Fighters don't have you playing a role? Do you even play any multiplayer fighting games? Sorry, I wasn't going to post here because everything has already been said but i'm really shocked by that one. Allow me to take a single character as an exampleTheKasp 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'.Easton Dark said: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.
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.
Again, amongst the DOTA2 community the term "MOBA" is loathed for certain reasons I already pointed out. ARTS is at least derived from the genre which allowed modders to create Aeon of Strife / Defense of the Ancients. It also implies the more action oriented gameplay which is there thanks to lack of certain RTS characteristics.
Edit: Again, my problem is with people yelling that no one calls this genre RTS. This is simply not true. MOBA is a marketing term by Riot. Valve calls DOTA2 an ARTS. Plenty of other people refer to other terms for this genre.
No one calls it an RTS? You lie.
I don't know where you get the idea of individual and multiple confrontations being the same thing, that plain doesn't make sense. MOBAs cover a single battle between two or more factions, grand strategy or RTS can cover an entire war spanning multiple contacts and interactions. MOBAs might have more then one match determining who the ultimate winner is, but the game resets in between those matches. MOBAs don't cover an entire war, they cover a small number of single units battling each other tactically. Yeah you reposition units (if anyone listens to anyone else) but that does not make it strategy in and of itself.Majinash said:legend forge said: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 confrontationsTheKasp said:Would you care to elaborate? (I am genuine curious)legend forge said:There is a difference between "strategy" and "tactics". MOBAS are tactical games, not strategic.
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.
No, you somehow describe two things that are the same as if they are different. In, say, StarCraft, you would have (maybe) several confrontations with the enemy until one of you gets their base destroyed. Heck, it might finish with a rush, but still. In DotA, you would proceed the same way - several confrontations, until one gets destroyed.legend forge said:I don't know where you get the idea of individual and multiple confrontations being the same thing, that plain doesn't make sense. MOBAs cover a single battle between two or more factions, grand strategy or RTS can cover an entire war spanning multiple contacts and interactions.
Why do you assume "one match" to be "one fight"? Why is not an SC match one fight?legend forge said:MOBAs might have more then one match determining who the ultimate winner is
"Yeah, shooters are really no different than whack-a-mole, you see"legend forge said:MOBAs don't cover an entire war, they cover a small number of single units battling each other tactically. Yeah you reposition units (if anyone listens to anyone else) but that does not make it strategy in and of itself.
How is that different if you have it distributed? A DotA game would require a cohesive distribution of your team to achieve your goal - you can have a team specialise in, say, turtling or hunting and killing other heroes, you can further specialise how exactly you do that, or how to counteract the enemy's choices. But whatever you do, it's a team effort. 5 people running off and doing their own thing, as you seem to assume things go, is not actually how things go. In pubs, maybe, but even then, it'd be lower ranking pubs when you can safely dominate the game with Rikimaru.legend forge said:By management I mean more "empire management" instead of your definition of management, which is. The collection and distribution of resources, researching of techs/abilities, production of units, building your base, and many other factors.
Shorter than AoE or Civ5 for sure, but those ARE made for longer games. Shorter than SC2 - definitely no. Since I haven't played 2 (mostly watched a friend of mine play it) but have played 1, I just double checked to see if they made the matches really longer. But it seems the average SC2 match is roughly the same - 20-ish or so minutes. According to this [http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_S_Statistics], there were only three matches over 30 minutes, and even then, they were 30:18, 31:46, and 32 - most were between 15 and 25 - average game length seems to be around 20. Or have I been mislead and SC2 actually ramps up normal matches to over an hour?legend forge said:MOBAs have shorter match times then your typical SC2, AoE, or Civ5 match.
Except for Warcraft and StarCraft games, right? Because they can and do finish faster. Oh, also Red Alert 2, which typically took 20-30 minutes. RA3 should be similar. Heck, I'm fairly sure and C&C titles don't stretch over an hour all the time.legend forge said:Some competitive circles may get the time or the two former down to something similar, but certainly not in a Civ game. That's just how the games are. I've never seen a MOBA match last as long as even the shortest Civ game, and most players would not be able to finish an RTS game in the time frame of a MOBA.
Erm...you are wrong.kingthrall said: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.
And you are wrong.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.
Furion, lycanthrope, Chen, enchantress. There - sufficient evidence provided for all your points here, happy?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.
First line of business. The whole thread is about MOBAs being labeled as RTS games. How you can figure Civ 5 into the discussion is confusing. Civ 5 is not an RTS.legend forge said:I don't know where you get the idea of individual and multiple confrontations being the same thing, that plain doesn't make sense. MOBAs cover a single battle between two or more factions, grand strategy or RTS can cover an entire war spanning multiple contacts and interactions. MOBAs might have more then one match determining who the ultimate winner is, but the game resets in between those matches. MOBAs don't cover an entire war, they cover a small number of single units battling each other tactically. Yeah you reposition units (if anyone listens to anyone else) but that does not make it strategy in and of itself.
By management I mean more "empire management" instead of your definition of management, which is. The collection and distribution of resources, researching of techs/abilities, production of units, building your base, and many other factors.
MOBAs have shorter match times then your typical SC2, AoE, or Civ5 match. Some competitive circles may get the time or the two former down to something similar, but certainly not in a Civ game. That's just how the games are. I've never seen a MOBA match last as long as even the shortest Civ game, and most players would not be able to finish an RTS game in the time frame of a MOBA.
I'm not trying to argue that there is no thought to a MOBA game. Just the opposite. It requires quick thinking and reflexes, as well as co operation. There even may be some strategy at the meta level, outfitting your character or what have you, but that isn't the focus of the actual gameplay. We are basically arguing semantics here. Think of it as the level of "zoom" applied to the conflict. In a MOBA you get one character, and you co ordinate with others. Some specific MOBAs of which I am not personally aware might theoretically give you control over multiple characters, which would blend some RTS in there and maybe change that games scope enough to matter. But MOBAs are too "zoomed in" to really be strategy.