The alliance payoff is way better, so why take down commodity merchants? A discussion topic.

No one is going to think that much, also they can be rare so for those that need the stolen commodities commendation they're always worth sinking.

Its the lack of thinking that grinds my gears though. If the train of thought is always "oh look, a person, better attack them", then what we have is a terrible community. For a game with as much potential in the tools offered, there's far too much murder-hobo attitude for player retention. all the game can hope to do in the long run is keep bringing in a constant stream of new players to feed to the murder-hobos lest they get bored (god forbid) as long as that mindset is encouraged and rewarded.

and in regards to the commendation:
"here are three crates of the same type of good for your achievement, ill be on my way now"

@metal-ravage
honestly that is exactly my point. an alliance could be seen as a friendly agreement, or as a literal mob shakedown where the aggressor can always see your position and gets his pound of flesh for the work you do. Its not bad roleplay at all.

You're not gonna like this, but Why not?

I might not be in for the long haul, I might just want to top up my loot haul before I dive to my next raid.

50% value of your commodities mean nothing if I can get 100% for MY commodities, not to mention the commendations for stealing them and the juicy emissary flag you'll be flying too.

There is no "safe" mode or way of play in high seas. It's all fair game.

@whitestag1992 said:

Why attack commodity merchants if they're non-hostile and offering an alliance?

Are they running an emi flag? If so, there's a commendation-driven incentive to sink them. There's a commendation-driven incentive to steal and sell their commodities.

Am I planning to stay on the server? If not, then why would I want to ally with them? Instead of just take their goods, turn in at Reaper's Hideout, and dive to the next?

What is the point of this thread? Are you suggesting a change be implemented, or is it just a general complaint against "murder hobos" who don't want to ally with merchants?

Only players I ally with (and I don't betray) are novices, tall talers, and family crews on game night (parents with their kids, because thats adorable lol), but thats my personal moral code that no one else has to follow.

Call it murder hobo behavior if you want; I call it piracy. And as you already pointed out - pirates gonna pirate.

@whitestag1992

The alliance system has a fundamental flaw. That flaw is that if you are doing the same activity, the best choice available is to betray the other team. If you are successful, you get the entire loot. If you don't betray them, you'll end up with a smaller share.

Ironically, the best alliance is the alliance where nobody actually works together. You meet up, form an alliance, then go do your own thing. Then, you get the loot for what you do, and half the value of what they do, there's no value in betraying that alliance, because all you do is lose out on steady income.

I'm not sure how to really correct the alliance system...

@tybald
Im not sure it needs 'correcting' per say as the tools-not-rules mantra keeps restrictions at arms length while opting into something like an alliance grants access to additional resources. The issue with alliances being mainly that it is a tool that can be used malevolently as well as cooperatively, and with a concept like not being able to harm allied pirates (a rule rather than a tool) I dont believe much can or really should change about the ally system for the sake of the game's integrity.

The blanket answer to "they would rather just have your stuff now" (and im speaking in general and not to you specifically tybald) is that as i previously mentioned, a commodity runner has SOME loot on them now, but inside of fifteen or twenty minutes they will have cashed out three times and you've now made 150% of whatever their value was without having to run it yourself.

The point is that in the case of these types of alliances and only these types, there is actually LESS benefit in attacking them.

@tybald said:

I'm not sure how to really correct the alliance system...

There's nothing to correct, imo. Organically, it's a risk-reward feature with a pretty good balance because betrayal is allowed.

If anything, change the tags back from purple to white, and open up the possibility for infiltration-type stealth plays. Might fit in well with Season 14 changes.

The only issue I've ever had with the alliance system is that it can be set up inorganically. Pre-made alliances have done more damage to this game/playerbase than their proponents are willing to admit. And if Rare changes anything now, all these years later - it might be too little, too late.

If there was a way to prevent two clients with the same IP from landing on the same server, it should have been done ages ago.

@theblackbellamy

(Really, all of this depends on the assumption that you can win the fight, as every decision to betray the alliance hinges on that calculation coming back as a "yes". If you don't think you'd win, you won't betray...but likely that means the other side DOES think they'll win, and as such will likely betray)

It needs corrected because it doesn't really create an interesting choice when you team up. It's actually a surprise if nobody does betray the alliance at a world event.

"Curse your/our sudden, but inevitable betrayal"
For a single event, you think you can take the other guys, then there's no reason not to betray the other side. You get more loot, you lose nothing, it's a no-brainer. There's no BENEFIT to being 'honest' in the alliance, because one side is all pluses, and there's no real bonus to the other, it creates an inevitable conclusion.

Compare that to two ships that form and then move off. You look on the map and see them stacking a GH vault, while you are doing a FOTD. There's an interesting choice there. You are doing your own thing, and gaining money. If they sell, you can continue to do your think and get half of what they make, for essentially free money. Alternatively, you might decide to go over to them, sink them, take their loot, and get all of what they just earned. By doing that, you'll get the full value of their loot, but you have to stop your activity, and if they were planning on doing other things, you are sacrificing the future income.

That is an interesting choice. There are pro's and con's in deciding to betray that alliance. Nobody is punished, nobody is rewarded for betraying the alliance.

Why is this bad beyond being uninteresting? It means that its usefulness as a tool actually breaks as well. If you know that the other side WILL betray you at a world event. Then the incentive for actually forming one isn't there. You are better off immediately sinking any ship that comes near you because there's no benefit to joining up, and they'll likely try to sink you anyways when you are least prepared. So, the answer is to just not trust anyone because there's no real benefit.

If the choice at a world event of keeping/betraying an alliance was better balanced, then the alliance would be more likely to be formed, actually leading to scenarios where you and the other side are trying to decide if it's better to stay or betray. That makes things interesting.

Right now, we have a team up system that is at it's best when you team up then not work together, and at its worst when you work together because it'll inevitably break.

As I said though, I don't really know how to correct the situation and rebalance it. Ideally I don't want to punish betrayal, I want to reward trust. The problem though, is that alliance servers break the system. Anything that rewards keeping an alliance breaks exponentially the alliance server.

@tybald said in The alliance payoff is way better, so why take down commodity merchants? A discussion topic.:

@whitestag1992

The alliance system has a fundamental flaw. That flaw is that if you are doing the same activity, the best choice available is to betray the other team. If you are successful, you get the entire loot. If you don't betray them, you'll end up with a smaller share.

You forgot one possibility - when you betray them and you get sunk ... you end up with nothing 😁.

Ironically, the best alliance is the alliance where nobody actually works together. You meet up, form an alliance, then go do your own thing. Then, you get the loot for what you do, and half the value of what they do, there's no value in betraying that alliance, because all you do is lose out on steady income.

Or when you end up in a server with more hostile crews while doing a FotD or FoF for example. Not every crew will be able to handle fighting two crews ... in an alliance you might be able to defeat the other crew(s).

@lem0n-curry
Haven't really forgotten that option. Just factoring in the realization that most crews are overconfident in their skillset either in straight combat or sneakiness, so they almost always think they can get away with it.

@metal-ravage
Normally, id agree that under duress a player can say 'screw this' and hop servers. But with alliances as they are, you dont lose any percentage of your loot sold, so as the seller there is no actual downside besides the knowledge that someone is cashing checks you wouldnt get anyway.

Personally i wouldnt mind doing a commodity run with four allies all taking advantage of me if it meant that i knew i wouldnt have to fear other players taking my cargo and just natural hazards like the kraken and whatnot.

Taker of Stolen Stock
42/50