I’d like to advocate for further separation between these two systems.
While it’s nice to earn merits simply by playing the game, the influence of Powerplay activities on Background Simulation (BGS) mechanics is causing excessive turmoil.
My proposed solution doesn’t address all the issues within the system, but it would create a clear division between the two, with player choice serving as the key factor in determining where the influence ultimately goes.
In the same way we choose rewards for BGS missions—whether prioritizing credits, reputation, or influence—we could similarly choose between merits and credits for activities not directly handled by Power contacts.
For example, selling cargo, delivering exploration data, or submitting biological samples could prompt players to select either credits or merits as their reward upon selling. This is a straightforward idea in design and, hopefully, feasible to implement. Perhaps we could even introduce Power Cartographics and a Power Commodity Market as separate entities, akin to existing Power contacts. A dedicated NPC for biological samples at the Concourse could also handle these transactions. Alternatively, a simple popup could ask players to choose their reward type, much like completing standard missions.
This change would also impact BGS missions. These missions might either stop awarding merits entirely or include merits as one of the selectable reward options.
I understand the original intention was to make any gameplay activity a viable way to progress in terms of both credits and merits. However, I don’t believe the current setup fulfills the promise of avoiding unintended changes to BGS gameplay due to Powerplay mechanics.
A potential option could involve a split reward system, such as 80:20 credits to merits (and vice versa), to maintain the system of rewarding both credits and merits, yet giving priority to one over the other. Ultimately, giving players the choice of whether to focus on accumulating wealth or advancing their Power seems like a fair solution. I believe both options would appeal to different groups of players—seasoned players with ample credits might prefer to prioritize their Power, while others could still choose extra credits if needed. Either way, this would require careful balancing.
With this adjustment, the only truly intertwined aspect of BGS and Powerplay would be direct spaceship interactions, which feels appropriate for a game centered around spaceships. Additionally, since these activities generally involve rewards distributed in smaller increments over time (unlike large, instantaneous dumps of cargo or data—even when sold one ton at a time), the influence changes would hopefuly become more transparent, sustainable, and manageable.
One last request from me would be rebalancing reputation penalties from holoscreen hacking.
Being hostile in my own bgs system from flipping ~20 holoscreens from enemy power isnt fun and happens too fast.
While it’s nice to earn merits simply by playing the game, the influence of Powerplay activities on Background Simulation (BGS) mechanics is causing excessive turmoil.
My proposed solution doesn’t address all the issues within the system, but it would create a clear division between the two, with player choice serving as the key factor in determining where the influence ultimately goes.
In the same way we choose rewards for BGS missions—whether prioritizing credits, reputation, or influence—we could similarly choose between merits and credits for activities not directly handled by Power contacts.
For example, selling cargo, delivering exploration data, or submitting biological samples could prompt players to select either credits or merits as their reward upon selling. This is a straightforward idea in design and, hopefully, feasible to implement. Perhaps we could even introduce Power Cartographics and a Power Commodity Market as separate entities, akin to existing Power contacts. A dedicated NPC for biological samples at the Concourse could also handle these transactions. Alternatively, a simple popup could ask players to choose their reward type, much like completing standard missions.
This change would also impact BGS missions. These missions might either stop awarding merits entirely or include merits as one of the selectable reward options.
I understand the original intention was to make any gameplay activity a viable way to progress in terms of both credits and merits. However, I don’t believe the current setup fulfills the promise of avoiding unintended changes to BGS gameplay due to Powerplay mechanics.
A potential option could involve a split reward system, such as 80:20 credits to merits (and vice versa), to maintain the system of rewarding both credits and merits, yet giving priority to one over the other. Ultimately, giving players the choice of whether to focus on accumulating wealth or advancing their Power seems like a fair solution. I believe both options would appeal to different groups of players—seasoned players with ample credits might prefer to prioritize their Power, while others could still choose extra credits if needed. Either way, this would require careful balancing.
With this adjustment, the only truly intertwined aspect of BGS and Powerplay would be direct spaceship interactions, which feels appropriate for a game centered around spaceships. Additionally, since these activities generally involve rewards distributed in smaller increments over time (unlike large, instantaneous dumps of cargo or data—even when sold one ton at a time), the influence changes would hopefuly become more transparent, sustainable, and manageable.
One last request from me would be rebalancing reputation penalties from holoscreen hacking.
Being hostile in my own bgs system from flipping ~20 holoscreens from enemy power isnt fun and happens too fast.
