So, here’s how merit decay should work, using an example of you being a Commander newly pledged to a power, who will be earning 10 merits per cycle from activities completed in each cycle:
At the end of the first cycle, you will have earned 10 merits. These merits are used to determine your Rating for the next cycle.
At the end of the second cycle, still assuming that you’re earning 10 merits for tasks each cycle, you’ll have 10 merits from activities in cycle two, and the merits you earned in cycle one will be added again, only at half value, meaning that you’d have a total of 15 merits (10 from cycle two and 10/2 from cycle one) used to determine you rating for the next cycle.
At the end of cycle three, you would be earning merits from activities from that cycle, plus merits earned from cycle two at half value, and merits from cycle one at a quarter value.
So if you earned 10 merits per cycle, in cycle three you would have 17.5 merits (10 from cycle three, 10/2 from cycle two and 10/4 from cycle one).
This trend continues; in its fourth cycle, merits are still awarded, only at an eighth of their original value. So, in our example, with 10 merits being earned each cycle, at the end of cycle four the merit total would be 18.75 (10 from cycle four, 10/2 from cycle three, 10/4 from cycle two and 10/8 from cycle one).
Merits are completely removed from your total on their fifth cycle, so in our example, merits earned from cycle one would be completely removed from cycle four, leaving us the same total of 18.75 (10 from cycle five, 10/2 from cycle four, 10/4 from cycle three, 10/8 from cycle two and zero from cycle one, as these merits have been removed).
The bug we suspect might exist would mean that the merit total isn’t being halved (or not always halved) on cycle two of its life span, instead being added again at full value. On cycle three it is being halved and on cycle four it is being quartered. It is still being completely removed on cycle five.
The upshot of this is that Commanders could be earning more merits than they should be: not the end of the world, but as clearly noticed, inconsistent and potentially confusing, it’s something we’re investigating.
