I'm not suggesting this out of spite, ...

You have two options:

1) PreventAFK rewards in real time when you can and let the rest go
2) Prevent what you can in real time and get the rest after the fact

The first option will lead to an arms race with CCP constantly playing catch up to the hackers. That will result in significant effort just to stay behind.

The second option will dramatically discourage hacking as all the time and effort spent to circumvent the control may be lost at any time.

I've stated my opinion that a detector will be dificult to build. It would be nearly impossible to keep up with the AFK hackers, hence the requirement to be able to post process battles when new hacks are identified.

That said, there are probably whole classes of actions that will take care of themselves, such as anything that exposes you to enemy fire (or team killing). For the most part it will probably concentrate on the MCC and your redline.

After a certain point a person manipulating the keyboard or controler will be spending enough attention to the game that they might as well be playing.

Guys, my OP wasn't a request to implement the anti-idle system. CCP already stated they were working on one.

My post was a suggestion to CCP that they not try to play catchup with AFK players, but rather prosecute after the fact to keep their development costs down. So far I haven't read any arguments against that reasoning.

What I do read is a side argument about some folks feeling entitled to AFK because CCP knows about the problem. In my mind that's akin to claiming a store owner knows you can shoplift and doesn't put every bit of merchandise under lock and key, so you are entitled to walk off with it. The owner doesn't do that because it would be a pain in the ass for everyone. What he does do is install cameras to record theft so he can prosecute once you leave the store.

It's disengenuous to claim that it's "Working as Intended". Everyone knows it hurts the quality of play when some don't bother to participate. You can claim that "Well, gameplay sucks anyway so I'm not doing much additional harm.", but that's merely a rationalization. People AFK because they want the rewards but do not want to pay CCP for them with their active participation.

Guys, my OP wasn't a request to implement the anti-idle system. CCP already stated they were working on one.

My post was a suggestion to CCP that they not try to play catchup with AFK players, but rather prosecute after the fact to keep their development costs down. So far I haven't read any arguments against that reasoning.

What I do read is a side argument about some folks feeling entitled to AFK because CCP knows about the problem. In my mind that's akin to claiming a store owner knows you can shoplift and doesn't put every bit of merchandise under lock and key, so you are entitled to walk off with it. The owner doesn't do that because it would be a pain in the ass for everyone. What he does do is install cameras to record theft so he can prosecute once you leave the store.

People AFK because they want the rewards but do not want to pay CCP for them with their active participation.

In that event you were active at least part of the time.

I don't know precisely how CC will define idling, but to paraphrase the famous quote, "I know idling when I see it."

They obviously want to give the players the most leeway possible and give them the benefit of the doubt. That's likely why they are being reluctantly pushed into building a detector. They wouldn't bother if the players didn't force their hand.

Would you sit by if you wrote a game and your players live streamed AFK?

I suppose you could say that he contract only stipulates that the performer be downtown and only assumed he would be actively performing, but a judge in court might uphold that as a reasonable expectation. Especially if the town had stated they were putting measures in place to detect sleeping on the job. Either way it would be imprudent for said performer to live stream his nap for the benefit of the town council. Does someone really have to spell out that intention is that you actively perform? After all you already get another support payment for being a registered town resident.

I understand your indignation at being rewarded at nearly the same rate as a less accomplished performer. FPS players are a competitive lot and want to distinguish themselves in every way possible. That's not a problem in a standard FPS with no skill system and little difference in gear. There the rank beginners are segregated and everyone else is on an even footing.

However an MMOFPS presents true play differences at different skill levels. Each skill point matters and progression must be carefully managed to fall within an acceptable range. Too fast or too slow both cause problems. Thus CCP seeks a way to compress the range for those less personally skilled (not necessarily just beginners) and those elite players.

If you accept the basic premise that you have to limit the earnings gap for the long term health of the game you are immediately confronted with the difficulty of rewarding solely on performance. The range is simply too large.

You can play with the formula all you want, but if it serves to limit the range disparity it won't reward performance to the degree the competitive player desires. They not only want to win, they want all the loot too.

So what can you do? Well, you can offer other forms of recognition such as stats leader boards and content like PC that only reward performance and hope that it satisfies your elite players.

[quote=semperfi1999]
I don't believe you understand the basic progression problem CCP has. We aren't talking about the post cap bonus, we are talking about the basic pre-cap reward.

If you get ten times the SP for 2000 WP than the other guy who managed 200 WP you will progress your character at a rate ten times faster.

If it takes you a mere two months to max out a character for one role it will take the other guy nearly two years.

He's not likely to stick around long enough to get competitive.

If CCP scales rewards so the other guy can get competitive in one role in six months, you run through the entire skill tree in a year.

You simply can't reward progression on a pure performance based measure and not break something.