Diablo® III

Connection for Single Player, Now I'm upset

Posts: 33
I've heard and read countless debates on the pros and cons of requiring an always on internet connection for Diablo 3, whether or not it's considered singleplayer, multiplayer, or coop, etc. Overall, I'm more for progression with things like this. I understood the merits of the decision and decided it wouldn't be that bad. After finally purchasing Diablo 3, my personal experience has uncovered the new bane of my Diablo gaming experience.

I've always played the Diablo games for both single and multiplayer. I usually like to play through at least once with singleplayer before going to any sort of multiplayer mode, and then later I still find myself coming back to single player now and again, either at home or especially on trips. Diablo is a great game to play through single player, and that's what I've mostly been doing so far.

Here's the troubles I've run into so far:


  • Random Server Disconnects - I have a pretty fast and stable broadband internet connection with AT&T U-Verse. I've never experienced issues before, but about 2-3 times so far I've been playing Diablo 3, walked away from my computer for a rather short time, and come back to discover that I've lost connection to the server. This is extremely frustrating as it resets my progress in whatever area I'm in. This seems to be Blizzard server related?
  • Local Internet Connection Issues - Similar to the issue above but a real world scenario, the other day our power blipped in and out. I have a battery backup on my PC so I just kept on playing thankful I had invested the money in the backup... only to have that advantage thwarted a few seconds later when I realized my router (which is at a different area without battery backup) was reset. So while my computer kept on trucking, my game did not.
  • Random Lag Issues - I wouldn't say it happens a lot, but when it does I might as well just stop playing. The lag behavior in Diablo 3, where it "jumps you back" a few yards or makes the game "stutter", makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to play when it strikes.


I'm sure everyone has experienced similar issues to varying degrees. I admit, it's not like these same sorts of issues don't affect a gamer when they, say, play a game of TF2. So I find myself asking the question: why am I so frickin frustrated by the Diablo 3 issues more so than other games?

Other than the increased frequency the issues arise in this particular title, I think it comes down to 2 things.

One that is still inescapable is that I'm playing a single player game right now, and it just feels downright unfair. I've gone over all the pros in my head, but so far they haven't outweighed the real world cons for me personally. The issues above have frustrated me a crazy amount of times, and it's not something I've ever experienced before in ANY single player experience (other than 1 or 2 issues with game save corruption). It just feels like a strange step backwards in gameplay experience rather than forwards. And I'm also coming to the realization that I won't be able to hop in and play my favorite RPG to pass the time on any more roadtrips in the car, or other times when I'm somewhere with no connection.

The other is that unlike an FPS game you get dropped out of and reconnect once the connection issues are gone just to jump back into the fray, the Diablo 3 game mechanics ensure you almost always lose "progress" when you have these unfortunate issues. Diablo 3, whether playing single player or coop, means you're progressing through a type of "level" or "map" system. I know many of us like to uncover ALL the portions of the map so that we're seeing all the events and such (many RPG players have minor OCD). Knowing that a server/connection issue means you're starting back a ways, even if it's just 10 minutes of your time, is frustrating for some reason. It's even more annoying when you're in the middle of a random event/level that won't be there the next time - then we're not just talking about lost progression, but lost gameplay/story/experience that you can't get back (unless you're lucky enough to uncover it some time in the future, which usually only happens if you're the type of gamer to play areas over and over and over again).

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse, as I know other people have the same frustrations and I find it hard to believe Blizzard is ever going to invest the sort of time it would take to remedy this issue while keeping their current anti-cheat and other systems in place. I'm glad Blizzard is tackling some of these issues, but I have to admit to myself that I'm having more frustrations right now with Diablo 3 than I ever remember having with the cheating infested Diablo 2/1.
Edited by TheKillSmith#1580 on 6/9/2012 10:22 AM PDT
Reply Quote
I completely agree with just about everything you are saying. While I can see all the great things that always being connected adds to the game (namely drop in and out co-op and lots of awesome social features) I would gladly give all these up just to have a reliable single-player game. I do love playing the game co-op but I also really love playing the game solo. When I'm playing by myself and the game lags and I lose an hour of story progress that is unexceptable. There is no excuse for that. No one is in my game and I have had several instances of it lagging and when it finally catches up I am dead because 20 monsters were attacking me. I also have lost story progress not just that one time but multiple times over the course of one play session. If there was just a way to play the single-player without being online that would be great. Maybe instead of always being online, every once and awhile the server pings the game saying its online or when I first sign in. Or maybe go into offline mode and any loot I earn can't be put into the auction house, only when you are online is that loot valid.

I get why the game needs to always be online, namely, the auction and real money auction house. If you could take the game offline people could do all sorts of bad stuff and hack the game. It really comes down to business and a fundamental design problem. To recoup the costs of a long development they needed more than just a $60 game and the potential for a real money auction house is massive. But if I have to give up having a game that consistently works than whatever to the auction house stuff (as cool as it does sound). If they knew the auction house stuff could or would hurt the actual game itself than they should have taken it out to begin with.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]