On the Drawing Board #5: Character Design

Posted 14th Nov 2008 02:54 PM by Flux

One of the core design elements of the Diablo series, something that sets these games apart from most other RPGs, is the fact that characters in the Diablo games do not have preset roles in a party. Some characters are better at some things, but all of the characters are designed to be viable playing alone. They can all inflict substantial damage to all types of enemies. There are no characters who must play in the back lines, there are no healers without powerful killing spells, or tanks who can only bash toe to toe and can’t deal with ranged attackers, etc. All of the characters can fill all of the roles, depending on how they are built (though obviously some are better at given roles than others), and you never need a party to succeed.

Most players see this as a strength of the series, and enjoy the freedom to play their characters solo, or in groups. Some players though, with experience in D&D and WoW, would like more interdependence. Not outright tank/mage/cleric/etc roles, but the ability to work better in a group, and the option to use skills that to boost their teammates.  Does this sound appealing to you, or do you want Diablo III to go in the other direction, and not include party-boosting skills like Auras and Warcries?

Click through to see evidence for how the game is being designed, to entertain arguments on both sides of the issue, and to join the conversation…

Diablo III Design Goals

The design goals of the D3 team have been stated on numerous occasions. They intend Diablo III to be a fun game to play by yourself, and want it to be even more fun when played with friends. (Or at least the people with whom you share a common goal and can meet over B.net.) The multiplayer design of the game stresses friendly play: there’s no nonconsensual PVP in D3, health orbs share to everyone in the vicinity, B.net 2.0 will make it easier to find your friends online, each player in a party gets their own item drops that other players can’t ninja out from under you, etc.

That said, the D3 team has also stressed that they do not want to force players to assume roles. Diablo III is influenced by World of Warcraft in many ways, but it’s not following that particular character design path. Diablo III’s lead designer Jay Wilson has said that they are focused on making class composition irrelevant for multiplayer games. There are no healers or tanks or other set roles for the characters in Diablo III, which means a party of any composition of characters can be successful.

At this point it’s impossible to know which party composition will be best or most fun, but it’s fun to speculate. After all, some parties will be more effective than others. Every spell-caster or artillery character knows how nice it is to have a melee fighter in the game, so that you can stand back and spend your time blasting the monsters. Five wizards would be a strong party, but 4 wizards with a Barbarian to tank for them would maintain greater killing speed. By the same token, 4 Barbarians would probably prefer a Wizard to a 5th Barbarian, since spells are so effective against ranged attackers.


Party Skills  

Something else we don’t yet know much about is how many party-boosting skills we’ll see in Diablo III. In Diablo II, Paladins had helpful auras and Barbarians had warcries that shared their benefits to everyone in the party. The Druid had Spirits that worked like Auras, Necromancer curses that weakened the monsters were of use to everyone, as were a few offensive Paladin auras. Other characters could be useful to the party in other ways, whether by tanking or summoning up tanks, slowing enemy missiles, or just throwing out a ton of cold attacks, to slow down the monsters. Every character could also add helpful auras by hiring an Act 2 mercenary.

It seems likely that some Diablo III skills will work in similar fashion; that they’ll be useful to their caster and help other players as well. However, at this point we don’t know of many. In fact, there’s just one so far, the Barbarian’s Battle Cry, from the Battlemaster skill tree, which boosts the defense of the Barbarian and his party.  That’s it. No other Barbarian war cries are helpful to the party, and the Wizard and Witch Doctor don’t have any skills that directly do anything for others.

Obviously, the game isn’t finished yet. The listed character skills are far from complete, the ones that have been revealed are quite likely to change, and we only know three of the five characters. That said, as much as the D3 Team has talked about Diablo III being designed for friendly co-op play, it’s surprising that only one skill of the 100+ so far revealed has a listed benefit to party members. Other skills are helpful; Ground Stomp stuns and knocks back all enemies, Slow Time slows enemies and enemy projectiles, and Mass Confusion terrifies all monsters in range. But these skills work rather like Curses did in D2. They make the monsters easier to kill or avoid for everyone in the party, but none of them are directly beneficial to other players, in the way Auras, Warcries, and Spirits were.

Presumably the D3 Team will be adding many more skills with party benefits, and/or adding party benefits to existing skills. They’ve just not gotten into that stage of the game development yet. But until we actually see some of those skills described, we’re only assuming that the skills will correspond to what we think the D3 Team is designing towards.


Ultimate Design Goals

With the current situation mapped out, it’s speculation time. How will Diablo III play long term? How much party cooperation should there be?

Do you want to see some or lots of party-boosting skills like the Warcries and Auras and Spirits in Diablo II? Should these be in every skill tree in Diablo III, or should characters just have one or two of them? Or would you prefer that characters fend for themselves, and not assist the rest of the party except by killing quickly?

How about the upcoming 4th and 5th characters? Would you like to see those characters with more party benefiting abilities, such as auras or spirits? Or should they be like the first 3 are now, with their skills almost entirely of use to themselves?

Finally, how about the larger issue of game and party design? How much do you want to be able to help, or rely on assistance from, other players? Should Diablo III have skills like Battle Orders and Oak Sage and Fanaticism? Or do such abilities make the game too easy, or make certain party combinations too useful? How about party healing skills, or other buffing skills that would work on all players, or perhaps only on other players (giving the caster less, or no benefit at all). Would you enjoy playing a support character, or a special build that was only of high utility when in a party?

All these issues are currently under discussion by the D3 Team, and the voices of players will influence their design decisions. Have your say.



On the Drawing Board is written by Flux. These articles examine crucial game design issues and decisions in Diablo 3 by explaining the issue and presenting arguments for and against. On the Drawing Board aims to spur debate and further the conversation, rather than converting readers to one side or the other. Conversation and disagreement is encouraged. Have your say in the comments, or contact the author directly. Suggestions for future column topics are welcomed.




Bookmark and Share
Filed under: On the Drawing Board

Comments

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >
Galtrovan
Posted 14, Nov 2008 05:53 PM
(0)
 

Party boosting skills are a must, but the skills need to be balanced.

A classic D2 example of unbalanced:  A Necro with max skeletons, max skeleton mastery under the influence of a Barb’s Battle Orders and Shout—the skeletons are indestructible.  Add a damage output class to the mix, all the enemies die while we are completely safe.

Reply
 
Kunzaito
Posted 14, Nov 2008 06:23 PM
(0)
 

I agree with Galtrovan it’s really difficult to properly balance the game the way that party-friendly skills were implemented in DII. With four (not to mention 8!) strong characters with Act II mercs, things were pretty much a joke. I honestly don’t care either way if they include a lot of party skills - I think the benefit to party play will be just having fun with your friends and the lack of dis-incentive to party (griefing, item stealing, etc.) But if they do include party skills, I hope they don’t interlock so well that the game becomes a joke.

Reply
 
stillman
Posted 14, Nov 2008 10:08 PM
(0)
 

“Should Diablo III have skills like Battle Orders and Oak Sage and Fanaticism? Or do such abilities make the game too easy, or make certain party combinations too useful?”

I think this is a very important question. I answer that they make the game too easy, but of course I’m biased from not having played any games where the buffing system is balanced. Even so, I’d rather there not even BE the possibility of serious balance issues in the first place just to be safe. So I’d want no offensive buffs, nor any no-brainer skills like bo. 

In d2, I felt my chr was shooting herself in the foot unless I strived for certain auras. There wasn’t much variety; if my zon doesn’t have might and conc auras from the merc, she does way less damage. There were no alternatives to this damage. With a sorc, you seek out infinity or you’re not up to par. Yeah yeah, we’re not suposed to all have those infinities, but if there were no infinities, we would still feel boxed in to partying sorc’s with conviction paladins, so the same sort of problem would exist. There is just too much pressue with these offensive buffs. We sort of feel like we HAVE to use them.

I really like the way the d3 skills are. We have to rely on our own chr skills rather than OTHER players’. I’d rather not have the buffs there because you now how players are; we min-max and we’ll feel like we must strive to attain the best possible combos. It’s really annoying in d2 with people spamming bo bo bo or gimme fanat. For me, the important thing is that there is no bo equivalent- a skill that takes over the entire class and even the entire party.

As mentioned above, the game really can be a joke with one aura giving >100% damage to 8 players. Those poor monsters! If they keep lots of buffs in, I’m not sure what the solution is to balancing it all like Galtrovan said. Maybe make the buffs defensive only? That’s what the d3 barb buff does—seems smart. I don’t think defensive buffs would break the game. But offensive ones would give us pressure to use them or fall behind. We can always rely on our own manual playing (mouse movements) to play more defensively. Thus, it would be OK for us min-maxers to not strive for every last defensive buff (we have alternatives). But for offensive buffs, we would feel utmost pressure to get them no matter what; you can’t just use mouse movements to make your damage go up. I hope that makes sense.

Note: the defensive buff the d3 barb has (increases def) won’t be a no-brainer all-powerful skill like bo because def won’t help a ranged/caster that much since their goal is not getting close to mobs anyway. Bo, alternatively, is a no-brainer OP’d skill because life helps EVERYONE ALL the time.

So I would be fine with increased speed (like vigor aura), increased def, and similar buffs—buffs that don’t necessarily help everyone all the time. Increased speed will help ranged chrs, but maybe not so much helpful to melee chrs since their goal is to not run away anyway. You could say fanat donsn’t help casters, but remember what I wrote about offensive buffs and pressure to attain them.

I’m pleased with the entire game so far. At this point, Blizzard could even do a few risky (bad math) things in this area and I wouldn’t even mind that much. I’m sure any future problems will be mild compared to d2.

Reply
 
BrotherRatcliff
Posted 15, Nov 2008 12:31 AM
(0)
 

I think they are on the right track right now with far less party buffs than were present in d2. I think the game would be much better without enchant sorcs, bo barbs or a2 mercs giving everybody the buff of their choice. On the other hand some of those buffs were almost a necessity for certain classes. As stillman stated earlier playing a sorc solo in hell without infinity is just crazy, they built too many immunes into the game and the synergy system made multi-element sorcs vastly underpowered. With prober skill tree design and monster design that shouldn’t be a problem any more.

Hopefully we won’t see situations like large baal runs had in D2. If your group had a sorc, 2 hammeradins, a necro, a barb and a druid there were so many auras going on it was just stupid. With the above group the list of active buffs would probably be:
Conviction(infinity)
Holy freeze(sorc merc)
Concentration(hammeradin 1)
Defiance(hammeradin merc)
Meditation(insight)
Cleansing(hammeradin 2)
Might(necro merc)
Amp damage/decrepify/lower resist depending on the situation
Fanaticism (either beast on barb, beast iron golem or a faith merc on either the barb or necro)
Shout
Battle Orders
Battle Command
Oak Sage

Looking at that list it’s obvious that every chr would be almost un-killable and be dealing out insane damage. This is how you get guys with 7k+ life doing 10k+ damage. The monsters would also be slow and have reduced resistances and their curses/poison would have reduced effect.

I do think that certain parties should be extra powerful, but you would have to make sacrifices to get there. For example a group of 4 wizards each specializing in one element type should be stronger than 4 wizards who are all spread around for solo play. Each of the first 4 wizards might not be able to solo as effectively as each of the second 4 but put them together and you have a killing machine. Having the ability to create a more effective group if you work together for it and plan right is a must I think.

I guess I like the curse/special effect system of party play better than the buff system. You can still get good combinations and it encourages party play but player have to know how to use their skills effectively to help their party members rather than it being automatic, and the potential for greatly overpowered groups is much reduced.

Reply
 
Foober
Posted 15, Nov 2008 01:39 AM
(0)
 

The aura is fundamental to the franchise so I expect the skills trees of the Amazon and Paladin replacements to both feature auras. And perhaps one of the tier 5 skills of the barb, wizard, or witch doctor will be an aura. For instance, the tier 5 skill of the witch doctor Plague skill tree might be a poison damage + slow aura which costs mana to maintain.

Reply
 
teh_Thrasher
Posted 15, Nov 2008 02:43 AM
(0)
 

theres going to have to be a hell of a lot of party cooperation features since they are taking out Hostility.

buff/debuffs are a big part of some games. they help everyone in a way. who doesnt like more health ;P as long as theres not some lame glitch that makes an aura increase spell dmg ::cough cough:: concentration.

Reply
 
stillman
Posted 15, Nov 2008 07:03 AM
(0)
 

Teh_Thrasher,

When you say who doesn’t want more health…well I have to say I don’t. At least, not the way it’s done in d2. With bo, it helps every last chr class, no exceptions. So if you don’t max out bo on your barb, you get called ‘noob’ and you are nerfing your barb…AND the rest of the party. We are sort of forced to put 20 points in bo and this takes away from our options.

I think d3 is on the right track. You can get more health for your barb by investing in a number of skills, and doing so is going to come at the cost of not maxing damaging skills. So to make an all out life barb you have to max Scavenge, Death Proof, the one that reduces your damage when you’re below half your health, etc. That’s 3 things to max right off the bat. And they don’t really give the overly sweet deal of getting your max life up instantly.

I always didn’t like bo because players tend to beg for it. I say don’t put in these sorts of skills in the first place, as it causes tension and pressure in the party. Co op play can be enhanced in other ways (chilling monsters, tanks positioning themselves to protect casters, aquiring globes to help the party, stunning enemies, using different forms of damage to deal with immunes, etc). Nothing is worse than total strangers putting pressure on you to build your chr the way THEY think you should.

Reply
 
Professor12
Posted 15, Nov 2008 03:03 PM
(0)
 

Whenever the topic of group combat comes up, I think of the Chrono Trigger as one of the most interesting implementations I’ve yet to experience.  What if instead of the passive bonuses of Paladin auras (and the indirect effect of curses) or the synergistic effect of complementary classes, skills from different classes actually combined in novel ways.  So perhaps you might have the Wizard and a skill called Fiery Lash.  In its singular implementation, the wizard would cast a whiplike stream of flame that hits enemies for fire damage.  However, if there is a Witch Doctor in the party, that skill can also become Reins of Brimstone.  Here instead of striking the enemies directly, the skill whips up the mongrels and other Witch Doctor’s pets into a frenzy, imbuing them with a fiery rage (pets now do fire AOE damage as they strike enemies).  There are plenty of possibilities and I hope the dev team investigates something like this.

Reply
 
DrImp
Posted 15, Nov 2008 11:35 PM
(0)
 

Hi all, long time lurker, but finally registered because this issue is of key importance to game balance and fun.

Just to clarify before I go on, by group skills I think we all mean skills which directly modify the statistics of another player in some way.

I dont think there should be any, or there should only be *very* few group skills.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of group skills, but I don’t think they can be balanced fairly due to their synergistic nature.

How would you balance the game so that difficluty scaled reasonably for groups with and without group skills?  Consider the following two groups: 1) four characters with no group skills, or 2) four characters each with one group skill.

In the first group characters don’t invest in a group skill and instead invest in a skill of personal benefit.  In the second group players invest in a group skill which gives them a personal benefit, as well as benefits each group memeber.  What’s the effect on group power?

Take the first group as the benchmark, they’re as powerful as four characters with one buff each (4C + 4B).  The second group is as powerful as four characters, with four buffs each (4C + 16B).  How could that be balance effectively?  ... I’m open to discussion, but I don’t think it could be done while still keeping all skills interesting and gameplay fun.

Of course, this could turn into another discussion: Should different (well designed) groups all be roughly the same power (ie. effectivness)?  Maybe it’s fine haivng skills which can produce wildly different gameplay difficulties…

Thoughts?

Reply
 
HierophantNexus
Posted 16, Nov 2008 08:40 AM
(0)
 

There is a way to make party buffs more workable.  Simply scale them by number of characters receiving the buff.  Few characters get a large buff.  Many characters receive a reduced buff.

Reply
 
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Syndicate