Designer Notes 2: Rob Pardo - Part 2

[Soren Johnson]

Soren is not done with Rob yet! In the second half of the interview, they discuss the MMO that shocked everyone (including Blizzard), how to hire game designers, why they didn't make DOTA2, removing the auction house from Diablo 3, and what might come next from Rob.

 

Link

[Gaizokubanou]

Wooo hooooooo This interview is super hypppeeeee~

 

Just finished DLing it

[dium]

Listening to this now, and I felt something very odd. A presence i've not felt since...

 

...yes. It's a powerful urge to play World of Warcraft. Everything Rob said about what's cool about those kinds of games rang so true even though I've made a very conscious decision not to involve myself with them ever again.

[Gaizokubanou]

What a cool interview.  Although none of the answers were particularly surprising, some details were nevertheless very intriguing.  Like the opposition against unlimited unit selection for Starcraft 2 within the development group.  Given the relatively conservative final product it's not to surprising to hear that the development was gripped with fear from deviating too much from the original Starcraft, but still to think that even the limited unit selection had to be fought to be removed is still very interesting to hear.  It just wasn't surprising because during SC2's esport slump during late 2013 and early 2014, I've read even crazier things in fan forums about how Starcraft 2 should embrace Starcraft's unit path finding, particularly the bad ones like the Dragoon's.

 

Now that I typed it, I wish they went in bit more into about changes regarding unit pathfinding because while it's new, it's also very different from Warcraft 3's formation path-finding.  I suppose Starcraft 2's lack of more strict unit role (WC3 felt like it had relatively stable formula of melee-range-casters with air units doing their own thing on top) makes it unsuitable for WC3's formation but still to completely forgo any sort of formation keeping must've been conscious decision in a game where pathfinding should be a pretty critical design decision?

[sclpls]

dium you're probably in luck, since the consensus around WoW at the moment seems to be that the latest expansion has made the game the best its ever been. I don't play MMOs though so this is 2nd hand info...

 

Still making my way through the episode but one thing that struck me was early on in the conversation when Rob insists that more maps is vital to the longterm health of a competitive game. I would have liked to see him justify that claim more because it isn't obvious to me that that is necessarily true. He even cites how players naturally tend to converge around a couple of favorites, and I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a bad thing. DOTA is just one map, and I have to think that helps with matchmaking, and there isn't any indication that people are sick of the map. CS:GO has a handful of maps, but is essentially just Dust 2. LoL has a few maps but my understanding is everyone plays the traditional 3 lane map similar to the one in DOTA. More maps is great for variety, but I don't think that's what people are looking for in a competitive game. For competitive players the same, well designed map, is a feature, not a bug.

 

Not too long ago Rob Zacny did an interesting piece on the relationship pro Starcraft players have with maps:

 

http://www.pcgamesn.com/starcraft-ii/why-pro-starcraft-2-has-rejected-the-classic-maps

 

Like, there are two pretty important problems pointed out here with the desire from Blizzard to feature greater map variety.

 

1. It creates greater pressure for competitive players

 

2. Now that we're in an era where we expect competitive games to evolve and have shifting "metas" it becomes harder to evaluate the state of the game. A different map is going to have different balance values. You can buff or nerf the value of a particular unit, but the importance of that can vary from map to map. So if a particular unit needed to be rebalanced, how good a job did the designer do when you have to evaluate that across a spectrum of maps? It becomes a much more ambiguous question.

 

So all of this is why I think that claim deserved more scrutiny since there are actually some pretty compelling reasons to think that a smaller pool of maps is better for a competitive game.

[tberton]

I think the underlying point is that you need some axis of variety in a game like this if you want to keep it alive. DOTA's map doesn't change, but unless I'm very mistaken, it's constantly getting new Lords or changing old ones, right? In a game like Starcraft, where the designers made a conscious effort not to change the units very often, maps need to have more variety.

 

Physical sports have variety too. First of all, the players are constantly changing and the more physical a game, the bigger a difference a new body will have on how its played. Equipment, arenas, weather - these all change too and keep the game interesting.

[sclpls]

I think the critique of map variety is it is one variable too many. Because Starcraft is adding new units with each expansion, and I don't know how often balance patches come out, but they happen more frequently than the expansions and those are kind of like the sports equivalent of different players and/or different player performances.

 

It's also worth noting that some of the changes you listed for sports aren't particularly meaningful. Arenas might be different, but the pitches, by regulation, have to be the same for most sports. Golf is really the only popular sport I can think of where terrain layout is an intrinsic part of the game. Weather is certainly a variable, but it usually isn't considered a good one. One of the controversial things about one of the upcoming World Cups being hosted in Qatar is, of course, that it's incredibly hot there. I suppose you could argue that being able to play in incredible heat is a type of skill test that we ought to be testing in sports to see which team is the best, but I don't think most people would consider that a meaningful challenge. Similarly, I remember watching an Italian Serie A match between Roma and another team that I am blanking out on where it was snowing, and that made it hard to kick the ball around precisely, and difficult to run as well. And while it was certainly an "interesting" match for the 20 or so minutes it went on for before getting canceled, I don't think it really made for a good competition.

 

Anyway, I think you're right that competitive games do need some variety, but that doesn't mean that all variety is good for a competitive game, and it isn't clear to me that a larger pool of maps fits into the category of variety that is good for most competitive games.

[Twig]

Dota 2's map changed very recently, actually, in seemingly small ways that are actually quite drastic for anyone deep in the game. It is rare, though, and also this doesn't really ruin your point or anything, but I JUST HAD TO CLARIFY.

[sclpls]

And yeah, as Twig mentions, the DOTA 2 map does change from time to time. And I would argue that's probably a superior way of providing variety instead of adding maps that the player base isn't interested in.

[tberton]

I think the critique of map variety is it is one variable too many. Because Starcraft is adding new units with each expansion, and I don't know how often balance patches come out, but they happen more frequently than the expansions and those are kind of like the sports equivalent of different players and/or different player performances.

 

It's also worth noting that some of the changes you listed for sports aren't particularly meaningful. Arenas might be different, but the pitches, by regulation, have to be the same for most sports. Golf is really the only popular sport I can think of where terrain layout is an intrinsic part of the game. Weather is certainly a variable, but it usually isn't considered a good one. One of the controversial things about one of the upcoming World Cups being hosted in Qatar is, of course, that it's incredibly hot there. I suppose you could argue that being able to play in incredible heat is a type of skill test that we ought to be testing in sports to see which team is the best, but I don't think most people would consider that a meaningful challenge. Similarly, I remember watching an Italian Serie A match between Roma and another team that I am blanking out on where it was snowing, and that made it hard to kick the ball around precisely, and difficult to run as well. And while it was certainly an "interesting" match for the 20 or so minutes it went on for before getting canceled, I don't think it really made for a good competition.

 

Anyway, I think you're right that competitive games do need some variety, but that doesn't mean that all variety is good for a competitive game, and it isn't clear to me that a larger pool of maps fits into the category of variety that is good for most competitive games.

 

Yeah, I was going to amend my post but decided to wait for a response. You're right that the changes I cited about sports are smaller, except for one: the players. Because of the physical nature of those games, different players have a drastic effect on them. Baseball is the example I'm most familiar with and it has a great case study: pitchers. Different pitchers require batters to approach the game in different ways. When new pitchers enter the game, or old pitchers change their styles, every other player has to react accordingly.

 

Now, obviously new players in an eSport also change the game, but I'd argue that it's to a lesser extent, since every player is still limited by the actions the game allows, while a physical sport allows players the full motor abilities of their body.

Additionally, I think physical sports also have more theatrical value than eSports, meaning that continuous variety isn't as necessary. If you're into baseball, it's exciting every time Justin Verlander strikes somebody out, even if it looks the same every time. I don't think eSports plays have quite that same staying power, because the skill required to pull them off isn't as obvious, nor is it as easy to see the strain and excitement of the players, since they are abstracted by their on-screen avatars and even if you can see their faces, their more disconnected from the action than an athlete is.

[sclpls]

I agree about the importance of new blood, as it were, to sports.

 

I don't agree that the new players in e-sports have less of an impact on the game because physicality isn't involved, or at least it isn't clear to me how that's the case. Bear in mind that the dexterity and reaction time demanded on players in your typical Lords Management and Starcraft 2 are exceptionally high so it isn't as if these games aren't physically demanding in their own way.

 

I also disagree with the idea that e-sports have less theatrical value. Try watching some videos of the International, or the finals for League of Legend (this year both events took place in enormous sports arenas, FYI), and listen to the deafening noise of the crowd when one team makes some crazy play. Ultimately it just comes down to familiarity with the games.

 

I'm with Rob Pardo in thinking that e-sports are just going to keep on growing. It's still early days, but already League of Legend tournaments get viewing numbers that rival most American sports events. Their popularity in Asia is important too, since that's where most population and economic growth is happening in the world.

[I Speel My Dreenk]

If Pardo would sit and talk for hours on end about WoW design choices and challenges, I would certainly listen. As someone who played so, so very much of that game and therefore spent so much time tangled up in all of its systems and mechanics, it's very interesting to think about lots of the design decisions from the outside-in as opposed to where the actual designers are coming from, especially while taking into account all of the changes that have been made over the last decade. That's something that is only possible to do for a handful of games.

[Roderick]

This podcast got me through work today - bearing a cold and a big deadline. Like I said last time, it's so interesting to hear about the everyday challenges within Blizzard. It's so easy to think they're this massive, big, impenetrable giant, so to hear that they need to allocate their resources very carefully humanizes the company to a great extent.

 

On a sidenote, I love that Pardo agreed to sit with you for four hours in recording this in-depth thing.

[Forderz]

On the subject of map variety: it might be important to know that the variables (units) involved in a game of starcraft are static between expansions/patches. A game of Dota will see less than 10% of variables available to the players in that given match. Some Lords (Pudge, Vengeful Spirit, and Timbersaw to name a few) will completely change the movement of the opposing team, as their positional abilities necessitate an altered strategy. No game of starcraft is going to be without the possibility of a marine or zergling showing up. IMO that means that a Lords Management game can get away with having one map, and an RTS probably shouldn't.

[Gaizokubanou]

On the subject of map variety: it might be important to know that the variables (units) involved in a game of starcraft are static between expansions/patches. A game of Dota will see less than 10% of variables available to the players in that given match. Some Lords (Pudge, Vengeful Spirit, and Timbersaw to name a few) will completely change the movement of the opposing team, as their positional abilities necessitate an altered strategy. No game of starcraft is going to be without the possibility of a marine or zergling showing up. IMO that means that a Lords Management game can get away with having one map, and an RTS probably shouldn't.

 

I think that is an inaccurate comparison.  If you want to compare heroes/lords selection in LoL/DotA2 to anything in a game of Starcraft 2, much better comparison would be opening build order (decisions you make before any scouting information could be gathered), which changes the mid-game response of the opposing player a lot.  Sure every terran builds them marines, but building one in your base is radically different from building one at a rushed proxy rax.

[Ninja Dodo]

I don't play WoW or follow e-sports, but this was really interesting. Looking forward to future episodes!

Though now I kinda want to make a case for Shadow of the Colossus on behalf of the unnamed aspiring designer who preferred it to Zelda. (around 1:06)

It felt like you were both implying the strength of the game was only aesthetic, which I really don't agree with. Maybe the unnamed designer did not articulate this well (and maybe I won't) but I feel like there is very much a case to be made for Colossus as a strong game mechanically.

I haven't played enough Zelda (some Ocarina and a bunch of Phantom Hourglass) to make an educated direct comparison - though I'm sure you could make an argument for Zelda having nicer moment-to-moment game feel - but Colossus achieves things with its mechanics that no other game I have seen or played comes close to matching.

Plenty of games have had large boss creatures but they either turn them into bullet sponges that you have to strafe around and target from afar, spam with melee attacks, and/or find the patterns and timing for... OR they are big linear Quick Time Events with near-zero interactivity.

The player's interaction with the Colossi is analog and dynamic in a way that other games don't even attempt. This intricate interaction with living breathing creatures easily dwarfs any boss battle I have fought before or since.

There is no aspect of the mechanics (except perhaps for the optional time trials) that does not suit the atmosphere evoked by the aesthetic of the game. On a macro level: the contrast of inactivity during your search with the spectacular action of the boss battles... on a micro level: the tactile interaction with your horse Agro (spurring him onwards) cementing your connection and the way he has a mind of his own rather than operating as a lifeless vehicle, your desperately clinging to the fur of these giants as they try to shake you off, the sense of weight behind every action... It does what it sets out to do exceedingly well.

To suggest that the triumphs of Shadow of the Colossus are merely aesthetic is, I think, to misunderstand the connection between movement and interaction.

 

Though maybe I'm reading too much between the lines of the interview and that's not what you were saying.

 

Anyway, keep up the great work! A fine addition to the idle network of casting.

[Bknight42]

I am speechless. I would love to meet him face to face. lol When he talks about teaching a job to someone and inherently thinking that person can exhibit those skills to teach another, hit home for me. Talking about his experience at Blizzard just made me understand why i have loved and played these games since WC 2 in college. It is so unfortunate he resigned, but he will always be a intricate piece of Blizzard's ability to overcome some of their biggest challenges and successes. I love how he talked about game system design and how he manage his team to get the best results.

 

On the subject of D3 and the auction house, he identified the issue brilliantly. I too believe it was poor execution; however, i still believe as well the AH have some great advantages which i feel now have placed the game in sorta limbo state. The Diablo team did a great job of creating a system to cover some of the immediate challenges; however, I am sure this team also knows that it also created many windows for opportunity that may not have be discovered till after the AH was no longer present. I do understand damage control and minimizing the bigger issues. The gamer in me felt some of that pain, but the executive side of me understood most of the bigger picture or what we were aloud to see. It comes down to pros and cons and based on what he mention about all the legal challenges the AH, plus with the overly aggressive, AH exploitation, and impetuous player feedback received, I believe that it was the right call. Sometimes it really can be the lesser of two evils. The game faces a much bigger issue than the AH seemed to have caused.  

 

My favorite part of the interview was when he mention Allen leaving the company and sharing they both didn't have a set idea on how to hire for game designers. Moreover, He takes the promotion, implements his longing ideas, shows tenacity and willpower to challenge himself to creatively help morph a new infrastructure in gaming. Its crazy!! Its really refreshing to see someone work really hard, be creative and get mad results. What ever gaming project he decides to take on next, will definitively be on my shelf. Side note. I was huge D&D, TSR gamer. I was our main DM as well. Its funny. Most think that most DMs made their own rules, which is what i feel a good DM should do, but so many people lack the imagination or courage to create sometimes. Thank you Rob Pardo for the amazing prospective and sharing your experiences in Blizzard and and thank you Soren Johnson for setting up the interview and posting it. Take care

 

 

Anton

[feelthedarkness]

i'm finally catching up, and only an hour in, but i hope Soren asked him why the Warlock's Death Coil was originally on a TEN MINUTE cooldown, and just stole like 400 health which was less than half a shadow bolt at the time! 

[malkav11]

It's interesting that hunters using mana was brought up as an unsatisfying design decision that was forced by not being able to figure out an approach to a unique "focus" resource that played well, and yet there was no mention made of the fact that hunters had mana replaced with focus back in 2010. Evidently they found a way to make it fun.