Official Design Document(s) - Blizzard

[Kyrbi0]

Are there any official "design documents", manifestos, interviews, anything of the sort released (or leaked) by Blizzard in terms of designing Warcraft III?

So I've been modding for several years off and on now, and what I've ended up doing (quite frantically these last few months) is what I've come to realize is trying to 'reverse-engineer' Warcraft 3. Basically, since I'm attempting to build custom races & heroes, I look at the existing heroes & races to try and detect patterns in how they were made, so that I can appropriately do similarly. However, while I've had much success, I've also run into a lot of walls; and honestly, I feel like I'm trying to re-invent the wheel and missing the "round".

Thus I ask; are there any sort of official (or unofficial) "design documents", manifestos, interviews with designers, footage, etc, that would give a hint as to Warcraft 3's design? Things like "why no economy heroes", or "why anti-turtling was added to the expansion", or "why generally 2 casters" or "why mostly AoE ultimates"... (I may 'know' some of those answers, just giving examples of the kind of questions) etc.

Thanks again.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I think this question can be summed up to:
"What makes Blizzard games so incredibly awesome compared to other games?"

I think it's that perfectionist design of those games in almost any aspect. The interface, the art design, the content design ... it's extremely well 'rounded' in all of their games.
You just gotta admit that their design and concept teams do an incredible job.

I think they will protect those secrets at any cost. It's kind of that "special sauce"-recipe of blizzard.

 

[saphiree]

It seems like the answer to most of what you're asking, can be answered with one word: Balance.

Some of it might also be down to fun and interesting gameplay.

Maybe you're just trying to do a bunch of fancy things, and you're missing all the "fun" parts of warcraft.

I think this question can be summed up to:
"What makes Blizzard games so incredibly awesome compared to other games?"

I think it's that perfectionist design of those games in almost any aspect. The interface, the art design, the content design ... it's extremely well 'rounded' in all of their games.
You just gotta admit that their design and concept teams do an incredible job.

I think they will protect those secrets at any cost. It's kind of that "special sauce"-recipe of blizzard.

I think you're on to something.
It's going to be hard for one person to achieve the balance and perfection of an entire Blizzard team.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

It's going to be hard for one person to achieve the balance and perfection of an entire Blizzard team.

It's not only the fact that it's an entire team doing it, it's that extreme consistency in design and pragmatism and overall cleanness that makes it so amazing.

Check out Hearthstone, for example. Notice how clean and awesome the UI is? Everything is exactly where you need it. Every button, action, spell, even the options menu has perfectly designed sound effects (don't get me started about how awesome the jobs done by the sound designers are), animations and an incredible intuitive feel to it.

WoW is the best example for this. I have never seen an MMORPG nailing that "learning curve" aspect in almost all elements of the game that perfectly. Again, just look at the UI! When you start out as a beginner, notice how few UI elements there are on screen. Notice how you will perfectly learn their importance over the game progression. Notice how there's simply no information in this game that is too demanding at any time.

I've played a lot of MMORPGs and none of them managed to deal with that experience progression so flawless.

There's a reason why good MMORPGs don't let you start out in the main city. There's a reason why most UI elements are hidden at first. There's a reason why special events are not instantly mentioned to the player (Btw, that's also the pitfall of many WC3 ORPG maps, you simply get a barrage of information right on the beginning no new player can handle).
Notice how very few spells both in WC3 or WoW require more than 2-3 lines of tooltip to be explained and properly understood? Then take for example Guild Wars as the opposite example. A lot of the spells in Guild Wars I are bloated to absurdity with additional side-effects ("deals x damage to all targets within a cone in front of the caster, heals the caster by y, buffs it with z, applies a attack power to all nearby friendlies, but only when it's nighttime. Oh and it stuns undead.").


It's just amazing. I'd love to have a look at how they "train" their new employees in the conceptional teams to deliver such perfectionist designs in all aspects.

 

[saphiree]

That's why I wrote "Blizzard team" and not just "team"

 

[Kyrbi0]

I'm so glad... My original version of this topic languished & was exterminated closed after merely 1 solitary "bump". Thanks guys.

I think this question can be summed up to:
"What makes Blizzard games so incredibly awesome compared to other games?"

I think it's that perfectionist design of those games in almost any aspect. The interface, the art design, the content design ... it's extremely well 'rounded' in all of their games.
You just gotta admit that their design and concept teams do an incredible job.

I think they will protect those secrets at any cost. It's kind of that "special sauce"-recipe of blizzard.

I suppose I generally agree with you. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are the "best games ever" (not that you said it either), but they certainly have shown that they know what they're doing (at least, more so in the past... I'm not sure, sometimes, when I look at Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2...)

It's plausible that they would protect these 'secret sauces', but from the interviews I've seen that's not the case.

It seems like the answer to most of what you're asking, can be answered with one word: Balance.

Some of it might also be down to fun and interesting gameplay.

Maybe you're just trying to do a bunch of fancy things, and you're missing all the "fun" parts of warcraft.

I'm interested that you immediately gravitate towards the true center of my question(s); "how can I use these design documents to enhance my modding" (given that what I do is so aligned with what Blizzard has tried to do)? I am grateful for that insight & (implied) question.

In response, I would ask if you have seen/perused/read through any of my works (see the links in my signature, especially the "custom race topic"). (Granted, there's a great 'hole' at the end where things are not updated due to some site down-ages, but) If so, are your thoughts the same? I would argue that while I do have such a tendency (shoving in "cool" and "fancy" ideas at the risk of balance), I have been honing things over the years such that that is less & less of a problem. A great example would be paring down the extra-game influences (such as from that of mods Ominous Horizons/Heart of Storms, as well as games Red Alert 2, Starcraft & others), as well as, even very recently: I realized that, cool/interesting as my Hero abilities are, they were lacking severely in terms of "Direct Damage" abilities (of which, each other race has anywhere from 3.5-4.5... Whereas mine had merely 1 :<...). This lack I have been endeavoring to fix (even at the cost of replacing "cool" or "fancy" abilities (that were, IMO still useful/not too complex) for relatively-simple "DD" abilities).

Anyway, not trying to argue. I'm honestly interested in a discussion of this matter, as (as aforementioned) it ultimately pertains to the discussion at hand.

I think you're on to something.
It's going to be hard for one person to achieve the balance and perfection of an entire Blizzard team.

This is very true, and something about which I've become increasingly & painfully aware of over the years. (More, that 'balance' and 'perfection' are increasingly relative/objective goals, and even more, that much of it happens through Playtesting, not TheoryCrafting (in the game, not the mind).)
Fortunately, I am not truly alone; I've got a tight cadre of talented individuals that offer their thoughts here & again... However, for many intents & purposes, I am 'flying solo', so yes.

It's not only the fact that it's an entire team doing it, it's that extreme consistency in design and pragmatism and overall cleanness that makes it so amazing.
...
Notice how very few spells both in WC3 or WoW require more than 2-3 lines of tooltip to be explained and properly understood? Then take for example Guild Wars as the opposite example. A lot of the spells in Guild Wars I are bloated to absurdity with additional side-effects ("deals x damage to all targets within a cone in front of the caster, heals the caster by y, buffs it with z, applies a attack power to all nearby friendlies, but only when it's nighttime. Oh and it stuns undead.").
...
It's just amazing. I'd love to have a look at how they "train" their new employees in the conceptional teams to deliver such perfectionist designs in all aspects.

I agree. Something I've really admired in Blizzard
...
This is true... For the most part. Take a look, however, at the Tavern heroes (especially the most recent ones (Tinker/Alchemist/Firelord)). Have you noticed that the Tavern heroes (as "late additions") tend to have more & more complex spells (as measured by the relative length of their tooltips)? In fact, I've long come to the conclusion that the Tavern heroes, though obviously (hopefully) created for & balanced to the rest of the game, are a lot more... "AoS"-y than the regular "Racial" heroes. (I mean heck, the MK & TC both have 2 "straight" DD abilities, and the TC has 2 passives! Yawn. Then again, the Beastmaster literally has 3/4 of his spells as Summons... Hm).
...
I too. However, from what I have read in the (sparse) Interviews on the matter from some of Blizzard's leading executives, there isn't so much in the way of "training" or "reading" to be done... It seems more like a constant, consistent, even incessant focus on a very small set of "concepts" or "ideals" that is hammered in again and again (i.e. "Polish polish polish" and "fun to play, not necessarily making sense", etc).

 

[Kino]

Im surprised no one has mentioned user friendliness.
From personal experience Blizzard games universally have good UI and standard key setups.
You feel compelled to actually start picking up the game right away instead of fumbling with the controls and trying to make it comfortable.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

This is true... For the most part. Take a look, however, at the Tavern heroes (especially the most recent ones (Tinker/Alchemist/Firelord)). Have you noticed that the Tavern heroes (as "late additions") tend to have more & more complex spells (as measured by the relative length of their tooltips)? In fact, I've long come to the conclusion that the Tavern heroes, though obviously (hopefully) created for & balanced to the rest of the game, are a lot more... "AoS"-y than the regular "Racial" heroes. (I mean heck, the MK & TC both have 2 "straight" DD abilities, and the TC has 2 passives! Yawn. Then again, the Beastmaster literally has 3/4 of his spells as Summons... Hm).

I agree on the tavern heroes being somewhat "out of style". I guess they were added just for fun for people in the lower part of the ladder to spice up the repetition a little. I also feel the balancing for the tavern heroes is not as well done as for the rest of the game.

I think this is due to one blizzard policy I'm not really liking: they change the team when the main game is released and leave expansions to different teams. That's why usually the quality and feel of expansions differs so much from the vanilla game. It was that way with Diablo 2, it was so for WC3 and it was so for StarCraft II.

 

[saphiree]

I was not aware of them changing the team, but I think for the most part it has been for the better. IMO WC3 and Diablo II expansions stayed close to the original games, and with both Diablo 3 and SC2, I think the expansions have actually improved the feel of the games.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I didn't say that the team change neccessarily decreased in quality, but they had a slightly different feel and touch to them. The expansion teams usually improve the game in quality, just because they have a large user-base as consumer oppinion to draw from.

In SC2, the change in style was noticably the most. The campaign is totally different to the wings of liberty campaign. It felt more like realtime strategy with RPG elements instead of a pure RTS game.
Heart of the swarm also allows for a lot more "cheese" tactics than wings of liberty did, as there's a sudden focus on unit types that are extreme in their properties.
Oracle: extreme DPS for short duration
Swarm host: extreme monetary efficiency
tempest: extreme range
hellbat: extreme efficiency against masses of light armored units
mines: extreme monetary efficiency
viper: extremely efficient against expensive high tier units

All of those units, except for maybe the hellbat are highly "cheesy" units. There wasn't something so extreme in wings of liberty. I don't know why they did that, but obviously they wanted to make ladder games more unpredictable.


It was the same with TFT and the implementation of Anti-caster units. It totally changed the style of the game, made it much more rock, paper, scissiors like, compared to the original game, where all units were a lot more "general purpose".


Also, I think in Diablo II, the overall gameplay feel of the new area was totally different and much more linear compared to the more open first 4 chapters.

 

[Rui]

I think you're asking for the business's secret here =P

I've wondered about that for a lot of time too, since melee is one of my interests. Just the other day, I played some melee, but there's so much delay and so little smoothness in movement now compared to SC2 and other games. Before any balance attempts, I'd prefer to do something about that.

I'd be interested in taking a look at documents on this matter though.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I think you're asking for the business's secret here =P

Naw. If that were the case, why would they spread so much all over those interviews?

I didn't say that the team change neccessarily decreased in quality, but they had a slightly different feel and touch to them. The expansion teams usually improve the game in quality, just because they have a large user-base as consumer oppinion to draw from.

I suppose. But if one compares, say, the Tauren Chieftain or Priestess of the Moon to the Firelord or Dark Ranger... Big difference in how they play, and how complex they are (and the DR was even in the campaign!).

In SC2, the change in style was noticably the most. The campaign is totally different to the wings of liberty campaign. It felt more like realtime strategy with RPG elements instead of a pure RTS game.
Heart of the swarm also allows for a lot more "cheese" tactics than wings of liberty did, as there's a sudden focus on unit types that are extreme in their properties.
Oracle: extreme DPS for short duration
Swarm host: extreme monetary efficiency
tempest: extreme range
hellbat: extreme efficiency against masses of light armored units
mines: extreme monetary efficiency
viper: extremely efficient against expensive high tier units

All of those units, except for maybe the hellbat are highly "cheesy" units. There wasn't something so extreme in wings of liberty. I don't know why they did that, but obviously they wanted to make ladder games more unpredictable.


It was the same with TFT and the implementation of Anti-caster units. It totally changed the style of the game, made it much more rock, paper, scissiors like, compared to the original game, where all units were a lot more "general purpose".

I think what you're trying to describe there is something they call "Hard/Soft Counter Games". A "Hard Counter" game is a game like Red Alert or Age of Empires; generally characterized by hordes of units that have *strong*, "rock-paper-scissors"-like strengths & weakness against each other (i.e. "anti-infantry" annihilates infantry, and "anti-air" rips through air units, etc). People die, and fast.
In a Soft Counter game (like Warcraft 3), there are strengths & weaknesses (siege deals extra damage to buildings, anti-casters rip through casters, medium blocks piercing damage), but everything is a lot 'softer', done through percentages, and less fatal. Smaller hordes of units, and things don't die nearly as quickly.

I think it is generally understood that Sc2 is a much more "hard-counter" game then either Wc3 or Sc1. So you're saying that Sc2:HotS made it even better/worse? Huh.

 

[GhostThruster]

generally how i think their creative process works is
1. copy someone (historically games workshop), but make ur IP less 'grim' to target a wider audience
2. think of a fun idea, then once u've found an idea stick with it and brainstorm more offspring ideas
3. theorycraft as to how these ideas would be in practice. then balance them according to theory. then make them
4. keep them in beta for 10 years, then test them out a lot for maximum balance
5. keep player experience in mind; make ui n shizzles very accessible
6. ???
7. become one of the top game developers in the world. also, presumably profit
8. unite the disparate factions to confront an ultimate evil.
9+. repeat step 8

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I think what you're trying to describe there is something they call "Hard/Soft Counter Games". A "Hard Counter" game is a game like Red Alert or Age of Empires; generally characterized by hordes of units that have *strong*, "rock-paper-scissors"-like strengths & weakness against each other (i.e. "anti-infantry" annihilates infantry, and "anti-air" rips through air units, etc). People die, and fast.
In a Soft Counter game (like Warcraft 3), there are strengths & weaknesses (siege deals extra damage to buildings, anti-casters rip through casters, medium blocks piercing damage), but everything is a lot 'softer', done through percentages, and less fatal. Smaller hordes of units, and things don't die nearly as quickly.

I think it is generally understood that Sc2 is a much more "hard-counter" game then either Wc3 or Sc1. So you're saying that Sc2:HotS made it even better/worse? Huh.

Exactly.
I just feel like Blizzard tends to always shift the gameplay from soft-counter to hard-counter over the progression of patches and expansions. I don't think that's a good practice, as it will slowly suck out all of the fun and skill involved in the game. Also, it encourages all-ins and cheese tactics.

Hard-counter based games are much easier to balance than soft-counter games; I suppose that's part of the reason why they decided to go that route. But it also makes games so predictable and boring to watch (as you can almost always determine the outcome of a battle), which is bad for the E-sports scene.
I remember watching professional WC3 games and whenever there was a battle, it was exciting as hell, simply because there was SO MUCH that could go wrong or right for one player that could totally make or turn a game. Watching WC3 high level ladder games was a lot of fun. In SC2, I already know who's gonna win the battle even before a single unit dies.


SCII ladder in mid-level and high-level (only the grandmaster league gets spared, but even there you get that occasional cheesing) is all about all-ins and cheese now. And I can't even blame the players for cheesing alot, because blizzard actually encourages you to cheese by adding all this "extreme" units I posted above. Almost all of the units added with HotS allow cheese-tactics. In fact, the only two units I don't consider highly cheesy are the hellbat and the viper (the latter is just too much of a lategame unit to be considered cheese and the hellbat has been nerfed alot).

 

[Kyrbi0]

~Bump~