.
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Third party is something else than having a group of several ships waiting. As Rare made the match making on ship size (and for sloops on crew size), this way of defending is probably not intended. Hopefully they fix it soon, just as they made the way to use the Shores of Gold red sea no longer possible.
It's called an ambush. Noun, a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position. They're part of war. 🤷♂️
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Third party is something else than having a group of several ships waiting. As Rare made the match making on ship size (and for sloops on crew size), this way of defending is probably not intended. Hopefully they fix it soon, just as they made the way to use the Shores of Gold red sea no longer possible.
It's called an ambush. Noun, a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position. They're part of war. 🤷♂️
Strange, in other topics regarding Allegiance you talk about your concern that some aspects will drive anyone except expert PvP'ers, while I suspect when PvPvE'ers encounter these ambushes, that would be a reason for them to quit the game mode.
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Strange, in other topics regarding Allegiance you talk about your concern that some aspects will drive anyone except expert PvP'ers, while I suspect when PvPvE'ers encounter these ambushes, that would be a reason for them to quit the game mode.
Actually, not true! My best hourglass experience was getting ambushed. I was invading with a brig and invaded a two brig alliance. We kept the non-target brig at a distance while trying to engage the target brig with boards, chains, and cannons when possible. Then a fourth brig of our faction sailed up, and together we sank the who opposing brigs. It was epic and exciting and tense and fun!
But like I've said, my plan is getting rapid fast battles. If I invade into an alliance, I let them sink me and invade again. If it happens three times in a row, I change stamps. I think the difference is you mind losing, and I don't. I understand that the SBMM is designed to get 50/50 matches and the odds of getting to Faction Champion are 6.25% (if SBMM worked perfectly). That's why people "allegiance cheese" by turning in two streaks. It's more efficient and consistent than going for Faction Champion.
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
After years it seems that the community has finally understood that Server Alliances are a huge problem in Sea of Thieves.
No, just the pvp players who were already complaining they were being outsmarted, complaining they got outsmarted again.
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
After years it seems that the community has finally understood that Server Alliances are a huge problem in Sea of Thieves.
No, just the pvp players who were already complaining they were being outsmarted, complaining they got outsmarted again.
Players who are really PvP players usually invade server alliances just to sink all the ships.
Those who are complaining about this are only players who want a fair battle.
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
No, just the pvp players who were already complaining they were being outsmarted, complaining they got outsmarted again.
🤣💖
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Strange, in other topics regarding Allegiance you talk about your concern that some aspects will drive anyone except expert PvP'ers, while I suspect when PvPvE'ers encounter these ambushes, that would be a reason for them to quit the game mode.
Actually, not true! My best hourglass experience was getting ambushed. I was invading with a brig and invaded a two brig alliance. We kept the non-target brig at a distance while trying to engage the target brig with boards, chains, and cannons when possible. Then a fourth brig of our faction sailed up, and together we sank the who opposing brigs. It was epic and exciting and tense and fun!
That's different from the OP - that was a fight against the rest of the server.
But like I've said, my plan is getting rapid fast battles. If I invade into an alliance, I let them sink me and invade again. If it happens three times in a row, I change stamps.
Ah, so you don't engage in such fights, smart. See how you like sinking to an alliance server when you have a streak or several flags on board.
I think the difference is you mind losing, and I don't. [ ... ]
If I minded losing that much, I wouldn't be playing the mode 😁. My issue is with people cheating / cheesing in the Sea of Bones, whether they have more people on board, an alliance server, trying to get out of bounds without stopping the battle or them fighting from the red sea. Those things will kill this feature for PvPvE players.
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Ah, so you don't engage in such fights, smart. See how you like sinking to an alliance server when you have a streak or several flags on board.
If I minded losing that much, I wouldn't be playing the mode 😁. My issue is with people cheating / cheesing in the Sea of Bones, whether they have more people on board, an alliance server, trying to get out of bounds without stopping the battle or them fighting from the red sea. Those things will kill this feature for PvPvE players.
Well there's your problem. Stop going for streaks. Only the top 2.2% (statistically the players whose MMR is two standard deviations above the mean) get streaks. The rest of us get tables scraps. Learn and understand that. When forced to eat a siren sandwich, bite, chew, swallow, repeat.
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Ah, so you don't engage in such fights, smart. See how you like sinking to an alliance server when you have a streak or several flags on board.
If I minded losing that much, I wouldn't be playing the mode 😁. My issue is with people cheating / cheesing in the Sea of Bones, whether they have more people on board, an alliance server, trying to get out of bounds without stopping the battle or them fighting from the red sea. Those things will kill this feature for PvPvE players.
Well there's your problem. Stop going for streaks.
Not my problem ... not going for large streaks in general.
Only the top 2.2% (statistically the players whose MMR is two standard deviations above the mean) get streaks. The rest of us get tables scraps. Learn and understand that. When forced to eat a siren sandwich, bite, chew, swallow, repeat.
Would only be true with a sufficient large enough population. As currently with the stamps and matchmaking you can end up against the same crews in the same session, there might be a larger chance for "non-expert PvP'ers" to get a 3 or 4 streak.
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
After years it seems that the community has finally understood that Server Alliances are a huge problem in Sea of Thieves.
No, just the pvp players who were already complaining they were being outsmarted, complaining they got outsmarted again.
Players who are really PvP players usually invade server alliances just to sink all the ships.
Those who are complaining about this are only players who want a fair battle.
Pithy is baiting people with unhelpful comments.
The players who participated in alliance servers had the argument "it isn't hurting anybody so who cares." Which at face value is true, they are not impacting anyone's play since they are just farming gold.
Doing alliances for the PvP mode is directly putting invading players at a disadvantage and not intended by Rare. If Rare did intend it (or don't care) then they will eventually push more people away from the mode.
However, when those alliancing players eventually get spawncamped and lose their alliance we all know who will be reported and potentially banned for breaking ToS. Avoiding the fact that teaming is not intended with this mode (which was bannable at the end of arena when people were freaking out about not getting their cosmetics).
It is a mess that I don't think Rare can fix besides adding an option to avoid invading defending players but matchmaking is already so poor I doubt that would help.
This is one reason why some crews are rampaging across adventure and demanding people to vote their hourglass or get spawncamped/lose their treasure.
@dank-jimb0 said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
This is one reason why some crews are rampaging across adventure and demanding people to vote their hourglass or get spawncamped/lose their treasure.
I actually feel remarkably guilty when a crew I find on SoT Discord sees a ship in the horizon and wants to do this. The best argument for it (when I announce my feelings) is "It's just like treasure: they're in a sloop, we're in a xyz. They know how to run away from us. Some people will sink their loot and take it. We're going to sink for their hourglass." I get that I guess, but it doesn't assuage my guilt any.
I think the funniest thing is that I've never seen them ferry lock a player to bully them into raising the hourglass or scuttling. They always say "hey we need help with the Foe to Friend commendation! Vote on this HG and play a shanty with me!" I don't know how people are still falling for this... feels like contributing to the reason swabbies leave the game...
@dank-jimb0 said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
@targasbr said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
After years it seems that the community has finally understood that Server Alliances are a huge problem in Sea of Thieves.
No, just the pvp players who were already complaining they were being outsmarted, complaining they got outsmarted again.
Players who are really PvP players usually invade server alliances just to sink all the ships.
Those who are complaining about this are only players who want a fair battle.Pithy is baiting people with unhelpful comments.
The players who participated in alliance servers had the argument "it isn't hurting anybody so who cares." Which at face value is true, they are not impacting anyone's play since they are just farming gold.
I thought so too, but the more money people have, the more purchasing power they have and the more the prices of items go up. So unfortunately, indirectly or directly, they are affecting other players' gameplay. I disbelieved this theory until I saw the Dark Adventurers Set, today I find it quite plausible.
Doing alliances for the PvP mode is directly putting invading players at a disadvantage and not intended by Rare. If Rare did intend it (or don't care) then they will eventually push more people away from the mode.
However, when those alliancing players eventually get spawncamped and lose their alliance we all know who will be reported and potentially banned for breaking ToS. Avoiding the fact that teaming is not intended with this mode (which was bannable at the end of arena when people were freaking out about not getting their cosmetics).
It is a mess that I don't think Rare can fix besides adding an option to avoid invading defending players but matchmaking is already so poor I doubt that would help.
This is one reason why some crews are rampaging across adventure and demanding people to vote their hourglass or get spawncamped/lose their treasure.
I don't think it will take long for Rare to fix this, seeing as they already fixed the Shores of Gold exploit.
@coffeelight5545 said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Honestly, that tactic is the only way that the PvE community will get the curses.
It may be unfair but with long matchmaking, people are forming alliances just to fight and get the curses. I was on a gallon and after an hour of matchmaking we decided to defend. We met a brigantine asking for an alliance. We made one knowing it was easier to find a brigantine then a gallon. It was 7 vs 3. Unfortunately for me, the brigantine sunk our allies and then sunk us. It was a good battle and I applaud the skill of that crew.
As for your situation, 4 ships against one is unfair. It’s unfortunate but it’s life. Life isn’t fair sometimes.
Wow, really love how you try to excuse such an unethical and immoral practice. It's really ironic considering you admit to not having the skill level to fight your own battles, so instead you have to go out of your own way to fight your way through with numbers. What really kills me about this is that even after ganging up and practically bullying a ship, you still lost, but life is unfair, it will get changed soon enough, and people with this mindset will either need to start fighting their own battles or find some other game mechanic to take advantage of, you said it.
I don't usually play this game for pvp only, but even I can still see how pathetic this is in a mode where opposing crews are pit against one another. Mode was meant to have a surprise encounter for both parties, not a whole server pre- planned artillery party against 1 ship. Instead of admitting to the issues that the mode has, and finding ways to improve it, people with the same ideas you have end up being detrimental to the overall state of the game.
Tell me this, why do you think cheaters, such as the sort, of hackers are detrimental to a game? Why do devs go out of their way to stop them? If you were up against a hacker with infinite life and teleportation would you still say the same? Life isn't fair right? Some people have hacks, others don't, so you're ok with playing a game that is open to hackers? you're ok with people taking advantage of a game system or mechanic, manipulating it to suit the selfish desires of the individual and undermining the structural balance of the game mode? That's why people end up leaving games, this is why it's detrimental to games, and why for this game, it's detrimental to the game mode. That it should have better interaction with pve components like treasure? Yes, it should be made more accessible to all players, but what you condone is not it.
I’m not excusing anything. I’m telling you how it is. It’s sad but true.
Also, I joined an alliance because there was no matches. I also admit there are better players than me. That doesn’t mean that I’m a bad player.
@coffeelight5545 said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
I’m not excusing anything. I’m telling you how it is. It’s sad but true.
Also, I joined an alliance because there was no matches. I also admit there are better players than me. That doesn’t mean that I’m a bad player.
If you're not excusing anything, then you don't know what it is that you are doing at all. Here's the breakdown: You provide an argument for why you should take advantage of the flaws in a game mode. Within said argument, you provide an allegory as an excuse to support your statement. I then reflect back your statement back at you, which you then are unable (And you didn't) to respond back to unless you use "Life isn't fair" which doesn't work because my literal point in my previous argument was to prove your statement is illogical. So no, it really isn't. Not to mention that "It's sad but true" isn't really a logical response or argument. I don't think anyone would have heard the counter argument "It's sad but true", when publicly speaking in support of the earth being flat and against the earth being round. What is sad but true is how many people rather shift blame or take advantage of game mechanics for their lack of skill or for their faulty decisions, especially in a mode that is supposed to be competitive. It truly shows how un-sportsmanship some people truly are.
Just as you did before, you are also now defending your argument with another excuse, as we all know that the real reason you join alliances isn't to speed up matchmaking, considering alliance sinks don't give any rewards. What's next? You're going to say you don't do it for the reward or the rep gain? You just do it for the thrill of it.
Notice how I also did not state you were a bad player, simply that you are unskilled, to better phrase it, your crew as a whole was unskilled (And to a general perspective, the entire alliance itself was unskilled), and that point comes from the statement that you made in which you lost a 2 vs 1. Regardless, the issue isn't with being skilled or not, nor admitting that there are better players, it doesn't matter. You can admit that other players are better but what does matter is how you handle the situation for there is a right way and a wrong way to this. You chose the latter, taking advantage of game mode flaws to get an advantage over your opponents in a way that defeats the purpose of the mode, to be competitive.
An ambush is a long-established military tactic in which a combatant uses an advantage of concealment or the element of surprise to attack unsuspecting enemy combatants from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind mountaintops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. In the 20th century, an ambush might involve thousands of soldiers on a large scale, such as over a choke point such as a mountain pass, or a small irregulars band or insurgent group attacking a regular armed force patrols. Theoretically, a single well-armed and concealed soldier could ambush other troops in a surprise attack. Sometimes an ambush can involve the exclusive or combined use of improvised explosive devices, that allow the attackers to hit enemy convoys or patrols while minimizing the risk of being exposed to return fire.
This is the War for the Sea of Thieves. The underdog found a way to beat superior opponents. It happens. 🤷♂️
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
An ambush is a long-established military tactic in which a combatant uses an advantage of concealment or the element of surprise to attack unsuspecting enemy combatants from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind mountaintops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. In the 20th century, an ambush might involve thousands of soldiers on a large scale, such as over a choke point such as a mountain pass, or a small irregulars band or insurgent group attacking a regular armed force patrols. Theoretically, a single well-armed and concealed soldier could ambush other troops in a surprise attack. Sometimes an ambush can involve the exclusive or combined use of improvised explosive devices, that allow the attackers to hit enemy convoys or patrols while minimizing the risk of being exposed to return fire.
This is the War for the Sea of Thieves. The underdog found a way to beat superior opponents. It happens. 🤷♂️
I'm okay with this fun RP logic.
Then are players okay with both Athena / Reapers ferry locking and killing everyone to get hourglass allegiance?
It is already happening where people are just getting told vote up or lose your loot, sink them anyways. Vote up or scuttle after ferry locking them.
I mean it is the War for the Sea of Thieves so these players are potential combatants getting in the way of victory.
I'm being ridiculous. This is a video game and they had a mechanic where you get on demand 1v1 pvp.
It remains to be seen if Rare will address it or not. We already know where they stand on ferry locking players despite scuttle being an option if people cannot pvp.
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
An ambush is a long-established military tactic in which a combatant uses an advantage of concealment or the element of surprise to attack unsuspecting enemy combatants from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind mountaintops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. In the 20th century, an ambush might involve thousands of soldiers on a large scale, such as over a choke point such as a mountain pass, or a small irregulars band or insurgent group attacking a regular armed force patrols. Theoretically, a single well-armed and concealed soldier could ambush other troops in a surprise attack. Sometimes an ambush can involve the exclusive or combined use of improvised explosive devices, that allow the attackers to hit enemy convoys or patrols while minimizing the risk of being exposed to return fire.
This is the War for the Sea of Thieves. The underdog found a way to beat superior opponents. It happens. 🤷♂️
You make it sound if the Alliance ambush servers are only fighting against 'expert PvP' players. I've got news for you: they make this mode unattractive to PvPvE players / people who are into PvP but no experts &c . Your false dichotomy of PvE vs PvP players doesn't fly.
@lem0n-curry
As a pvpve player you don't speak for me. I love this PvP mode and I love that alliances are setting up ambushes. It's absolutely fantastic. It's not turning me away one bit nor is it turning away the many people that I sail with who are also pvpve players. It really only seems to be turning away the pvpphobic players.
I no longer feel sorry that you ran into a n alliance. I fully support hourglass alliances
@lem0n-curry said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
You make it sound if the Alliance ambush servers are only fighting against 'expert PvP' players. I've got news for you: they make this mode unattractive to PvPvE players / people who are into PvP but no experts &c . Your false dichotomy of PvE vs PvP players doesn't fly.
This is a fair argument. You are right, this is happening to ALL players on the sea, by all players on the sea. My argument comes from the hypothesis that a bulk of the players left in hourglass are expert PVP'ers. This come from the evidence that players are complaining about being matched with vastly superior crews. That match happens when there are no players near your MMR to be matched with. Granted this may be some wacky stamp issue caused by the MME implementation that I don't know the finer details of, but broadly players being pitted against crews of vastly superior skill is an indication that low-skill crews are less available/frequent/participatory in hourglass.
But yes you are correct, I experience schadenfreude when this happens to PVP'ers by PVE'er, but it does royally pump bilge when it happens to people I don't believe "deserve" it. That is a fair assessment.
@lordqulex said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
An ambush is a long-established military tactic in which a combatant uses an advantage of concealment or the element of surprise to attack unsuspecting enemy combatants from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind mountaintops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. In the 20th century, an ambush might involve thousands of soldiers on a large scale, such as over a choke point such as a mountain pass, or a small irregulars band or insurgent group attacking a regular armed force patrols. Theoretically, a single well-armed and concealed soldier could ambush other troops in a surprise attack. Sometimes an ambush can involve the exclusive or combined use of improvised explosive devices, that allow the attackers to hit enemy convoys or patrols while minimizing the risk of being exposed to return fire.
This is the War for the Sea of Thieves. The underdog found a way to beat superior opponents. It happens. 🤷♂️
But a lot of times these are NOT "underdogs" forming these alliances (in fact I'd argue that the majority of the times this is not the case), sometimes it will be trolls who are doing this for their own kicks to roll over other crews and abuse the system. And as pointed out by others, many times the victim of this assault is NOT a skilled PVP player but your average player who may become discouraged from playing further...something you've been a championing in other threads concerning the Hourglass, but just until it no longer suits your narrative evidently.
So do you still support this behavior when it isn't the "underdogs" doing it? Can't have it both ways now, nor can you easily differentiate between the two.
That is very true. I am actually conflicted by this point. The question now is does this cause more harm than good? I don't know. I don't have the numbers to make that decision. We'll see what Rare does, they have the numbers.
Nah. Just calling it like I see it.
People trying to force people to play the way they think they should.
And oh no, people COOPERATING IN A PVPVE GAME!!
If it's not fixed in the next update it is very intended. The fixed the Tribute Peak exploit very quickly.
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Nah. Just calling it like I see it.
People trying to force people to play the way they think they should.And oh no, people COOPERATING IN A PVPVE GAME!!
If it's not fixed in the next update it is very intended. The fixed the Tribute Peak exploit very quickly.
This is... kind of true? I own an extensive game collection (to say the least) of digital and physical games. There are certainly some games I like more than others, and for much of that it is due to the rules/mechanics I like and I don't like. And I kind of agree with @dank-jimb0 in that the rules seem to imply Rare wanted 1v1 arena, and Rare has stated the interest in organic third party interference, what Rare has not come out and ruled on is what I am calling an ambush.
It's an interesting problem because it is a compromise between what the codebase/mechanisms can detect and when, and game design. Remember, in game design, EVERYTHING can be exploited. Let's pretend Rare made it so people in alliances can't be invaded. Well shoot, we'd see alliance servers pop up all over the place all joining an alliance than raising hourglass to PVE their way to Faction level 1000. That honestly doesn't sound that great to me... I want to encourage organic play not engineered safety. Let's say they implement a proximity system like diving; anyone with a ship within a square of each other can't be invaded. We'll probably then see ship pairs sailing around with hourglass doing world events together and, again, engineered safety. Alternatively we'll see alliances that are the minimum distance apart for invasion that will (gasp) actually use signal flares to signal when the other ship can start sailing in to help.
The bigger question is, what harm is this doing? I think it is very apparent at this point that the MME prioritizes matching invaders over matching defenders. I've sailed for hours and not been invaded, and you can tell when you invade if the other ship is invading or not. Most of the time I'm matched with another invader. So even if two ships sit and wait for invasion, they could be waiting for hours to get one win. (At least until they bully all the other ships off the stamp and anyone joining it can only be matched with them, I dunno, I don't have much experience ambushing frankly and only been ambushed once.) I guess the worst case scenario is if this becomes so valuable and so pervasive that every time you invade you get matched with a different set of defenders ambushing you...
I think what remains to be seen is how Rare feels about alliance ambushes, and what the technology they have can actually do about it... Then the mechanics they implement and how those can be exploited. 🤣 This stuff ain't easy...
@pithyrumble said in 4 vs 1 in new PvP on demand?:
Nah. Just calling it like I see it.
People trying to force people to play the way they think they should.And oh no, people COOPERATING IN A PVPVE GAME!!
If it's not fixed in the next update it is very intended. The fixed the Tribute Peak exploit very quickly.
I agree. This whole thread was started by someone who didn’t like the outcome of a battle and is crying to Rare hoping to fix it. Rare wants multiple ships teaming up for a goal. I can’t say if 4 ships against 1 is something Rare wants but it this becomes a problem, Rare will fix it.
So you can't dive your ship using war map when another ship is close to you but you can surface when there's more of them?
Right. You can use the map to run away from a fight.
Players. Please. You the “diver” are invading on other players. You the invader. You show up on other players in an open world. They could be doing a fleet for all you know. They could be at fort. Maybe even just finished one. And you suddenly appear
Tell me. What is the difference between.
You invading someone and they having a alliance waiting.
Or
You waiting for someone to finish a fort and stealing the loot afterwards?
Pick and choose and the consequences are for both
I'll make the same suggestion I've made before...
The solution to this is simple.
Increase the rewards for losing when you're against 2 or more opposing faction ships and decrease the reward for winning if you're part of a "team".
Let's say you normally get 20xp for losing...increase it to 50xp for the outnumbered crew.
Let's say you normally get 100xp for winning...decrease it to 50xp for the teamed up crews (100xp split between the two). 33xp each if 3 ships...20xp each if 4 ships.
Conversely, if the outnumbered crew wins, they should get 150xp-200xp and the losing teams should get 10xp each.
It wouldn't prevent this type of encounter from happening, but it would appropriately reward the encounter and sort of discourage the cheese.
