It still doesn't answer the question of why keep connecting to the server if you are doing nothing with the connections other than deciding if you're going to boot a player from a match... unless the only reason to connect is to determine if the player is somehow trying to exploit the game.
Periodically connecting to the servers is not anti-exploit code: it was there from the beginning long before Kabam started adding specific anti-exploit features and it serves no useful purpose towards exploit detection. I'm not sure why you think those periodic pings are some form of exploit detection, because there is no exploit they can detect or prevent.
The fact that you don't agree with the logic of disconnecting a player as soon as it is likely their fight will not properly register does not mean you can discount the logic when it comes to determining why the developers do something. It may not be your *preference* to disconnect a player when their session becomes broken, but it is not *illogical* to do so. It is a perfectly reasonable design stance to take.
Periodically connecting to the servers is not anti-exploit code: it was there from the beginning long before Kabam started adding specific anti-exploit features and it serves no useful purpose towards exploit detection. I'm not sure why you think those periodic pings are some form of exploit detection, because there is no exploit they can detect or prevent.
I personally don't. It was brought up by @Lormif to counter me saying that I think it's pointless connecting to the server so often if you're doing nothing with the connections other then to use it as a catalyst to boot a player from a match that is potentially recoverable. They said its not "pointless" if it is an anti-exploit measure.
I'm not even sure that we are in disagreement on this point.
The fact that you don't agree with the logic of disconnecting a player as soon as it is likely their fight will not properly register does not mean you can discount the logic when it comes to determining why the developers do something. It may not be your *preference* to disconnect a player when their session becomes broken, but it is not *illogical* to do so. It is a perfectly reasonable design stance to take.
I never said it was illogical. I'm saying it's a punitive stance. It is very logical to re-initialize something when a session is terminated. Generally all that is lost is time and effort. But in this case, the reset isn't zero sum. The player is penalized for something that in many cases was not their fault and potentially has to spend resources or in modes like AW potentially they lose a war.
In general, Kabam do seem to take many anti-player stances. I'm not saying they aren't trying to make an enjoyable game. I feel like their node design has advanced leaps and bounds in the last year... kudos for that. But if you look at things like bug prioritization, things that hurt Kabam get fixed very quickly, things that hurt the player... not so much. How long did we live with the persistent charges bug? Is it even fixed? There communication is frequently tone deaf... oh we released something that can be exploited, be sure not to do that otherwise we will ban you.
So while I can agree that it is logical that a connection simply be reset as a course of action, we can agree to disagree on whether it is fair.
So while I can agree that it is logical that a connection simply be reset as a course of action, we can agree to disagree on whether it is fair.
The point is if we can agree to disagree on whether it is fair, you should accord the developers the same courtesy and assume they are doing what they believe is fair and reasonable as they see it, and since they don't think it is unfair there's no reason to wonder why they are doing something that appears to you as unfair.
But if you look at things like bug prioritization, things that hurt Kabam get fixed very quickly, things that hurt the player... not so much
Kabam prioritizes bugs based on the degree to which they hurt the game. No bug hurts Kabam, at least not in any comparable sense. All bugs hurt the players, even the ones that some misguided people refer to as "pro player bugs." There's generally no such thing. There's bugs that help some players at the expense of other players. The "pro player bug" people generally don't mention the cost of those pro player bugs being borne by other players of the game.
The point is if we can agree to disagree on whether it is fair, you should accord the developers the same courtesy and assume they are doing what they believe is fair and reasonable as they see it, and since they don't think it is unfair there's no reason to wonder why they are doing something that appears to you as unfair.
That's a lot of double speak to basically say that I shouldn't attribute negative intent to their actions. That doesn't prevent me from having a judgment on whether something is fair or unfair, whether well intentioned or not. History is filled with good intentions resulting in unjust outcomes.
Kabam prioritizes bugs based on the degree to which they hurt the game. No bug hurts Kabam, at least not in any comparable sense. All bugs hurt the players, even the ones that some misguided people refer to as "pro player bugs." There's generally no such thing. There's bugs that help some players at the expense of other players. The "pro player bug" people generally don't mention the cost of those pro player bugs being borne by other players of the game.
There is a philosophical argument that any bug hurts the game or the "spirit" of the game... blah blah. No bug hurts Kabam in a comparable sense? To an extent this is true, because any single bug's impact is spread across millions of users, some of which may be impacted severely and many not at all. A catastrophic bug that took out the servers during July or Cyber sales? I'm sure that would hurt their bottom line.
Bugs that hurt one player group and not another? We don't directly compete against each other except for AW. It's a stretch to say we compete against each other in AQ. A persistent charge bug might give a win to one opponent over the other. At the very top of the game this has a large impact, but how much of the player base does that represent? We are a vocal minority on the forums, Reddit and YT.
Personally, I would feel it is hard to argue that bugs that impact solo play, benefit one player group at the expense of others. "Pro-player" bugs usually revolve around access to more resources or needing to spend less resources i.e. you can an extra run on a side quest, you didn't need to spend health pots or revives completing particular content. The suggestion is that because someone else got something that I did not, that I am now further behind or have to bear the cost of their success. I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.
If there wasn’t a penalty you’d be able to just quit out if you had a bad fight with no penalty
I get why this would be necessary in competitive modes of the game like AW, but anything else it is unnecessary. The penalty is that you lose all progress of that fight, which is a weighing you should be able to make.
Comments
The fact that you don't agree with the logic of disconnecting a player as soon as it is likely their fight will not properly register does not mean you can discount the logic when it comes to determining why the developers do something. It may not be your *preference* to disconnect a player when their session becomes broken, but it is not *illogical* to do so. It is a perfectly reasonable design stance to take.
I'm not even sure that we are in disagreement on this point. I never said it was illogical. I'm saying it's a punitive stance. It is very logical to re-initialize something when a session is terminated. Generally all that is lost is time and effort. But in this case, the reset isn't zero sum. The player is penalized for something that in many cases was not their fault and potentially has to spend resources or in modes like AW potentially they lose a war.
In general, Kabam do seem to take many anti-player stances. I'm not saying they aren't trying to make an enjoyable game. I feel like their node design has advanced leaps and bounds in the last year... kudos for that. But if you look at things like bug prioritization, things that hurt Kabam get fixed very quickly, things that hurt the player... not so much. How long did we live with the persistent charges bug? Is it even fixed? There communication is frequently tone deaf... oh we released something that can be exploited, be sure not to do that otherwise we will ban you.
So while I can agree that it is logical that a connection simply be reset as a course of action, we can agree to disagree on whether it is fair.
Also: Kabam prioritizes bugs based on the degree to which they hurt the game. No bug hurts Kabam, at least not in any comparable sense. All bugs hurt the players, even the ones that some misguided people refer to as "pro player bugs." There's generally no such thing. There's bugs that help some players at the expense of other players. The "pro player bug" people generally don't mention the cost of those pro player bugs being borne by other players of the game.
It was made as an exploit stopper
No bug hurts Kabam in a comparable sense? To an extent this is true, because any single bug's impact is spread across millions of users, some of which may be impacted severely and many not at all. A catastrophic bug that took out the servers during July or Cyber sales? I'm sure that would hurt their bottom line.
Bugs that hurt one player group and not another? We don't directly compete against each other except for AW. It's a stretch to say we compete against each other in AQ. A persistent charge bug might give a win to one opponent over the other. At the very top of the game this has a large impact, but how much of the player base does that represent? We are a vocal minority on the forums, Reddit and YT.
Personally, I would feel it is hard to argue that bugs that impact solo play, benefit one player group at the expense of others. "Pro-player" bugs usually revolve around access to more resources or needing to spend less resources i.e. you can an extra run on a side quest, you didn't need to spend health pots or revives completing particular content. The suggestion is that because someone else got something that I did not, that I am now further behind or have to bear the cost of their success. I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.
Anyway, beaten this dead horse enough.