Diablo III Catch-All

DeThroned wrote:

I understand the reason for open beta and the reasoning behind it but server issues? Login issues? It just seems like Blizz being the company that they are would already anticipate what is necessary to ensure people can login and play.

Eh, whatever. I'm still gonna preorder this, just haven't done it yet.

So because they're a big company that's released games before everything's supposed to be perfect and 100% bug free with no major stress testing?

Gotcha.

Well, just finished the run-through of the beta questline, but didn't hit level 13...

My impressions:

It was very easy.
It was definitely a Diablo game.
Pretty.
Not enough of the game seen to make a real judgment about the depth of character advancement, loot, or quests. Seemed like they wanted to keep us on course and linear. I have to believe the final game would come with a great many more sidequests. If not, the offerings overall seem a little sparse.
The male wizard is an arrogant ass, but pretty hot.

I was finally able to log in this morning and played up until level 10 before I had to run some errands, and I can now safely add the Diablo series to the list of popular games series that I just don't like--joining Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Resident Evil.

DeThroned wrote:

I understand the reason for open beta and the reasoning behind it but server issues? Login issues? It just seems like Blizz being the company that they are would already anticipate what is necessary to ensure people can login and play.

You do understand that this is a stress test for server and login issues, right?

Jesus, and I take heat for saying gamers are entitled.

Swarfigo wrote:

I was finally able to log in this morning and played up until level 10 before I had to run some errands, and I can now safely add the Diablo series to the list of popular games series that I just don't like--joining Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Resident Evil.

You don't like the Assassin's Creed series? You should get that looked at. It might develop into something worse. Wait, it already has! You don't like D3 either!

ranalin wrote:

Seems like im the only here that never played the other D2 games as a single player game. Myself and all my friends played them online constantly because thats where you got the loot and was able to trade/sell it. There were what seemed like 100 of thousands of players doing just this. I suspect that was the higher end of the demographic. It's not that they cant do it that way but dont want to and trying to accomodate the higher end of the spectrum and as a business dont care about those who dont want to connect while playing the game.

Exactly. This is kind of like a 4 player at a time mmo guys. Why would you want to play this solo when we have an awesome GWJ community?

You all have played WoW, right? Other than expansion launches and scheduled server downtimes I can't think of 1 time I wanted to log onto WoW and couldn't over more hundreds of hours than I care to admit. Blizzard knows what they are doing and there may be some launch day issues but Blizzard will be printing money with D3 despite the Internet angst over always online connection requirements.

TrashiDawa wrote:

Exactly. This is kind of like a 4 player at a time mmo guys. Why would you want to play this solo when we have an awesome GWJ community?

The GWJ community is indeed wonderful, but I like to do RPGs at my own pace, and that just doesn't work in a multiplayer environment. Someone is always moving around way too fast, and someone always has to kill everything before I get a chance to attack. It just isn't fun for me.

This isn't like WoW raiding where you have to work as a team to accomplish something.

BadKen wrote:
Swarfigo wrote:

I was finally able to log in this morning and played up until level 10 before I had to run some errands, and I can now safely add the Diablo series to the list of popular games series that I just don't like--joining Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Resident Evil.

You don't like the Assassin's Creed series? You should get that looked at. It might develop into something worse. Wait, it already has! You don't like D3 either!

I tried to like Assassin's Creed. I played the first two fully and stopped halfway through Brotherhood because I didn't care anymore. As for Diablo, I don't know what it is, maybe it's the setting or something. Gameplay-wise they are fantastic, but they just don't appeal to me with the story/setting.

BadKen wrote:

This isn't like WoW raiding where you have to work as a team to accomplish something.

Oh I don't know. I always found full games on Hell difficulty on Diablo 2 to benefit greatly from teamwork. Plus it was great when someone would charge off by themselves and then proceed to get murdered by Duriel like 400 times while the rest of the group took their sweet time getting there.

BadKen wrote:
TrashiDawa wrote:

Exactly. This is kind of like a 4 player at a time mmo guys. Why would you want to play this solo when we have an awesome GWJ community?

The GWJ community is indeed wonderful, but I like to do RPGs at my own pace, and that just doesn't work in a multiplayer environment. Someone is always moving around way too fast, and someone always has to kill everything before I get a chance to attack. It just isn't fun for me.

This isn't like WoW raiding where you have to work as a team to accomplish something.

I get that feeling, Ken. Might make more sense to play this with a dedicated group of four friends who understand the reasoning for slowing down. I was never the kind of Diablo player that just jumped into random games, either.

BadKen wrote:
TrashiDawa wrote:

Exactly. This is kind of like a 4 player at a time mmo guys. Why would you want to play this solo when we have an awesome GWJ community?

The GWJ community is indeed wonderful, but I like to do RPGs at my own pace, and that just doesn't work in a multiplayer environment.

Fair enough. Single player is absolutely a valid way to play. It will indeed suck if Diablo's servers sh*t the bed but I like how easy it is to find MP games with the always on functionality.

If there are still connection issues a couple of weeks after launch I will think about grabbing a pitchfork. However, the beta stress test is the wrong time to get pissed about connection problems and jump to apocalyptic conclusions.

TrashiDawa wrote:
BadKen wrote:
TrashiDawa wrote:

Exactly. This is kind of like a 4 player at a time mmo guys. Why would you want to play this solo when we have an awesome GWJ community?

The GWJ community is indeed wonderful, but I like to do RPGs at my own pace, and that just doesn't work in a multiplayer environment.

Fair enough. Single player is absolutely a valid way to play. It will indeed suck if Diablo's servers sh*t the bed but I like how easy it is to find MP games with the always on functionality.

If there are still connection issues a couple of weeks after launch I will think about grabbing a pitchfork. However, the beta stress test is the wrong time to get pissed about connection problems and jump to apocalyptic conclusions.

I am not entirely upset about not being able to access an open beta for free, but what has me upset is the always-on style DRM they're employing here. I sincerely hope they're MAKING you connect to a server simply as part of the stress test, and that this isn't the rule. I actually had fun and am turning around on my dislike for the game. Ultimately, though, the always-on bullsh*t will keep me from purchasing if that becomes the rule.

Am I the only person who feels like the game is a bit too...close? Like zoomed in just a tad too much? I feel like I wish I could pan back a bit. Might just be me though.

I need some friends to play with. I played all of D1 and D2 solo cause I didnt have friends who played computer games.

I can definitely see having room for both Diablo and TL2, though.

Benticore wrote:

Am I the only person who feels like the game is a bit too...close? Like zoomed in just a tad too much? I feel like I wish I could pan back a bit. Might just be me though.
I need some friends to play with. I played all of D1 and D2 solo cause I didnt have friends who played computer games.
I can definitely see having room for both Diablo and TL2, though.

Heh! It's funny you mention that - I'm sort of on the opposite side of the fence. I've been playing the whole thing with the 'z' engaged for maximum zoom-in, and I wish that we could zoom in a bit more to check out the cool monster designs/animations more easily. Whatever the case, I think having a zoom toggle between several different levels would be nice (how about a mouse wheel sliding camera zoom/rotation?)

I've been impressed with the amount of destructibles in the environment; extensive animations for all sorts of things; barrels, chairs, tables, books, lights, etc.

NSMike wrote:

I am not entirely upset about not being able to access an open beta for free, but what has me upset is the always-on style DRM they're employing here. I sincerely hope they're MAKING you connect to a server simply as part of the stress test, and that this isn't the rule. I actually had fun and am turning around on my dislike for the game. Ultimately, though, the always-on bullsh*t will keep me from purchasing if that becomes the rule.

Unfortunately they have already stated that the game will not be able to function without an active connection to the battle.net servers.

"Q: Will I need to be connected to the Internet to play Diablo III?

A: Yes, players must be online in order to play Diablo III. Diablo III was built from the ground up to take full advantage of the new version of Blizzard's powerful Battle.net platform. Players will have access to several features through Battle.net, including an advanced achievement system as well as the Diablo III banner system; a powerful co-op and PvP matchmaking system; comprehensive stat-tracking; persistent characters that will not expire and are accessible from any computer that has Diablo III installed;
a persistent Real ID friends list across multiple Blizzard games, along with cross-game chat; a shared stash accessible by all Diablo III characters on the Battle.net account; and the ability to have friends seamlessly jump in and join you at any time during your quest against the Burning Hells. Together with the security-related benefits that Battle.net provides, these Battle.net-based features are integral to the Diablo III game experience."

I remember reading an interview a while back that they have offloaded systems like random loot generation to be server side. This makes D3 more like an MMO than a single player experience. With Blizzards track record for server stability I do not see it being much of a issue.

I do see where the frustration is coming from. For those only wanting to play by themselves, having to maintain an account for features they do not care about can be a hassle. Losing progress in a single player session do to a connection hiccup would be infuriating.

Can I get a Steam group invite as well? Just got the beta invite yesterday.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/bighoppa

While I have no doubt that piracy is their number one reason for "always online", an extra benefit for them is, by going all out with the server-side structure, to make it harder for people to dupe and hack, something which would be a disaster for all their "evil" plans of printing money through the Real money Action House.

Demiurge wrote:
DeThroned wrote:

I understand the reason for open beta and the reasoning behind it but server issues? Login issues? It just seems like Blizz being the company that they are would already anticipate what is necessary to ensure people can login and play.

You do understand that this is a stress test for server and login issues, right?

Jesus, and I take heat for saying gamers are entitled.

I had the whole saturday afternoon to play this game but it wouldn't login. Wasted my saturday afternoon with the download and everything just to not have it work.

If I'm annoyed at that, I'm "entitled"? Come on. It just turned me off the game, that's all.

It's even worse because, yes, it's Blizzard and they've been running the #1 MMO forever.

Actually yeah you're jumping up and down on a big sign that says "overinflated sense of self entitlement" in flashing neon

Mex wrote:

It's even worse because, yes, it's Blizzard and they've been running the #1 MMO forever.

This is what's a little baffling. You'd think they'd be aware of exactly what to do to scale heavy server loads of this kind. It's almost like they decided to lowball it deliberately.

That may be exactly what they're doing, though. They are probably trying to test their new server software to its limits, instead of just saying, "Yep, we can throw this many servers at the problem and fix it."

Nevermind, I see you went back and added what I was pointing out anyway. Good on ya.

NSMike wrote:

That may be exactly what they're doing, though. They are probably trying to test their new server software to its limits, instead of just saying, "Yep, we can throw this many servers at the problem and fix it."

Indeed. They ran a very similar multiplayer stress test for Diablo 2 shortly before the release of that game, and it went similarly. Although they ran that over the course of maybe two weeks, IIRC.

NSMike wrote:

It was very easy.

I think they've already confirmed that normal difficulty is going to be pretty casual and vets probably won't have an issue with it. Game is supposed to ramp up at Nightmare (and (optimisitcally) maybe in later acts?)

It was definitely a Diablo game.

Indeed. Seems a little slower than D2 due to the lack of a run button. Feels more like D1's pacing?

I have to believe the final game would come with a great many more sidequests.

Aren't they doing some sort of randomized quest triggers? It's hard to gauge what's scripted vs. a random trigger. We found some black mushrooms we don't know what to do with, and there was this templar guy we picked up on the way to the Skeleton King.

I'm pleased with this, but it's really annoying that they brought the servers down for maintenance just as we were getting close the Skeleton King to finish out the beta. I know it's a beta and all, but the always-on and always through bnet stuff kinda sucks when you're just trying to play the game with someone else in the same room. I can deal with it, but this is a good point from the detractors, and is why I'm throwing money at Runic as well.

I remember when we had this similar conversation about StarCraft 2's lack of LAN support and how that would scare people off and minimize its impact on e-sports while hamstringing its sales and ushering in the end of Blizzard.

Yup. I sure do remember that.

Elysium wrote:

I remember when we had this similar conversation about StarCraft 2's lack of LAN support and how that would scare people off and minimize its impact on e-sports while hamstringing its sales and ushering in the end of Blizzard.

Yup. I sure do remember that.

It didn't keep it from being an e-sport success, or become the end of Blizzard, but it ruined one of our PenguinCon tournaments. Not exactly industry-shattering, but it seemed especially needless after that happened. The hotel's connection, being used as it was, simply wasn't up to supporting even two people playing against each other. It's disappointing, especially from a company so loved by gamers.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that it's annoying, and I've seen it impact more than one MLG.

But, I think there's room to recognize that there are two different kinds of impact. A lot of the things that people seem to think will hurt Diablo 3's sales, I doubt will even be a blip on the radar. To be brutally honest, if I were Blizzard and I had committed to this direction, then my focus at this time at most would be community management and more likely just be to not even address that this is still an issue for some buyers. The moment Blizzard addresses people's concerns with the always-on front is the moment it becomes a thing ... until then it's invisible to the vast majority of the people who will actually buy and play the game. And for those it is visible to, I'd guess a lot more of them will actually end up ponying up for the game than will sit on their hands in resistance.

For me, I'm just pushing into the part of my brain that operates in the MMO space, and don't even think about the server thing anymore.

I agree it won't have a huge impact. I'm admittedly a wee bit nervous about the first week, but it should be smooth sailing after the initial rush. Or at least that's my hope. If it doesn't work, I have plenty of other games I can play in the meantime. Like Diablo 1 or 2.

Well, I'm not trying to lead any kind of crusade against always-on gaming, either. I don't think Blizzard gives two craps about my reservations. Knowing myself, I'm also making empty threats, because when I see other people playing, I'll cave in anyway. I just... Really don't like it.

Totally fair.

On a broader note, though, a game like TF2 does the same thing. You see it differently, of course, because you think -- well, TF2 is inextricably tied to being online. I think Blizzard wants us to make the same assumptions (eventually) about Diablo. The thing is, I've seen a lot of posts in this thread and countless others saying that D3 is a single player game. It's not. It's a multiplayer game you can choose not to play with others. Or at least that's clearly how Blizz is positioning it. I'm still not 100% certain that's not a colossal pile of BS, but a lot of how they seem to be building the game supports the idea that they aren't treating as a single player game at all.

Well, TF2 doesn't become unplayable absent an internet connection, though. It just cuts you off from all of your extra free, or paid for, content, if you can't hit the Steam servers. You can still LAN TF2 with no issues, and play with the base weapons. Honestly, even with the new weapons, the game changes very little. I haven't factored in how much things change without hats, though.