Well of course they'd keep it secret but it wouldn't remain so for long. I've mostly covered this already but here's a simple system: monitor assists, damage, dps, time within x distance of spawn, time within x distance of satellites, total distance traveled, and objective points. At the end of the match each one of these trips a flag(ie. if(damage < 3000) set flag). Then you check if a number of flags are tripped. So if(totalFlags >3) then punish player. Might be better with the logic reversed but that's a minor detail and irrelevant to the current discussion. Obviously those values are just examples and would be determined on implementation, as well as what the punishment is(no exp/quest credit, or lose req etc). It's also obviously done in an extremely simple and unpolished manor. What it creates though is a highly adaptable system that works on all match types(i'm sure we'll get more in the future), is entirely unobtrusive because it doesn't lock you into one single activity, while also making it cumbersome enough for those trying to beat it that it is easier to just simply play the match. You could combine it with an afk timer and maybe other things but i doubt it would be necessary. Afkers get punished, regular players don't even really know it's there, it's easy to implement, adaptable, and it should solve the problem.

I know I addressed that the first time I posted it. You set it so stupidly low no one is that bad, but it makes everyone at least engage in combat some. The idea is not to make an invincible, perfect system, it's to make defeating the system not worth the effort. With an afk timer and a few flags you make it more difficult to go afk than to just play the match and the people who are already playing don't notice the system at all. And before we rehash anymore I already addressed the ease of implementing a system like this. The programing is simple and the most difficult task is just selecting the metrics.

Well that's why I was arguing for a system that punishes them for going afk. If they got 0 req and no quest credit, or better yet lost req, for not meeting certain minimum standards you'd put an end to afk real quick.

My real concern over this is does it help or make things worse? Even though it's small, leeches would become free points for the other side. I just don't think the solution is to turn them from useless members to useless members feeding free points to the enemy. This also only works for one single type of match, if we get things like a death match, or a non-objective point match afkers become a devastating liability.

Well I kind of did address your point though not in a direct quote I suppose. If they are forced to leave the safe zone that's great, but considering most of the fighting happens still a good bit from the safe zone they can move 1m from it and park. You don't even need to park, you could still be afk just fly forward until you crash or get shot. Hitting ready every few minutes isn't hard, and these afkers still have to hit launch to get into the queue. If they're botting it's just as easy to automate ready as launch, and if they're semi-afk just click the button. If BW wants to get automated logs of people clearly afking and then go in an ban them fine by me but that seems rather unlikely. If a system is too easily beaten it's not effective and solves nothing. The system can't be neutered but also can't be so complex it's too hard to implement. It needs to make it hard enough to overcome that it's just easier to play the game.

Well that's actually why it's important, because it would need to be decided what an afker is. Lets look at a vote kick system. So you look at the scoreboard and 5 minutes in you see someone with no kills, no assists, no damage, nothing, so they get kicked. Then you have the forum flooded with people complaining about being kicked for parking on an uncontested satellite. If we use a system that says afkers get no req or credit for the match, same deal they complain about parking on satellites. If all anyone has to do to avoid an afk system is get a few objective points then every afker just flies to a satellite and parks completely negating any use the system gets. If the only that matters about afking is where you do it then we've neutered the system and solved nothing. This thread is already showing you're either going to get a neutered system or quite a few people who don't think they're afking getting hit with it. So given all I think I think it's a discussion that needs to be had before any worthwhile solution to the afk problem can be devised.

The other team's strategy was clearly to take two satellites, and completely ignore the 3rd. You can stop putting words in my mouth because I've been talking about this one example you've given in which you leeched. I also primarily fly a starguard or a pike, I usually only fly my scouts for the 3x req. You say your team couldn't take another satellite and they were fighting with a handicap because you wern't helping. You admit your holding the satellite didn't change the outcome of the battle. The only thing that had the potential to change the outcome was to go help your team take a second satellite. Going back and forth on this is piontless, and there's no need for us to derail the thread farther, but parking on top of a totally uncontested satellite isn't contributing, and I think they should trigger the same afk flags any system would put in place. It is somewhat related because they're doing almost the exact same thing as any afker, and any system designed to catch afkers that could ignore this situation would just force afkers to sit on top of satellites instead. I suppose at that point they'd be acting as another turret but that's about it.

It's one thing to sit at a satellite till the turrets spawn, it's also good to say there when people are attacking it. Sitting at a completely unchallenged satellite isn't helping. No one even knows someone is there so how are they suddenly going to attack the instant you leave. It's also not very far to go one satellite over. This is not about ego, parking on top of a satellite that no one is even looking at for an entire match is just not contributing to the battle going on.

I never said you'd leave, they can kill you. Two fighters means they can keep you exposed from cover at all times. You're claiming you can hold a satellite from 4 or 5 fighters, unless they suck, BS. One of two things happened here, either your team was better than the enemy because they won while being a man down, or they needed help and you didn't contribute. You are proud of parking on top of a satellite that was completely uncontested for an entire match and never once thought to leave it even after you would have been pulling ahead in points. Whether you like it or not in that scenario you contributed as much as someone who went afk. You can try to insult me all you want but fact is you didn't contribute to the team.

You have an overinflated sense of your own worth. You've basically declared yourself the greatest pilot in all of GSF. I've defended a satellite from 4 people before, they were terrible pilots. I've also lost a satellite to one pilot who was a real ace. One on the one hand you want to claim you're 5x better than everyone else in GSF and on the other you say you can't get back to a satellite in 30 seconds. If no one is attacking the satellite they don't even know you're there, if they are then you wouldn't have zeros across the board. Parking on a satellite that's not being attacked isn't all that productive, the same thing can be accomplished with a sensor beacon and you'd be able to actually contribute to the battle going on. If you're are great as you claim you shouldn't have any trouble exerting pressure on one satellite while defending another.

It's actually quite easy to code, I could do it in a few hours or less. It's just collecting data and running a bunch of boolean comparisons on it, if(damage < x), if(assists < y), etc. Then you just need to decide on what the flags are such that even the worst legitimate player will never trip them, but afkers will. The purpose it not to design some award winning system but a quick deterrent from afking. To be quite frank, you're kind of leeching. It doesn't take an overwhelming force to chase one fighter off a satellite, and turrets buy you a lot of time on an undefended satellite. It would only take a single gunship or decent fighter to chase someone off a satellite. Coming in with 2 fighters to your 1 would ensure you didn't have a chance to defend it. The enemy showed no interest in the satellite and your team had to play handicapped because of you. There is no reason anyone should leave any match(that they didn't join midway or something) with zero damage and zero assists.

We're getting too bogged down in the minor details, I'm just throwing a quick relatively easy system to detect afkers. It's not hard to monitor a number of factors like time spent within x distance of the cap ship, kill, assists, damage, dps, objective points, or even overall distance traveled in the match. You set off a number of flags and you're punished for it. The problem with kicking is not everyone bothers, so the afker just keeps going until he gets through a match and it won't offer any real deterrent. If you start punishing people for afking(let req go negative) that will put an end to afking real quick.

Then just change it so you have to do that damage per minute or something, or base it on dps or something. While being able to kick players would be nice, players who do this stuff need to be punished. Really it should be a bannable offense.

Personally I'd like to see it set up so that if you don't do a certain amount of damage in the match you get 0 req, 0 exp, and no credit for the match for your daily/weekly. Something low enough that even bad players could do it but afks can't, so like 3k damage or something. If you do 0 damage you lose req. That would keep people from leeching in matches.

The analogy isn't perfect because you generally survive longer in ground pvp than space. Keep in mind what a scout can do with blaster overcharge and bypass, or how fast someone goes down if you land a sab probe on them. Even proton torpedoes are devastating. The better comparison is GW2, like gsf you arn't really supposed to get hit in that game you're supposed to dodge. When someone there pops all their cooldowns they can drop a player in a second or 2. GSF is the same way, under concentrated fire with all cooldowns no one survives long. Even the range can be compared to a rogue dropping out of stealth, poping all cooldowns and killing you before you even knew he was there.