As for what you're suggesting, it would just be another disguise for a timeout. So to continue repeating myself) It would need to be configured to give the same overall speed, so instead of 1 click -> resources -> free time, you have 1 click -> 1 click -> 1 click -> 1 click -> 1 click -> 1 click -> continue on. It can be 5X or X+X+X+X+X, it can be 100% chance 10% of the time or 10% chance 100% of the time.
It would only be a disguise if you make it simply so. The main thing is to work on an overall average. You would need to add in a random factor that averages out to a determined rate over time. So you could check a few resource nodes and find nothing, or get lucky in finding an untouched node with a lot of piled up resources. You act like resource hunting is a pointless waste... ignoring the idea of having to travel around to find the resource, possibly clearing out some critter on the route there... and maybe when you get there, and hoping you don't get jumped. And the argument of granted resources in exchange for a timeout is better because the timeout allows (forces) the player to do something else has a flaw: This assumes the player actually wants to do something else or is capable of doing something else. A player stuck waiting to craft basic equipment before venturing out is STUCK waiting. This becomes even more painful with ease the such crafted equipment can be lost. So with a chance death, you are sometimes forced to just give up the game for an hour.
The analogies at the end of the statement don't really relate to the situation at hand. You have trade X time for Y resources. Both X and Y are fixed. I want to trade X time for Y resources with both X and Y being unfixed random numbers that average out similar to the first example. They are only equal to each other overall in the game over time... and even then only approach equality over a period of time.
From what I've gathered... the argument for timeouts seems to be made from the perspective of the upper tier elite and other high level players in factions with the focus on PVP. This explains a lot of the points of contention. Timeouts work perfectly if resource gathering isn't your main focus and you just pick up stuff after running around killing stuff when it happens to be in the area. Timeouts on First Aid make sense when you have faction supplied stimpacks and equipment to negate the need for First Aid. Timeouts on skills after death make sense when you are stopping the opposing faction from getting re-equipped and ready for battle. Timeouts work when you are a higher level and don't really worry about the basics anymore...
They don't work well... when you are trying to start out... at all. I would be very interested in seeing the disparity and ratio of rich and poor players. Also, the fact there is very little "middle class" players is not a good sign. Like in any economic system, wealth disparity and the non-existence of certain wealth classes is never a good sign.
Quite frankly it seems that the system is designed to make starting players little more than easy prey... in fact... far easier than most critters (humanoid and non-humanoid). The lower 90% is merely financial fodder for the upper 10%. Hey, nothing like US corporatism abstractly played out in a game.
Then to reward high skills, this (like so much else) is ruined by alts. People would just develop alts to give themselves the max reward, so max reward would have to be set to what it is and the rest of the people would then have to have the whole thing to make room for the improvement.
The neurotic stance everyone has about alts is quite amusing. You act as if they ruin a game entirely. Alts are seen as a good thing to have in a majority of MMO games and it doesn't break or bother them. A serious EVE Online player will pay for multiple accounts to maintain required construction and market alts in conjunction with PVP alts. Doesn't bother the EVE online economy and crafting system at all. People will always go for a max reward in any game... When people discuss character builds... they are min/maxing. It's a pretty common practice in any game. If you are going to put so much time and effort into something, you want to get the most from it. I've designed pen and paper characters in games to be absolute monsters, looked up builds for characters for Ragnarok Online to avoid wasting days of effort because of a misplaced stat point, and read up about the mathematical equations behind the equipment bonuses in about every Blizzard game out there. Min/maxing happens.
You seem to be trying to enforce the idea of not optimizing characters in a game in which the mechanics presently encourage it greatly. It is confusing.
Well, Timeouts will be remaining, but I'd prefer to talk through why rather than just tell everyone to fuck off 
. I'm sure the system can be improved to be more enjoyable and alternatives can be introduced, but there will always be an underlying timeout to control the excess and stop equipment becoming completely trivial.
Equipment isn't trivial... it's actually pretty damn scarce and hard to obtain at the lower rung of the hierarchy. And in a system where equipment determines everything, being bluesuit and destitute pretty ruins the game for most. Even getting enough materials to craft a basic gun is an hour long process... if you don't get killed. Sure you could buy a weapons and goods, but getting caps is a long and annoying process. Not that much fun. When a game is driven by equipment like this one is, not having access to basics is a damn death sentence.
Yes, alts ruin a lot of features and the only really effective way of stopping it is to charge for accounts, something thats just not an option for us, so we have to compromise things to accommodate this 
If you've played EVE Online, charging doesn't stop alts at all. Anyone serious about any game has no problems with spending extra money to get an edge. Charging reduces the number, but doesn't stop them and won't stop the ones you need to focus on. If anything, a verified e-mail address will reduce the number of alts. It'll only stop the semi-casual players, but those are the same group you'd stop by charging.
Honestly, alts are going to exist no matter what. But, alts don't ruin a game... Bad design and mechanics ruin a game, but alts don't. That's like saying a bunch of friends working together at a LAN party will ruin a game. Or a player in a DnD game playing more than one character will ruin the game. Saying that another player working closely together with another player in game will ruin it doesn't make sense, especially in a game that encourages it. I've played too many games and alts have actually tended to be more of a benefit at times overal. In EVE Online I had a market trader alt that never left Jita and worked that crazy market, while my PvPer ran around like a drunken dumbass in Lower Syndicate corridor ganking punks in Reblier. Any rare items that my PvPer found would be dropped off at the border of high sec space and put on a transport contract to my trader alt. In exchange, I'd get good prices on equipment that would be trucked back to my PVPer. I'd swap to the trader for a while when there was nothing going on PVP wise and vice versa. Other players in Jita benefit from the goods I found and sent up there. Also, people I was running with benefit by the goods I resold at better prices down the PVP space. Also, the occasional money transfer from the trader to the PVPer when there was a bad round of losing ships helped.
I think the paranoia and neurotic focuses are misplaced. Seems like the developers are addressing symptoms rather than sources. Ah hell, oh well.
