League of Legends and DOTA should not be called strategy games

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
kingthrall said:
not going to lie, spent like 30 min each game and thought they were some of the cheapest trashiest games ive ever played. I kind of still think that too in comparison to the plethora of games I have played.
Uh huh.

30mins each, eh? And you would have been playing at the entry level too.

Fact is, you are simply not qualified to comment on these games. At all.

It's comparable someone watching half an hour of a schoolyard soccer match then dismissing the whole sport as "just a bunch of guys kicking a ball around." (EDIT: Wow, got ninja's on that example, almost word for word.)

And I'm not even saying this to defend the games. I don't particularly like DOTA or LOL. But you so obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and you're banging your own drum so very hard, and getting so snobbish over genre differences that I feel compelled to comment.
 

Carrots_macduff

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
delta4062 said:
...who calls them that? They're MOBA games.
indeed. i've never heard dota or league colloquially referred to as strategy games.

the thrust of this thread seems to be the usual "why do so many people like the game i didnt like, and why is my favorite kind of game not more popular."

also OP, your claim that the only strategy in mobas comes from item builds speaks to your lack of knowledge of the genre.
the real complex strategies are based on positioning, map control, coordination and timing
 

AmberSword

New member
Jun 16, 2014
179
0
0
Theoraticaly, every game
Easton Dark said:
TheKasp said:
They are MOBAs alright. In the same sense that Mortal Kombat games are MOBAs, multiplayer FPS are MOBAS, everything is a MOBA.
In what game is there no action. In what game do you not use strategy. In what game do you not play a role.

Genres are meaningless. Come up with more descriptive and specific terms or throw them out.
Not to be offensive here, especially if you were just being sarcastic, but here is my opinion.

Theoretically, every game is unique, and even similar games like sequels are still too many, so instead of trying to come up with thousands of terms to describe every game as close to perfection as possible, we just categorize them roughly by their main focus. Sure Portal has action in it, but are people going to remember the game for that? That is why its mostly touted as a puzzle platformer. There is strategy in Call of Duty, same logic applies. Role-Play is truly the most illogical genre, but even that has its roots. As far as I know, it probably spawned from the days of old before we even had digital games/during their early years where board games like D&D were king, in these games the main focus was really you playing a role, the entire game was built around that, and most early RPGs copied this concept just in digital form. The RPGs of today have really detached themselves from this formula, but the name stuck.
 

mindfaQ

New member
Dec 6, 2013
194
0
0
Flamebait post?
Yes, the games are more tactical than strategical, the most strategy actually happens when the teams get picked + what you plan to do with your picks then (at least in Dota 2). The strategy portion is how you divide the ressources (gold, exp, time)
Thus the ARTT is probably a more fitting genre description than ARTS, but meh, since people also seem to accept the idiotic MOBA term, one could argue that genre terms can't be taken too seriously.
 

SomeLameStuff

What type of steak are you?
Apr 26, 2009
4,291
0
0
TheKasp said:
SomeLameStuff said:
That was seriously all on Envy. He loves going for the super-greed drafts and plays and it completely backfired on him and his team that game. It was less Alliance making big plays and more C9 throwing the whole thing in the toilet. EE-Sama better straighten up before the International if he wants to be in the money.
Like I said, it was bad decisionmaking and estimating of the situation. Going in the second time ~10s before the last ultimate of Alliance is up again, positioning themselfs perfect for S4 to jump in, silence and Dreamcoild everybody TWICE in a row which allowed Sven to do what Sven does when 4 people stand in perfect line.

Alliance executed their draft like expected. C9 played too greedy too early and paid for it.
They kind of buggered up with the draft too, banning out the Chen. I mean, with both Darkseer and Jakiro, you almost WANT them to group up and try to take towers, because between Jakiro and Darkseer, their creep wave is going nowhere. Plus the Alch they picked up later on? Anti-push up the wazoo.

The Alch pick was a mistake though, waaaaay too greedy. They should have stuck Ember in mid, and last pick a Luna or a Gyro for Envy. But I suppose it's Envy's hallmark, being too greedy.
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
AmberSword said:
Theoretically, every game is unique
Every game is unique. I said a long time ago that I wish people would describe the mechanics rather than compare them to thousands of other games. "What's the game like?" "Well, it's an action game like Call of Duty and Lollipop Chainsaw." "You have said nothing."

The wide categorizations make the categories meaningless to me. Since like you say, there's too many variations, just get rid of 'em.

TheKasp said:
There are plenty of games that lack action. Especially slow, real time strategy games. Fighters, racing games, RTS have you not 'playing a role'.

The best description for this game would be DOTA-like of "ASSFAGGOTS" (Aeon of Strife Styled Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides). Like Roguelike. But thanks to marketing and shitsmearing campaigns a certain company started calling this genre MOBA.
I'd argue otherwise because action and role-playing are such broad terms, but that's for another time, another thread.

And if I had to pick one for Dota contemporaries, I agree MOBA is by far the worse descriptor. Perhaps Overhead 5v5 PvP Action RPG Last Hit Tower Battle would be better.
 

legend forge

New member
Mar 26, 2010
109
0
0
TheKasp said:
legend forge said:
There is a difference between "strategy" and "tactics". MOBAS are tactical games, not strategic.
Would you care to elaborate? (I am genuine curious)
Tactics win a battle, strategy wins a war. Games like Civilization or Age of Empires are wider in scope and cover multiple confrontations, as well as including a certain amount of "management", and are thus strategy games. MOBAS and other smaller scale games are tactical due to the emphasis on shorter time frames and individual confrontations.

It's a matter of scope.
 

kingthrall

New member
May 31, 2011
811
0
0
@various posters,


To those who clearly need tissues for my O.P disclaimer, you should actually read page 1 of the discussion before going off in a tangent. Oh and clearly your getting way too emotional over a simple disclaimer because I honestly do not care if you want to argue, that is one way of making a discussion, but keep it civil as I know these two games have an army of fanboy/girls.

Oh and those who laughing at me for playing 30 minutes of each game, I can tell you that it was not that I could not play on anymore I was demolishing enemies with that chiseled jaw dude with the sword who spins, it was the sheer fact the game wasn't for me and boring me, there was 0 excitement involved so I do not see how I have to justify playing a game that I actually took the time to download, register and install on my computer.

I doubt half of the users here posting glorious dota/lol comments have ever played myth 2, empire earth 1, supreme commander, diablo 1-3, sacred, dawn of war or even a fraction of the myriad of games. It cuts both ways which is why half the posters in here clearly are only weighing these two games in terms of qualifying as using tactics against a few AAA titles like Starcraft 2.
 

Majinash

New member
May 27, 2014
148
0
0
legend forge said:
TheKasp said:
legend forge said:
There is a difference between "strategy" and "tactics". MOBAS are tactical games, not strategic.
Would you care to elaborate? (I am genuine curious)
Tactics win a battle, strategy wins a war. Games like Civilization or Age of Empires are wider in scope and cover multiple confrontations, as well as including a certain amount of "management", and are thus strategy games. MOBAS and other smaller scale games are tactical due to the emphasis on shorter time frames and individual confrontations

It's a matter of scope.

In regards to the first point. "multiple confrontations" and "individual confrontations" are the same thing, so right there you've already stated Civ and AoE are like Dota and LoL.

To the second bolded part, you seem to have a very specific definition of "management" if you think only SC2 or AoE has it. Dota players manage multiple units, multiple items, along with other people on their team. All you do in AoE is attack-move, I don't understand how having 4 control groups and having them all attack move somewhere is more management than controlling 4 units each with 1-5 skills (gogo chen players)

to the 3rd bolded part. I have no idea how you come up with mobas having shorter time frames. Do you mean match length? pretty sure competitive SC2 and competitive dota have similar match length. Do you mean time spent gathering resorces between fights? SC2 games often start with a mostly passive phase of scouting, resource building and counterplay, in a similar way that LoL starts out in a more passive phase where resorce gathering is a priority, and Dota matches have a cycle of fighting, objective pushing and resorce gathering. Do you mean how long actual engagments last? once again comp SC2 and dota seem to be pretty similar here.

If strategy wins a war then MOBAs have strategy, seeing as each match is comprised of multiple engagements and the team that best manages the engagements and the time between will win. I feel like your understanding of classic RTS games is fine, but you seem pretty uninformed about MOBAs.


Elijin said:
kingthrall said:
Anyway have fun picking the pieces out of my post about how you all adore these two highly over-rated games in my opinion. Look forward to the replies!
So to start the tone, you're implying that anyone who disagrees with you is just picking apart points in some scarce defense of their beloved game. Thats a great start.

With that in mind, I absolutely loathe MOBA/DOTA/ARTS games.

But even as someone who hates them, lets do a quick little checklist...

Finite resources that need to earnt and managed on the fly? Check.
A top down map, which fog of war leading to situations where map control and knowledge are essential? Check.
Various unit roles and abilities which need to be micromanaged at an intense level for success over their counterparts? Check.
RPS unit line ups? ...Maybe check? I dont play them much but I understand there are unit types that match up poorly.
Macro on a map scale, being able to keep track of and adjust plays on the fly relevant to the game state? Check.
Intense and varying strategies for different units and player counts, as well as game states? Check.



Well, sounds like strategy games to me. Awful ones, but still, strategy ones.

Its cool though, you already demonstrated you're going to accredit anyone who disagrees with you to be a fan trying to justify themselves, so I dont expect anything from my post.
For someone who doesn't enjoy (and thus I assume doesn't play) these games, I feel like you've really got this down. The only thing I'd have issue with is the "RPS unit line ups", which dota at least doesn't have. Dota does have a bit of a "RPS mechinic line up", but not individual unit countering other unit. I'd also ask if a game really has to have any kind of RPS balance to be a strategy game? does it have to be horse beats infantry beats spear beats horse?
 

kingthrall

New member
May 31, 2011
811
0
0
@Majinash the thing is strategy games use more than individual units, not 100% heroes, and the heroes are usually support or given on rare circumstances. Even in heroes might and magic there was a balance between your hero's casting ability or the pursuit to have higher grade armies through armorer ability, tactics and offense/defense skills.

Having a sole hero with an inventory really relates to an rpg more so than a strategy game. You still have to think and work out flanks ect in a rpg with a party (similar to dota/lol) and manage your gold (resources) and spells (take Baldurs gate having memorized spells).

Strategy games, usually involve larger armies and Macro, there is no Macro in LOL/Dota because your controlling a single unit, and the hordes that go from the lanes are streamlined controlled by AI.
 

Majinash

New member
May 27, 2014
148
0
0
kingthrall said:
having a sole hero with an inventory really relates to an rpg more so than a strategy game. You still have to think and work out flanks ect in a rpg with a party (similar to dota/lol) and manage your gold (resources) and spells (take Baldurs gate having memorized spells).

Strategy games, usually involve larger armies and Macro, there is no Macro in LOL/Dota because your controlling a single unit, and the hordes that go from the lanes are streamlined controlled by AI.
Why does having a sole hero relate to an RPG more than a strategy game? Most RPG games I played I controlled a party, a group of people, not a single hero. Why does unit count make a difference? If you played a game of Age of Empires with shared unit control with a friend (I've done it, tons of fun) does that make it less of an RTS because you aren't controlling an army anymore?

If you want RTS to mean "Army vs Army" game why don't we rename that genre ARTS for "Army Real Time Strategy" and call dota and LoL ARTS for "Action Real Time Stragegy". Both games are played in real time, involve a strategy to win, but one has an army and one doesn't, sounds like a good description.

Also the idea that there is no Macro in LoL and DoTA is incorrect, you only played for 30min so you simply didn't encounter people who played meepo, chen, enchantress, invoker, Phantom lancer, venomancer, naga siren, morphling, Warlock, Anyone with a helm of the dominator, anyone with a manta, anyone with a necro book. People control more than 1 unit in DoTA. To a lesser extent in LoL, but I know it's there too.

You seem super hung up on the unit count. Age of Empires 1 had a unit cap of 50, does that really seem like it involed "larger armies" when you compare it to Supreme Commander? After my villager count that means fights really involved 30ish units tops. Is that the cutoff? 30 units? what is "larger armies" and why are they required for a game to be an RTS game?
 

kingthrall

New member
May 31, 2011
811
0
0
Look up what Macro means Majinash and then you will realize why armies are required for it to be considered a real time strategy. It has nothing to do with "numbers", its to do with control, your controlling multiple area's on a map not a single laneway with a few mind controlled units that do "base attack damage" or maybe the one or two summons that do some form of mid-high tier elemental damage.

I am going to take a guess that 0 of these games has summoning units spread over a different lane way while the main hero is fighting another area. I also doubt summons are kept aside as reinforcements or as a ambush unexpectedly in some dark forest patch with f.o.w on. If so I would very much like to see some evidence.
 

mindfaQ

New member
Dec 6, 2013
194
0
0
kingthrall said:
Oh and those who laughing at me for playing 30 minutes of each game, I can tell you that it was not that I could not play on anymore I was demolishing enemies with that chiseled jaw dude with the sword who spins, it was the sheer fact the game wasn't for me and boring me, there was 0 excitement involved so I do not see how I have to justify playing a game that I actually took the time to download, register and install on my computer.

I doubt half of the users here posting glorious dota/lol comments have ever played myth 2, empire earth 1, supreme commander, diablo 1-3, sacred, dawn of war or even a fraction of the myriad of games. It cuts both ways which is why half the posters in here clearly are only weighing these two games in terms of qualifying as using tactics against a few AAA titles like Starcraft 2.
You can't expect to grasp the strategy portion involved in those games if you have almost no knowledge of them.

DotA/Dota 2 players are comparatively old, meaning they've played a lot of games in the past as well, so you don't have a point about assuming Dota 2 players don't know about other games, on the contrary actually (especially since many of them are PC gamers and strategy games usually were/are at home at the PC).

kingthrall said:
Look up what Macro means Majinash and then you will realize why armies are required for it to be considered a real time strategy. It has nothing to do with "numbers", its to do with control, your controlling multiple area's on a map
There's at least 5 controlled units per team. So yes, you do control multiple areas of the map. Actually it's one of the most important things in the game, also called map control. You try to see it out of context in a 1vs1 scenario, but that's not what the game is.
 

Majinash

New member
May 27, 2014
148
0
0
kingthrall said:
Look up what Macro means Majinash and then you will realize why armies are required for it to be considered a real time strategy.
If armies are required for a game to be an RTS, are the games some other genre when a match starts? If I start with 5 villagers, or an MVC and nothing else, am I not playing an RTS?

kingthrall said:
It has nothing to do with "numbers", its to do with control, your controlling multiple area's on a map not a single laneway with a few mind controlled units that do "base attack damage" or maybe the one or two summons that do some form of mid-high tier elemental damage.
First: most mind controlled units don't do "base attack damage". The most boring of these is the alpha wolf, who has no active skills but has a massive 30% damage boosting aura around him. Other popular units include the Dark Troll Summoner, who has a net that roots someone to the ground (goes through magic immunity) and can raise skeletons if nearby units die. So now your mind controlled unit has summoned units. The Centaur has an AoE stun along with an attack speed aura. And Chen (a hero who can mind control up to 3 units at once) if played well can keep someone stunned for 6 seconds with these.

Second: all MOBA's I've played rely a great deal on controlling multiple areas on the map. Dota has two rune spots which every 2 min a rune will spawn at one, and much of the early game is spent keeping control of these at ever 2min mark to prevent the enemy from getting access to them. The Rosh Pit is an important area to keep control of, or the enemy might get access to the aegis. there are 3 lanes in most MOBAs (Steller Impact varies greatly by map, LoL has some 2lane play) with objectives in every lane, and most games also have jungles. In smite keeping control of the Jungle is incredibly important because it provides so much XP and gold. If you watch any pro DOTA you'll notice casters constantly talk about "map control" and how much vision a team has, on their side of the river and the other. If one team has no vision on the enemy side of the river and has lost a lot of map control due to the enemy taking objectives, the enemy team is much safer to collect resources on their side of the map, and even venture onto your side to take gold and XP your team needs.

Map control is HUGE in MOBAs, and to maintain it your team is often split up, doing different tasks in different places all at the same time.

kingthrall said:
I am going to take a guess that 0 of these games has summoning units spread over a different lane way while the main hero is fighting another area.
Then you would guess wrong. These games almost always involve that. Remember these aren't 1v1s, this is a 5v5 game. The split push (often referred to as "rat dota" by people who are defeated by it) is a strategy that involves using 4 members of your team to pressure the enemy on 1 front so they have to dedicate their focus to defending objectives there, while a 5th member who is either A: very good at quickly taking objectives, B: has a good escape in case the enemy team isn't distracted or C: both, will attempt to take an objective far away on the map on their own.

A great example is Phantom Lancer, who creates copies of himself (up to a dozen) who will send his army foward in 1 lane while he retreats safely to another lane or the jungle. Add this to your other 4 members pressuring another objective and now even if the enemy can defend against the 4 and the PL army, they still have to worry about Phantom Lancer separate from his army getting stronger because they can't pressure him.

Another example is Meepo who is literally 5 people. He clones himself as he levels up until you have 5 of the same unit. They share experience gained so most Meepo players spread them out, getting gold and XP from a jungle and a lane or two. Sounds like an RTS.

kingthrall said:
I also doubt summons are kept aside as reinforcements or as a ambush unexpectedly in some dark forest patch with f.o.w on. If so I would very much like to see some evidence.
This is exactly what Enchantress and Chen use their Centuars and Troll summoners to do. One player will attempt to move the lane back closer to their own tower, to force the enemy to advance foward (into a less safe position) and an Enchantress or Chen (who spent the early game often hiding in the jungle gaining experience there, where the enemy doesn't know their movements) will come behind their enemy, who has advanced into a risky position, and use the troll warlord to net the enemy, rooting them in place so that they cannot escape the attack.

They hide in the fog while a teammate lures the enemy into a risky position in an attempt to flank them. In this specific example they use a summon (actually a mind controlled monster from the jungle) to provide a means to prevent the enemy from fleeing.


You need to understand that even if you control only 1 unit, your team is more than 1 unit. You have an army in these games, you just also have 4 other humans helping you play it.