So I read this as two interconnected items, which I believe have been stated previously. Inno is trying to tackle the issue of "quest abort exploits" AND "the impact is has on [their] servers." I feel Inno's reasoning to install an abort limit is just only to solve the impact on their servers. You can still "exploit" the aborting part, but only until you reach 2000 aborts. So really, they only limited the amount of "exploiting" that can take place (insert your definition of "exploit" here). I'm assuming (just an assumption) the only reason why they did this is because it was the simplest solution and had the most efficient impact on freeing up server processing. What concerns me is how much of an impact did this change actually make? Also, under the assumption stated above, will Inno actually make significant efforts to halt the "quest abort exploits" (most have assumed bots) without altering/limiting a main style of gameplay?
Inno says they are all about respecting the players of this game, but the way this change was portrayed and the impact this has had on gameplay, I question the integrity of Inno. Please just shoot straight with us. I still won't like it, but I would much more respect Inno if they said something along the lines of: "We have some issues regarding the abort quest "exploits" that is having an impact on our servers. Right now the best way we can free up our servers is to limit aborts. We feel this is the best current action we can take to keep from overloading our servers and impacting lags for all players. Please understand that we are not trying to marginalize any particular style of gameplay. Thank you for your understanding."
In full disclosure, I do not hit the 2000 abort limit on a daily basis, so I am not saying this to "fight my own battle", but for the integrity and transparency of the game. No one likes to be jerked around and play a game in which rules or modifications change at a moments notice. I understand that I signed up for this game in full knowledge of the terms and conditions (like anyone really reads that fine print anyways), and that Inno has the right to change the game however they see fit. I also understand they are in the middle of a teeter totter. On the one side is player contentment and the other is revenue. It's a poor analogy, but I think you get the point. I also understand that this change really only affects about 10-15% of the player community, but in my option, that segment of the player community are the ones I would much rather listen to that those who pop on to play once every couple of days. This change does not affect me that much, but I would rather raise my voice now, because the next awful (yes, I said it) change to come might just impact my game style.
Some have asked, "If you are objecting to Inno's change, then propose something different." So, I'm not an IT guy, nor do I have insight into the actual details as to why Inno made their change." As any problem solver would say, I need to see all the issues at hand before I can solve the problem. Inno's statement is vague at best, and I feel they did that on purpose as to not get backed into a corner. I don't feel I have enough "data" to make a qualified recommendation, but some of the IT ideas that have been suggested (having the aborts stored locally rather than on servers) seem to be decent ideas, but is Inno willing to invest the amount of time and energy it takes to really fix the "exploits" at hand. Sorry for the long post, keep up the good work, and Forge On!
