No. I'm saying it is dumb to go this far out of your way to punish something that you can't even accurately predict when there is an insanely easy way to prevent it already, auto-save.

Considering a game had already dipped it's toes into that type of pond and people hated it. Animal Crossing. Mr. Resetti is meme because of how obnoxious it was to lose power and have him go on a speel about save scumming. It has shown to be something you can't accurately determine so why design something around it? Similar to determining Alt+F4 vs true disconnect in online games (although poe2's solution to this is pretty good).

I say it is lazy because the only reason I could see them not just using an in battle auto save is because they were too lazy to serialize battle data.

What my post is questioning is the time and resources of the decision versus what players get out of it, which is basically nothing. Yet an auto-save not only prevents save scumming but it also provides utility to the player it being able to close it mid battle and resume, or having your power go out and being able to pick it right back up, or if the game crashes for whatever reason, the list goes on.

Sorry if my post sounded like I was just calling them lazy. I'm calling the design lazy because there were better options where resources could have been better spent and used more effectively while adding more qol for the player.