Alliance system needs rework

I say just remove them. It's what i've said since they were added. The game was much more fun when everyone was an enemy and you had to turn in the loot yourself to get anything. Before it was a cost benefit; You can make peace and split the gold or fight for all or nothing. After alliances were added it became the ONLY choice if you care about gold and rep.

@archaell I see alliances in almost every game... played 2 sessions last night and both of them I was just fishing(idk why I hate myself?) and people just sail up and offer alliance. Normally I hate that stuff, but all I was doing was fishing so I joined and just got free gold and rep while I kept fishing.

Limit alliances to 3 ships max.

Reduce what you turn in by 33% for each other ship in alliance. (You get 66% for 2 ship alliance, 33% for 3 ships, the other ships will get 33% when you turn in)

This would both make alliances a shared adventure rather than a group leveling system AND effectively end full alliance servers.

I think the split is pretty well balanced at the moment. The fact that the crew turning in gets 100% but the other crews get 50% still gives that incentive to betray. I really don't think that should be tweaked.

My only gripe really is the size of alliances. I agree with others that they should be limited to 3 ships.

@archaell Just make alliances apart of the arena. That's the only place that they would actually add value imo.

@lord-szarvas said in Alliance system needs rework:

I think the opposite effect should be in play too. Reapers flag will buff loot turn-ins (but time limited so people dont quickly put on the flag - turn in - then take it off).

Have it increase by 5% (non-accumulative) for every 10 mins the flag is equipped, maybe?

I kinda want to agree but I dont think I do.
Alliance servers are very rare and hard to set up and maintain. I dont think the issue is widespread enough to the point it needs to be regulated. These servers are fun once and a while and this idea only punishes people who casually join alliances. All of a sudden they earn half of their loot bc they want to be friendly? If anything this unincentivises alliances at all.
Only if alliances became an issue I could agree to this. But they feel balanced enough at the moment. And to be fair... In many alliances your not safe from them either. Countless alliances have been broken by individual pirates let alone every alliance made.

I have always been in favor of Alliances being capped at 2-3 Ships, and that the loot should not magically increase in value for the sake of distribution.

Loot should be distributed in favor of the turn-in crew based on 100% value, not a magical 150%.

1-Ship: Turn-In = 100%
2-Ship: Turn-In = 75%, Alliance = 25.0% Each
3-Ship: Turn-In = 60%, Alliance = 20.0% Each
4-Ship: Turn-In = 55%, Alliance = 15.0% Each
5-Ship: Turn-In = 50%, Alliance = 12.5% Each
6-Ship: Turn-In = 50%, Alliance - 10.0% Each

This would discourage pointlessly large Alliances, especially with a couple modifiers...

Only ships that are in the same region as the Turn-In ship get a portion of the credit as if the Alliance were scaled to the table above. A 4-Ship Alliance with only 3 of the ships in the same area for Turn-In would be treated as a 3-Ship Alliance with the 4th ship receiving nothing.

Reputation is not shared. Only the Turn-In ship gets the reputation. The Trading Companies do not care about your friends across the sea or what they did to help as only the crew turning in the loot has earned their favor.

---

Similarly, flying the Reapers Mark and/or turning in stolen loot should not grant any extra gold/rep outside of special events. The trading companies do not care where it came from, only that they are able to get their hands on it. If they cared at all for its origin, they would be offering less for stolen loot.

If loot/rep multipliers were to be considered, I would be in favor of a bulk turn-in bonus where turning in 10 skulls in quick succession would give only the Turn-In crew a 10% bonus all the way up to a max of 25% or so. Taking too long between turning in items would break the chain, and turning in OOS in the middle of your GH chain would break that streak for the bonus.

@drbullhammer said in Alliance system needs rework:

@targasbr said in Alliance system needs rework:

@drbullhammer

I don't care how much people earn. I just don't think the shape it is now is fair.

The idea is that alliances are formed to reduce risks, not to receive more easy money. Less risk, less reward.

It doesn't matter if it affects me or not. Nobody talked about it. It's just a matter of logic. Less risk, less reward.

As you say, it's as if my idea affects your gameplay, as if you don't agree for personal reasons, because you don't want to lose your high reward with low risk.

The game must be fair for everyone.

By your logic, each person on a galleon crew would receive 25% of the value of the loot because having 4 players in the crew is less risk than having 1 on a sloop.

I think you might be on to something.

i think in general alliance voyage sharing and a limit to the number of people within an alliance would improve the system tremendously 1st off it makes alliances more trustworthy, you can still betray and etc but without a constant stream of rep and revenue after you betray a ship. this would make it more financially risky to betray your alliance especially if you dont get away with it. they should also decrease the rewards depending on the number of players instead of the number of ships. meaning that a duo galleon alliance would make less money per person than a duo sloop or brig encouraging cooperation between smaller ships instead of larger server breaking alliances. an alliance should also be limited to 2 ships to keep stuff balanced. these are just ideas.