The proposal goes as follows. You pick up a 'fight in 3 capture and hold or assault battle' wrapper mission, you go into a level appropriate queue waiting for a team to pull together. If you wait in queue for 45 minutes without a team coming together the game marks the mission as complete and you get to turn it in for full credit. Now, the game does not kick you out of queue at this stage and, once turning in the quest you will be able to pick it up again all while not losing the position you reached in the queue over the span of those 45 minutes.
Now if your queue does pop your timer gets paused while everyone accepts the queue and if everyone accepts and your battle starts, your timer resets itself to zero but if somebody fails to accept and you get put back into queue waiting on someone, then your timer picks up where it left off. Leaving the queue, whether willingly or just because you're AFK, IDLE, or do not accept your queue when it pops will also wipe your timer with no credit granted.
Now, onto the questions!
Q1: Isn't this just a cynical attempt to bribe people into increasing participation into a part of the game they will not enjoy?
Yes, good observation.
Q2: But I just described your proposal accurately by using words that have negative connotations, thus I have proven your idea is bad!
Ohhhh, is that how that game is played? Okay, let me make those connotations positive and make it look like I'm disagreeing with you... ahem.... "No good sir, this is a clever attempt to reward players who increase participation into a part of the game that they may not have felt it was rewarding to explore otherwise"
Q3: Why do you think people should get rewarded for bench warming?
Because it makes people more likely to bench warm. Seriously, as far as in game effect goes I see this having two benefits. First, it will increase PVP participation, players who don't queue up because they've been disappointed by long queue times in the past will now have a reason to queue up in spite of those, and it can create a culture where PVP just becomes something you queue for while you're doing what you really want to do, thus drawing in those people who normally do not actively engage in PVP.
The second benefit is that this will increase leveling speed, maybe that's not such a good thing on the Federation side of the game, but on the Klingon side ANYTHING that makes the barren wasteland between Lieutenant Commander and General faster to traverse is a benefit.
Q4: But at end game that wrapper mission gives 3 emblems on a 20 hour cooldown, so this could hurt end game participation in PVP by allowing people to run out the clock for those emblems before leaving queue.
Fair point and one I hadn't considered mostly because I've never had to wait over 45 minutes for a PVP queue at end game. So for end game we have two wrapper missions anyway, one repeatable on the standard 30 minute cooldown and the other repeatable on a 20 hour cooldown. This proposal could only apply to the 1 emblem mission on the 30 minute cooldown.
Q5: What about gold farmers logging in at odd hours of the morning to queue up for PVP just to receive the free emblems or experience?
With any luck they will end up in PVP matches against other gold farmers logging in at odd hours of the morning. Or they'll end up in PVP matches with our German, Japanese, Taiwanese or Indian player base, who will have a fun time pummelling those economy destroying jerks. Almost enough to make me wish I lived in a different time zone.
Q6: What if this leads to a bunch of half-effort PVPers who spend the entire match flying in a circle and ignoring the mission objectives?
It does suck when that happens. A 'report AFK' option for this game is sorely missed I know, but my only answer to that is that even our current PVPers who just show up for the emblems put in at least some effort and most people who show up for PVP really do try. I have no reason to believe the proportion of 'okay player' to 'afk slacker' will change significantly if the PVP population increases.
Q7: I don't want to PVP!
Then don't. The PVP rewards available in game are not necessarily better than the PVE rewards and, in the case of emblems, they are exactly the same. This proposal isn't to force every player to play PVP, it's to reward those who make themselves available to participate.
Q8: What if I just queue up at random hours, but if my queue pops up I don't accept! Hah, then I get all the rewards most of the time but I still don't have to PVP!
Kudos, you've discovered a way to game the system, but here's the bad news. The more people who discover this way to game the system there are, the less likely it is to work as you will find your queue and the opposing queue's filling with other people trying to game the system and suddenly it doesn't work at all.
Q9: I can limit the chances of that by only queueing for one battle, and make it a really unpopular one!
Well, two things about that. First, new rule, you only get 'bench warmer' credit if you're queue'd for two battles for 45 minutes. Second, you think you're the only one clever enough to think, "I'll just queue up for a really unpopular battle?" Please, if convenience queue-ers become a large enough bracket than 'unpopular battles' could very well become the most queue'd for ones.
Q10: Then I'll just queue in and then alt tab to research female anatomy!
Yeah, we really need a 'report AFK' option in this game.
Q11: Okay, then I'll queue in and spend the entire battle jumping around and /e dance_robot-ing.
Okay, but if you're going to be at your computer anyway, why not just play the game?