Developer Watercooler - Battle for Azeroth Class Design Overview
Originally Posted by Blizzard (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
The development of World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth is well underway, and we want to share some insights into our philosophies and approach to class design for the expansion. While the launch of Legion brought lots of change to all of Warcraft’s classes, Battle for Azeroth will more closely resemble the example set by Legion’s patch content: targeted iteration based on player feedback and data.

The intro cinematic of Battle for Azeroth revealed at BlizzCon 2017 has an underlying theme that resonates deeply with the class design team: “Remember what makes us strong.” With that in mind, our goals for the next expansion are to promote what makes each class unique, focus on making group gameplay the best that it can be, and continue our efforts to improve combat visuals and effects. While we believe some specializations will need substantial iteration to achieve these goals, others will not, and our target is greater stability across the board.

Class Uniqueness and Utility
One area we’re trying to focus on across all classes is to better emphasize what makes each class unique and provide greater distinction among their various capabilities, especially when it comes to utility—tools that fall outside of core role functions like damage, healing, or mitigation. Part of what makes you feel excitement and pride in your class is pulling off a heroic moment and feeling the appreciation of your group when individually contributing to a shared success. That feeling is eroded when so many classes bring similar abilities, and you feel you’re rarely providing something distinctive. More differentiation in this area will create situations where another class can do something that you can’t, but you will similarly bring tools to the table that your allies lack.

That contrast causes members of a team to be more dependent on each other to succeed, and encourages different group compositions to approach encounters in different ways.

Pursuing this goal will likely involve adding some new abilities (or re-adding previously removed abilities) to give classes a more unique signature where needed. It will also likely involve reining in the availability of certain utility types, especially those that are so widespread that they rarely provide meaningful contrast between classes. As a notable example, Area of Effect (AoE) stuns, some of most powerful utility that exists, are so abundant that most groups have at least one or two. As a result, decision-making around that tool is often less about when it would be best used, and more about avoiding overlap with other AoE stuns. Not only does this sometimes drown out the importance of other crowd control in dungeons, but it means that a class bringing an AoE stun to a group is not the major strategy-defining asset that it should be. Our goal is that whatever powerful kind of utility a class brings, it’s something that group will be happy to have added to their toolbox as they approach a challenge.

The goal of contrast between the abilities of different specializations is not limited to utility. We’re also looking at different specializations’ strengths and weaknesses in their “main role”—damage dealing (or DPS), healing, or tanking—and making sure everyone has something to get excited about and an opportunity to shine. Some DPS specializations are “bursty,” doing fast damage; some live for attrition, wearing away their target. Some specializations prefer to isolate and drill into a single threat, while others revel in blowing up huge packs of monsters. Much of this plays out naturally due to the varying sets of damaging abilities, but we are working more intently than in the past to ensure an appropriate variety and spread of DPS strengths and weaknesses. Likewise, healers and tanks should have a bit more identity through their unique healing and mitigation profiles.

Another part of this approach involves working with our content design teams to collaborate on a world where quests, dungeons, and raids create opportunities for all different types of class strengths to shine. If we’re arming classes with distinct tools that provide powerful answers to different situations, it’s important that the game’s content provides a broad array of challenges that play into those different tools.

Talent System Refinements
The overall talent system will remain largely unchanged, but we will be refining our approach. One of the major challenges in setting up talent rows is that they serve two conflicting desires: choices within a row should be meaningfully varied, but also should not feel like they are simply a test of which is best in a particular setting.

If a row has three similar area-damage talents, your decision can feel like it boils down to a complex math problem. If a row mixes area-damage and single-target talents, you’ll likely feel you should change talents to suit the content you’re doing, which also rarely feels like a choice. The most successful talent rows are those with options that have a generally consistent role in your toolkit, but have very different delivery and mechanics, allowing players to thoughtfully customize their identity and complexity.

One other lesson we’ve already begun implementing in Legion patches is being careful with the effect that talents have on “pacing”—how frequently you get to press your buttons, and how often you generate resources and cooldowns. Of course, many talents affect the pacing of a rotation, and this will continue to be the case, as these are some of the talents with the most noticeable and fun feel to them. But if you have access to multiple talents that slow down or speed up your rotation, players can end up outside the bounds of what feels good to play (for example, by being resource starved or flooded). As we review talents going forward, we will try to avoid this by having strong resource-generating talents compete with each other, and better limiting the pacing change allowable from any single talent.

Artifacts Here and Gone
One particular challenge for the class design team throughout Legion was handling the introduction and eventual removal of Artifacts. The idea was exciting: design a large set of bonuses with the intention that they would be contained within an expansion, allowing us to make them flashier, more complex, and more numerous than we’d been able to in a specialization’s permanent set of core abilities. But the process of parting with Artifacts produces a complex set of decisions about how to adjust the base classes to play well in their absence.

The largest issue is where the pacing of a spec’s rotation was heavily affected by Artifacts. In that case, removing the Artifact may result in a rotation that’s too slow, or has too much open time where the core buttons aren’t available. In the process of reviewing and updating each specialization for Battle for Azeroth, we want to make sure all of them are paced appropriately after the removal of Artifacts. In some cases, we may do things like increase resource generation or reduce cooldowns to fill in some of the newly opened space.

For traits that go beyond simple numerical changes and have their own identity—such as active abilities or the powerful and noticeable procs—we are on the lookout across all specs for a small selection of traits that are worth turning into permanent parts of a class. The bar is high for a trait to become permanent. It’s an intended part of the experience of a system like Artifacts that the bonuses are layered on top of the core functionality of your class. You get to explore those bonuses thoroughly, but eventually move on from them. That leaves space in the permanent classes for new special bonuses from other systems in the future, as we’ll soon be exploring with Azerite Armor. That said, various specs will likely see one or two familiar traits from Artifacts showing up in their talent trees in Battle for Azeroth.

These are the broad philosophies that are guiding our design in Battle for Azeroth, and we were deliberately light on sharing specific examples of change, which are still in a state of flux at this stage. We welcome a community discussion on the principles we’ve outlined, and look forward to delving into detailed and specific changes as we move forward with our alpha testing in the near future.
This article was originally published in forum thread: Developer Watercooler - Battle for Azeroth Class Design Overview started by chaud View original post
Comments 206 Comments
  1. Marrilaife's Avatar
    "It will also likely involve reining in the availability of certain utility types, especially those that are so widespread that they rarely provide meaningful contrast between classes." Read: some classes will become mandatory for content like mythic+ by bringing useful utility, while the rest will have to content with useless fluff and being excluded or delegated into "this is a pvp spec / class".

    "That contrast causes members of a team to be more dependent on each other to succeed, and encourages different group compositions to approach encounters in different ways." Behold the class stacking abomination that will trump even mythic Tomb of Sargeras in BFA.
  1. Taeldorian's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    Where does it say that though?
    I was really exited when I saw this. Class design is one of the most important parts of WoW (for me at least) but that text could mean just about anything.
    When you look up vague in a dictionary I would not be surprised to find a link to this very text.
    It’s vague in a sense that they’re still working through ideas and all they’re doing is letting us know they’re train of thought. We don’t even have access to beta yet.

    However, if you pair this statement which provides us with their line of thinking going into BFA and what they want to do with classes (eg. bring back specific class abilities and focus on making classes stand out) with their other statements of wanting to bring back class abilities and taking the prune too far you get exactly what they’re going for, which would be adding back abilities that felt unique to specs but got pruned.

    It’s our job to advocate for our class and spec. If you have an ability in mind that was unique to your class and you think it would be nice to have back then lobby for it. Based on everything here they’re mindset clearly shows that’s their goal.
  1. mmoc133ea5993d's Avatar
    Every time, when Blizz devs stating something about "future plans"or Q&A, this song popping into my mind:

  1. threads's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleccybubb View Post
    Not happening. They've already said that they are committed to the Melee Hunter spec and good on them.

    I actually enjoy Survival personally. And played right it can be pretty bloody strong in raids and is absolutely disgusting in PvP.
    well thats great for you but they basically fucked everyone who already liked SV so a couple of people could use a melee weapon.
  1. Taeldorian's Avatar
    A ton of people provide the shittiest feedback possible or don’t provide any at all and then wonder why blizzard doesn’t listen. They have to constantly sift through piles of shit to get to the actual feedback provided by players who give a damn. They probably miss a ton of actual legit feedback because people run around spamming that blizzard sucks and they never listen.

    You can look at this thread alone and see quite a few who aren’t interested in providing quality feedback but would rather shit on blizzard and in turn the players.

    We had 2 really shitty betas (legion and Cata) where the developers argued with players constantly and turned out to be wrong. Tom chilton specifically told ret Paladins to stop talking about holy wrath because he thinks it’s fun and no matter what it’s staying in the game meanwhile players said it wasn’t fun and it’s either going to be garbage or OP, and now it’s never used at all. This doesn’t mean we should stop providing feedback because sometimes they don’t listen.

    If you wanna be stupid though that’s well within your right.
  1. Aggrophobic's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Taeldorian View Post
    It’s vague in a sense that they’re still working through ideas and all they’re doing is letting us know they’re train of thought. We don’t even have access to beta yet.

    However, if you pair this statement which provides us with their line of thinking going into BFA and what they want to do with classes (eg. bring back specific class abilities and focus on making classes stand out) with their other statements of wanting to bring back class abilities and taking the prune too far you get exactly what they’re going for, which would be adding back abilities that felt unique to specs but got pruned.

    It’s our job to advocate for our class and spec. If you have an ability in mind that was unique to your class and you think it would be nice to have back then lobby for it. Based on everything here they’re mindset clearly shows that’s their goal.
    So take stuff away and then bring it back in again and call it new? Sorry, but it's hard to be that exited about that.
    I'd like the MoP calss design back, less randomness and more control back, please. The same goes for rewards and progression. Less RNG for everyone!
  1. Aeula's Avatar
    So basically... butcher any use you'd have for artifact talents by adding them to talent trees. Scrap everything else and wait until the forums start complaining?
  1. Mhyroth's Avatar
    I don't understand the stun example.
    People will just take the Class/player who has the AoE stun for M+ for example (just like now) so making Classes even more distinctive won't solve the problem of "bring the player not the class" which they've been advocating (but failing to deliver)

    Balancing Legendary proccs etc is too complex so no way we keep those. (they even backfired us equipping more so no way they will make them baseline.
  1. Taeldorian's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    So take stuff away and then bring it back in again and call it new? Sorry, but it's hard to be that exited about that.
    I'd like the MoP calss design back, less randomness and more control back, please. The same goes for rewards and progression. Less RNG for everyone!
    The stuff they bring back can be improved though. If exorcism came back it doesn’t necessarily have to be the exact same thing, it can have some cool new things added to it.

    I play Holy/ret currently, ret has hardly any RNG involved which makes it fun for me. I agree with MoP class design for the most part. Some classes/specs were very fucking boring though (ret pally just to name one) however there was a lot less RNG in the rotations.

    Holy pally was fun, enhance and ele Sham were fun, lock was fun, survival hunter was fun. Those were the classes I played and I enjoyed them all but others were boring. I know arms/fury was very fun as well.

    Who knows, maybe by adding back abilities, rotations will be more MoP-like. MoP did have a good amount of RNG but there were a lot of abilities that helped make the RNG feel less like RNG if that makes sense. There were other things to use if your “RNG” didn’t favor you.

    In BFA we are getting a lot less RNG. 3 main slots can’t titanforge, no random legendaries, etc. Will see what the classes look like when beta opens up and provide feedback from there.
  1. Kluian05's Avatar
    It sounds like "bring the player, not the class" is now being thrown out the window ... Blizzard why are you repeating past mistakes? This expansion design philosophy seems broken.
  1. makketota's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhyroth View Post
    I don't understand the stun example.
    People will just take the Class/player who has the AoE stun for M+ for example (just like now) so making Classes even more distinctive won't solve the problem of "bring the player not the class" which they've been advocating (but failing to deliver)

    Balancing Legendary proccs etc is too complex so no way we keep those. (they even backfired us equipping more so no way they will make them baseline.
    Plenty of ways to balance that. Have the class with the AoE stun be the worst in the game at AoE damage etc, we also don't know what other classes will bring yet.
  1. Weeps's Avatar
    Please, Blizzard...

    If you're going to keep voidforms for Spriest, please... do something about the insanity decay rate when/if Void Torrent is taken out. The class will simply not work without its function as is.
  1. Corroc's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ro9ue View Post
    Sounds good but honestly I'd rather hear some specific examples of what they are planning on doing. Most of what they said doesn't excite me to look forward to anything, it's just broad philosophies that most of us already have heard a thousand times over.

    I would've liked to hear stuff like:
    • Their thoughts on how Survival Hunter played out - I feel like in the community it's viewed largely as a failure
    • What specific utility abilities they need to bring back - IE Smoke Bomb. And also how they view Talents vs PVP talents. Seems like a lot of utility moved to PVP trees, and that hollowed out PVE utility.
    Funny thing about survival is that most of the people base their opinions on what they hear. Reading the forums I thought survival was really hard and complicated spec to play. Then I had to do the survival artifact challenge and I actually found survival fun spec to play. Ok if you play wow with default UI and dont want to optimize your gameplay at all then I would understand how survival can come up as difficult spec.But couple weak auras to show buff durations and its actually not that hard. Its kinda like arcane mage with burst and non burst phases with small duration between them. The only actually clunky thing about the spec is trap usage since the way traps work. There is no easy way to use it even with @cursor macros.
  1. splatomat's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    well thats great for you but they basically fucked everyone who already liked SV so a couple of people could use a melee weapon.
    This.

    Also, if they were going to insist on fundamentally changing Survival, it should have been to give Hunters a new ROLE (Tanking). Instead it just gave Hunters another DPS spec that I cannot remember anybody actively clamoring for. (Hunter Tank spec = polearm wielding hunter who rides his pet bear/boar/ostritch/crab/whatever into battle like a mounted knight).

    I would like to see Shadowpriests get their support abilities back. Heck, I'd like to see a viable SUPPORT role make the trinity a quadrinity. That's a pipe dream, though.
  1. kaid's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Taeldorian View Post
    A ton of people provide the shittiest feedback possible or don’t provide any at all and then wonder why blizzard doesn’t listen. They have to constantly sift through piles of shit to get to the actual feedback provided by players who give a damn. They probably miss a ton of actual legit feedback because people run around spamming that blizzard sucks and they never listen.

    You can look at this thread alone and see quite a few who aren’t interested in providing quality feedback but would rather shit on blizzard and in turn the players.

    We had 2 really shitty betas (legion and Cata) where the developers argued with players constantly and turned out to be wrong. Tom chilton specifically told ret Paladins to stop talking about holy wrath because he thinks it’s fun and no matter what it’s staying in the game meanwhile players said it wasn’t fun and it’s either going to be garbage or OP, and now it’s never used at all. This doesn’t mean we should stop providing feedback because sometimes they don’t listen.

    If you wanna be stupid though that’s well within your right.

    A lot of the problem is people often the same ones ask for diametrically opposed things without blinking an eye. So you get people complaining about the new level scaling being to slow and the refer a friend getting nerfed xp wise but in a different thread go off how amazing the vanilla server will be for the true leveling experience. It is no wonder with stuff like that devs sometimes throw up their hands and just have to make a choice one way or the other on their own.
  1. Eleccybubb's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    well thats great for you but they basically fucked everyone who already liked SV so a couple of people could use a melee weapon.
    A lot of SVs ranged stuff was baked into MM and BM. MM has Lock and Load as well as Black Arrow for example.

    You still have two perfectly playable, easy and strong specs there to play.

    I won't deny a minority like Survival but I'd rather them improve the spec more than just give up and go back to it being ranged. I like having that choice in if I want to be a Melee or Ranged Hunter.

    HOWEVER. I wouldn't mind if it went back to a Ranged spec. I like both playstyles of the Hunter class.
  1. iamthedevil's Avatar
    Traits as talents... that's some bullshit.
  1. elgarta's Avatar
    My biggest hope is that basic playstyle options come back, like Brewmasters being able to use 1h again, fury being able to equip 2x 1h and (unlikely) having access to more abilities to 2h enhance. At least while leveling, it can keep things fresh. I don't care about endgame for it, I just want my warrior to run with fists again
  1. Erbel's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    they can just start by reverting hunter to MoP or WoD and try again. legion was a failure.
    Won't happen. They like MM being the clunky utility-less shitfest it is now instead of how fun and utility-packed it was in MoP and WoD. It was only because of MM that I was actually able to enjoy Ashran.
  1. Zauruz's Avatar
    I remember how much they spoke of "bring the player not the class" concept years ago. Now it seems like they're going back to seperating classes again and I can't imagine how can this not result in situations where you need certain classes to defeat bosses or even some heavy class stacking (more than these days).

Site Navigation