Jay Wilson interview
#1
Here are some videos of an interview Force Strategy did with Jay Wilson, the lead designer of D3. The videos are split up by topic.

Why skill points were removed


Runestone changes coming (potentially)


Plans for PvP


Co-op, the end game, and console plans


Why we can't pick attribute points


How will AI scale?
The error occurred on line -1.
Reply
#2
Good info there. Thanks for posting Smile
The more of it there is,
The less you see.
Reply
#3
Hi,

What I heard: "We can't design and balance a game so that it plays well, so we'll take away all your options so that you have to play the game the way we want you to play it."

Hell, everybody knows that strength is the main requirement for warriors.

--Pete

How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?

Reply
#4
(08-10-2011, 11:53 PM)--Pete Wrote: Hi,

What I heard: "We can't design and balance a game so that it plays well, so we'll take away all your options so that you have to play the game the way we want you to play it."

Hell, everybody knows that strength is the main requirement for warriors.

--Pete

I disagree, Pete.

As much as I enjoy variants and having the flexibily to do crazy, out-of-the-norm things with a character... strength was not the main requirement for any character in Diablo 2 in its latest/final incarnation. Gear was the deciding factor, and they're taking things further in this direction in D3.

Vitality was the main requirement for a Warrior in hell difficulty. Vitality was also the main requirement for Necromancers, Sorceresses, Assassins, Druids, and Paladins.

1.10 changed up Hell difficulty to make it much harder, and the step up meant needing a much higher hitpoint pool to survive some of the things the game would throw at you. Sure, you could try to be a glass cannon and would have quite a bit of success to a point... but to make it in Hell you'd need a heavy Vitality investment. This of course meant a limit on the points you could spend elsewhere.

Other stats were only useful for the minimum requirements. It was useless to put points into Energy other than for convenience's sake. Mana potions grew (grow?) on trees and even if you didn't pick up the piles of blue bottles laying on the ground, the vendors sold them in unlimited quantities. Dexterity was necessary to meet the requirements for whichever weapon you wanted to equip. Strength was necessary to meet the requirements for whichever armor and weapon you wanted to equip. After that? Pure vitality.

The contribution to one's damage from strength was a pittance. Gear was the true equalizer. You could stack on a ton of strength if you'd really like to... but a few hundred extra hitpoints were almost always the better option.

Our customization and stat decisions will come more from gear in D3, all the way down to the runes we place in our skills. There will still be plenty of variety, from all I've read, to sate the thirst of those of us crazy enough to play Paladin Rangers, Poison Dagger Necromancers, or Inferno-only Sorceresses. I like being able to do quirky things with characters and if someone wants to try and make a glass cannon, go nuts! The problem is that you simply could not be successful in Hell difficulty while doing so after the 1.10 patch.
See you in Town,
-Z
Reply
#5
I agree with Zarathustra. I was initially disappointed that they weren't including customizable stats, but Jay's explanation made sense. 99.999% of players did not use stats to customize their characters. They pumped just enough str/dex to equip their gear, and poured the rest into vitality. They replaced that with runes, which provide a much more impactful and visible way to customize your characters.

There will still be plenty of variants available to play. Here are a few off the top of my head:

No runes
LOL (the BEST way to ignore the $AH!)
Off-spec variants, like a melee wizard or ranged barbarian should still be feasible
Only ethereal items (if they are included)
NM
BNM? I hope cursed items are included... Smile

Variants are all about finding the most extreme edge cases within a ruleset and then figuring out how to make them viable. D3 just has a new ruleset to explore.
The error occurred on line -1.
Reply
#6
(08-11-2011, 08:05 PM)Zippyy Wrote: I agree with Zarathustra. I was initially disappointed that they weren't including customizable stats, but Jay's explanation made sense. 99.999% of players did not use stats to customize their characters. They pumped just enough str/dex to equip their gear, and poured the rest into vitality. They replaced that with runes, which provide a much more impactful and visible way to customize your characters.

When you make a system of custom stats, and it turns out that every character, regardless of class, skill choices, or playing style, has the same primary stat, you have done a darn poor job. That's really not something that has to be the case. The problem is that the game designers don't know their own game. These games tend to be too complicated and in all the wrong ways.
Reply
#7
Exactly. They learned from that mistake in Diablo 2 and are not going down the same path in D3. They replaced one customization scheme with another. I don't understand the hate.
The error occurred on line -1.
Reply
#8
(08-15-2011, 04:37 PM)Nystul Wrote: When you make a system of custom stats, and it turns out that every character, regardless of class, skill choices, or playing style, has the same primary stat, you have done a darn poor job. That's really not something that has to be the case.

Clearly D2 did a poor job of balancing the stats. Let's assume that the stats were well balanced, and there was kind of a sliding scale to adjust damage vs. survivability vs. longevity vs. predictability (or whatever was the intent with stats). I just don't see that as very interesting. The rune style customization seems easier to control, and more interesting as a mechanic.


Reply
#9
(08-15-2011, 06:08 PM)Zippyy Wrote: Exactly. They learned from that mistake in Diablo 2 and are not going down the same path in D3. They replaced one customization scheme with another. I don't understand the hate.

That's the point - they didn't "learn" anything, at all. They just chose to ignore the problem - or, rather, cut it out completely.

That's why many of us have such a beef with the choices they've made - instead of rising to the challenge, they chose to bypass it.

You hold 1.10 to be the holy grail of Diablo II? How about the "performance" hacks done to Firewall, Blaze, skill timers, etc. all thrown into Diablo II - was that a net positive for the game? In most people's eyes, no, it was not. It was a lazy hackjob designed to AVOID challenge rather than CONQUER it. This "design philosophy" is prevalent throughout Diablo III - and that is why "all the hate".

If you don't get that, more power to you. It means your enjoyment won't be hindered by such thoughts - I envy that. For the rest of us, it means seeing the writing on the wall before the game is even released, and deciding whether or not we want to even bother trying, or pass on it entirely. Personally, I've chosen to buy the game and try to wring what enjoyment I can from it, but I already know there will be a slew of things that bother me about it from the get-go. It's just a question of whether the rest of the game is enjoyable enough to overlook it. For me, that mostly boils down to story - which, laugh if you must, is what drew me in about the original Diablo.
Roland *The Gunslinger*
Reply
#10
I thought we were friends!

(08-16-2011, 04:14 AM)Roland Wrote: That's the point - they didn't "learn" anything, at all. They just chose to ignore the problem - or, rather, cut it out completely.

That's why many of us have such a beef with the choices they've made - instead of rising to the challenge, they chose to bypass it.

You hold 1.10 to be the holy grail of Diablo II? How about the "performance" hacks done to Firewall, Blaze, skill timers, etc. all thrown into Diablo II - was that a net positive for the game? In most people's eyes, no, it was not. It was a lazy hackjob designed to AVOID challenge rather than CONQUER it. This "design philosophy" is prevalent throughout Diablo III - and that is why "all the hate". [snip]

What the devil?! I never said a single word about 1.10. I've never even played 1.10, and the only thing I said about D2 was that the stat system sucked. In fact, nobody in this thread said has anything positive about 1.10, or the D2 stat system.

Also, unless you are a graphic artist or a programmer, you might not realize how much work implementing the rune system actually is. It is the farthest thing from a cop-out I can imagine. Stats are a set of four numbers. Runes are a system of graphical and functional changes to every skill and spell in the game. Instead of trying to balance four numbers, they are instead taking it upon themselves to design and balance six hundred skills (5 classes * 20 skills/class * 6 runes/skill).

It's a lot more effort and it sure as hell sounds more fun to me than invisible integers.
The error occurred on line -1.
Reply
#11
(08-16-2011, 05:54 PM)Zippyy Wrote: I thought we were friends!

We totally are! I love you, man! Big Grin

What the devil?! I never said a single word about 1.10. I've never even played 1.10, and the only thing I said about D2 was that the stat system sucked. In fact, nobody in this thread said has anything positive about 1.10, or the D2 stat system.[/QUOTE]

This is what I get for reading multiple threads near 1 AM when I'm sick with bronchitis. I must have gotten my wires crossed with another thread, so pardon for that.

(08-16-2011, 05:54 PM)Zippyy Wrote: Also, unless you are a graphic artist or a programmer, you might not realize how much work implementing the rune system actually is. It is the farthest thing from a cop-out I can imagine. Stats are a set of four numbers. Runes are a system of graphical and functional changes to every skill and spell in the game. Instead of trying to balance four numbers, they are instead taking it upon themselves to design and balance six hundred skills (5 classes * 20 skills/class * 6 runes/skill).

It's a lot more effort and it sure as hell sounds more fun to me than invisible integers.

That's just it, though. They're not scrapping the Rune system because it's too difficult mechanically to implement (from the previews they've done a very nice job, although I think some of the animations could be a bit improved just to set them apart more). Going from memory (problem #1 right there) they're debating scrapping it because they can't decide what the effects should be. Honestly? Did you hear them talk about the Rune system (among other things)? It's like they don't know their own game half the time, nor the goals they actually want to achieve. They just throw out an idea and try to make it fit, and if it doesn't, oh well. I understand passing on things that are too complicated to implement, or just aren't feasible, or that looked good on paper but sucked in reality, but none of that seems to apply here. You should note that the Rune system is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in D3, before you think I'm condemning Blizzard over that. It's not always *what* they've chosen to implement or not implement, but also *why*.

At any rate, I digress. I am going to be buying the game, I am going to be as open-minded about it as possible, and really, so long as the story is on par with previous iterations I'm sure it will be enjoyable enough to suck me in like the old games. Nostalgia aside, I do expect to enjoy the game. I just have not been impressed with the direction ALL Blizzard titles have been taking, and although none of them have been so bad as to make me regret buying them, and playing them, none of them have been as good as I think they could have been - even forgoing the rose-colored glasses of hindsight. Tongue

Believe me, come launch day I'll be one of thousands of people cursing the long login queue, while reading the manual (do you think they'll still have one of those?) cover-to-cover in the meantime. Wink Speaking of which, I sincerely hope they have a paper manual. I know it's not very "green", but I always loved taking the old manuals out of the boxes and just re-reading them on occasion. The amount of lore hidden throughout the old manuals was always a wonderful bonus for me - a guilty pleasure of mine to seek out. It always added such a nice extra touch to the overall experience within the game, something you rarely see in games (especially nowadays). Look at me now, though, babbling about something so trivial. Tongue

Anyway, sorry if I came across too harshly Zippyy. Friends? Blush
Roland *The Gunslinger*
Reply
#12
Heart Roland!

In the video, Jay talks about their idea of changing the colored-rune system to a level-rune system. In the level-rune system, runes won't have a "color" and will be of levels 1-7. In that system, runes basically act as skill points; the higher the level of the rune in your skill, the more effective the skill is. Frankly, this sounds boring as hell to me. Fortunately, he said that was just an idea being tossed around. I hope it doesn't make it in. Colors for life!

I must say I'm not bothered by their apparent waffling on things. It gives some insight into their design process and I find that interesting (not worrying :p). I've never created a game, but on the big software projects I have worked on, planning everything up-front is always a recipe for disaster. That's probably why I'm not bothered by the waffliness of their announcements.

Still, I definitely take your point that the two rune systems are drastically different, and something that huge should have been decided a long time ago.

+1 for paper manuals, especially if I get to read them in the passenger seat while my mom drives me home from the game store :p
+1 for being engrossed in the story and atmosphere
+1 for crispy, golden, breathtakingly delicious waffles
The error occurred on line -1.
Reply
#13
(08-16-2011, 07:27 PM)Zippyy Wrote: Heart Roland!

In the video, Jay talks about their idea of changing the colored-rune system to a level-rune system. In the level-rune system, runes won't have a "color" and will be of levels 1-7. In that system, runes basically act as skill points; the higher the level of the rune in your skill, the more effective the skill is. Frankly, this sounds boring as hell to me. Fortunately, he said that was just an idea being tossed around. I hope it doesn't make it in. Colors for life!

So that's what he was babbling about! I lost the thread halfway through the video, and just never quite understood what he was babbling about. I listened about the different levels, and wasn't very impressed with that design. When they talked about scrapping the Rune system, though, I thought they meant entirely, not just the leveled version. That's comforting. I love the idea that they've implemented as it is, even if it's not as... urgh, can't think of the word(s) I want to say. Streamlined? Clean? Consistent? Anyway, I don't care necessarily that all Amber Runes don't function 100% the same way, so long as there's information available that tells us what they do. I could even see combining the system (Levels + the current system), although that may be overly complex (not to mention tedious on the player). At any rate, we both agree that the alternate system he talked about sounds abysmal compared to what they've come up with, so I hope they don't decide to change it. It shows much more originality and creativity than the leveled system, if I'm understanding it correctly.

(08-16-2011, 07:27 PM)Zippyy Wrote: I must say I'm not bothered by their apparent waffling on things. It gives some insight into their design process and I find that interesting (not worrying :p). I've never created a game, but on the big software projects I have worked on, planning everything up-front is always a recipe for disaster. That's probably why I'm not bothered by the waffliness of their announcements.

Still, I definitely take your point that the two rune systems are drastically different, and something that huge should have been decided a long time ago.

Yes, something that huge should have been better thought-out from the get-go, and the Rune system is far from the only system they've done this to (Skills and Attributes being two other noteworthy ones). As for their waffling stance, I can see your point. It just makes me a little apprehensive overall, especially when they start talking about scrapping entire systems (or changing them to a much more boring variant).

(08-16-2011, 07:27 PM)Zippyy Wrote: +1 for paper manuals, especially if I get to read them in the passenger seat while my mom drives me home from the game store :p
+1 for being engrossed in the story and atmosphere
+1 for crispy, golden, breathtakingly delicious waffles

Big Grin
Roland *The Gunslinger*
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)