No, they are fundamentally different mechanics. Saving mobs increases their damage over time, instead of eliminating them early. It promotes larger mob groups as well as increased tower defense play by the heroes. It's not the "flavor" text of the concept, it's a core gameplay concept that needs to be changed.
If you're arguing against it as a core gameplay concept, you really need to expand your argument further than just saying "I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers." So what? What's wrong with it?
So you CAN do that! Man, now DotA/HoN worries me even more!
I'd like to point out that it's only possible to deny a player if a) they're incredibly low on HP, and b) they have a DoT on them. 99% of the time they're going to die anyway, so you're just denying the other team the gold. I do agree that it's a touch silly, though.
The game should not reward someone for prematurely destroying an allied unit. Players should be rewarded for doing everything they can to prevent them from dying.
The game should not reward someone for prematurely destroying an allied unit. Players should be rewarded for doing everything they can to prevent them from dying.
The game should not reward someone for prematurely destroying an allied unit. Players should be rewarded for doing everything they can to prevent them from dying.
Again, why?
Because that makes a really stupid game. It's supposed to be a game of strategy where you want your side to beat the other side. Instead, it ends up being a game where you don't care whose side a soldier is on. You just want to click on the guys with the least health the fastest. What could have been a strategy game instead becomes competitive whack-a-mole. If I want to play whack-a-mole I can just play whack-a-mole.
You just want to click on the guys with the least health the fastest.
Sure, but that's a completely different argument from the one Andrew was making.
What could have been a strategy game instead becomes competitive whack-a-mole.
I'd say the core design makes it more a game of tactics than strategy on the whole, regardless of the clicking affair. In any case, I think your point is plainly false. If all players are decent at the clicking, nine times out of ten it will be tactical decisions and strategy that decide the game, not clicking. In League of Legends, where denying is removed, and you don't have to do orb walking, which probably means you have to click one quarter as much, the amount of clicking involved shouldn't be a hurdle to anyone with basic gaming skills.
I'd say the core design makes it more a game of tactics than strategy on the whole
I would actually argue that MOBAs are games of 80% strategy and 20% tactics; the long term success of a team is based on the success of the pure strategies (hey game theory guys, did I use this term correctly?) that they select near the beginning of the game (which characters will we pick, which will we ban, how will I upgrade by skills and in what order will I acquire my items). Planning ahead and theory crafting are a big part of the game (and it totally sucks that LoL requires "stateful bullshit" to maximize your options, I don't deny that). HoN was a stand alone game that came with everything up front and featured no persistence outside of a game. In this way I agree that HoN is better than LoL.
Tactically, the game is almost purely execution; last hitting correctly, harassing at the right time, not taking unneeded hits, not pushing the lane accidentally, ganking at the right time, etc. high levels players' execution is almost perfect and with few small mistakes in the laning phase (the first 15 - 20 min of a game where players are building up their characters by harvesting creeps). Denying results in one team being able to trounce the other (as gold you deny your enemy is as good as gold you get for yourself). Ganking (jumping enemy players two or three on one), takes more coordination and skill and is a primary role of the jungler. Keeping wards up is the counter tactic (allowing you to keep vision on likely areas that gankers will try to jump you). This is usually the job of a support or a jungler that doesn't rely heavily on money to get stronger.
Team fights are another matter. When you get into a 5 on 5, there is usually a 5 second explosion of violence and the team with better coordination and tactical skill will usually destroy the opposing team. This could be considered a "goal" in the soccer sense as it allows the winning team to freely push a lane, get tons of gold and generally make tons of progress, which isn't to say that it isn't an insurmountable obsticle if your team loses (though it become harder the more team fights you lose). The biggest reason why LoL is the baby game compared to HoN is that HoN has more powerful items, crazier powers and and more stuns and a much higher skill cap on execution in PVP.
MOBAs are like a long distance foot race that ends with a fist fight; running and fighting take two very different mindsets and you can't be just a good runner or a good fighter. I know I'm probably talking people like Scott and Andrew even further out of playing MOBAs and I don't deny that they are sort of for crazy people, but I think they're neat.
Just watched this interview from Gamescom. It's another Dota game, but it sounds like it's third person instead of isometric and involves clicking on heads.
You can't understand the mechanics of Dota and it's effect on the gameplay with just a few games. Denying is very important and adds much depth. If you want to use the whack-a-mole analogy, you have to factor in a second player. Instead of just you whacking the moles, you have to compete with someong else in reflexes and timing. You can also use tactics like animation canceling to trick them into attacking earlier than they would have. Its actually pretty challenging and not at all mindless. It really is no different than things like rocket jumping and wave dashing in SSBM, i.e. unintended bug that ends up making the game better. This is why LoL has a much lower skill cap, since it does not have this mechanic.
Splitting the rewards based on % damage dealt is a terrible idea and would destroy how this game is suppose to be played. The problem with Scott's way of thinking, and along with most new player's view as well, is that the game is a single player game where you happen to be playing with other people. It isnt, its a team game. This is why you can't understand Dota from just a few games. First of all, the players not dealing the final hit to another hero does get some gold as assist. The player that actually gets the last hit gets a much higher bonus, regardless of the amount dealt. This is necessary. A common tactic is to, whenever possible, let more gold-dependant heroes get the final blow as the gold on them matters much more than a hero that has a supporting role.
Also, there are tons of strategy to the game, you just wouldnt know from a few games. Creeps also do not exists just for leveling, they are an intergral part to strategic decisions. There is a reason why its a popular eSport.
Denying is very important and adds much depthmasks the underlying strategic simplicity of the game beneath fiddly execution mechanics.
Instead of just you whacking the moles, you have to compete with someong else in reflexes and timing. You can also use tactics like animation canceling to trick them into attacking earlier than they would have.
Case in point.
not at all mindless.
I defy you to say that it's interesting. It's like kiting: requiring deep micromanagement to achieve optimal low level results before any strategy you might have would even matter. Games like this have fundamental problems of scale.
DotA, and other RTS, are definitely games of skill and valid eSports. Nobody is denying that. The thing is that these games claim to be strategy games. That is false. Those mechanics of denying and clicking and last-hitting and all that are the primary factor in determining victory. I might make all the best strategic decisions in the world. I'll always pick the right lane, the right time to attack and retreat, etc. But if I can't orb-walk none of that shit will matter. It's deceptive because what looks like a strategy game is really a quick-clicking game. Nothing wrong with a quick-clicking game, I'm just not a fan. My wrist is much more a fan of a game with a few precise clicks than a game with a zillion clicks.
Those mechanics of denying and clicking and last-hitting and all that are the primary factor in determining victory.
False. At least in League of Legends, very few of the games I've played or watched have been decided by quick-clicking ability. Granted, LoL doesn't have denying nor orb-walking, at the least. Yes, it's likely that in the case of DoTA and HoN these fiddly mechanics present a significant barrier to entry, but your execution doesn't need to be anywhere near godlike for strategic or tactical decisions to be what makes or breaks the game.
False. At least in League of Legends, very few of the games I've played or watched have been decided by quick-clicking ability. Granted, LoL doesn't have denying nor orb-walking, at the least.
Yes, people have only mentioned 100 times how LoL is different and doesn't have that nonsense. It makes me glad. However, it makes me sad that what could be the one good entry in the genre has the money problem.
Pay for one hero you're good with and learn your optimal build and you'll pull enough IP to not *have* a money problem. You're operating under the assumption that you need to endlessly pour cash into LoL to be any good. In my experience, that is far from true.
DotA, and other RTS, are definitely games of skill and valid eSports. Nobody is denying that. The thing is that these games claim to be strategy games. That is false. Those mechanics of denying and clicking and last-hitting and all that are the primary factor in determining victory. I might make all the best strategic decisions in the world. I'll always pick the right lane, the right time to attack and retreat, etc. But if I can't orb-walk none of that shit will matter. It's deceptive because what looks like a strategy game is really a quick-clicking game. Nothing wrong with a quick-clicking game, I'm just not a fan. My wrist is much more a fan of a game with a few precise clicks than a game with a zillion clicks.
Both strategy and "quick-clicking" matters, with strategy and decision making mattering a little more than clicking finesse. In fact, anyone with intermediate skill have roughly the same ability to do any type of clicking execution. On the professional level, basically everyone is near optimal when it comes to clicking things. The only remaining contributor to winning will be the strategy, tactics, decisions, and teamwork.
What you guys are saying is similar to me saying "I can have perfect strategy when playing Natural Selection, knowing when to do what, but if I don't have any reflex or aiming skills I cant win and therefore all this clicking I have to do 'masks the underlying strategic simplicity of the game beneath fiddly execution mechanics.' And btw, I've played about 5 games of NS so I can tell you exactly why all the mechanics in the game are dumb and how removing or changing them would make it better. Oh, and I get yelled at whenever I play because I dont know what I'm doing so the community is terrible and this game promotes it. Worst game ever."
What you guys are saying is similar to me saying "I can have perfect strategy when playing Natural Selection, knowing when to do what, but if I don't have any reflex or aiming skills I cant win and therefore all this clicking I have to do 'masks the underlying strategic simplicity of the game beneath fiddly execution mechanics.'
My point is simply that the skills required for execution in NS are simulacra of the "real" skills that would be relevant to such a situation. They're consistent with the metaphor of the game, and their importance is intuitive even if their mastery isn't.
DotA clones are the opposite. Their challenges of execution barely even touch the metaphor of the game itself. Their equivalent in NS would be if there were a mechanic in the latter whereby a particular pattern of activating and deactivating the welder timed to some animation cycle of the structure sped the process up. The reality of the actions the players optimize aren't micro, they're disconnected entirely.
DotA is fine as a sport. I just find that its metaphor is stupid and its mechanical narrative is ludicrously disconnected from its appearance. The game doesn't mesh with the interface or the metaphor.
What you guys are saying is similar to me saying "I can have perfect strategy when playing Natural Selection, knowing when to do what, but if I don't have any reflex or aiming skills I cant win and therefore all this clicking I have to do 'masks the underlying strategic simplicity of the game beneath fiddly execution mechanics.' And btw, I've played about 5 games of NS so I can tell you exactly why all the mechanics in the game are dumb and how removing or changing them would make it better. Oh, and I get yelled at whenever I play because I dont know what I'm doing so the community is terrible and this game promotes it. Worst game ever."
I think you're starting to get a bit too personal, here. I agree with you that the game does in fact require an amount of of strategy and teamwork in order for its players to succeed, but - and I'm speaking as a LoL player, here - you DO have to admit, the execution mechanics are damn fiddly at times, even when you're experienced in the game. I still remember how it was when I was starting out and I had NO IDEA what I was doing: it was a pain in the ass learning to last-hit, and I still don't think I'm very good at it!
Also, I'm not going to allow you to deny the fact that the MOBA community at large is pretty terrible. LoL less so, but HoN really DOES reinforce it; allowing players to be kicked from games by a simple majority vote while rewarding the players that remain in-game for doing so is a pretty terrible idea. Plus - and I no longer have the link to this at hand anymore, but I'm sure I could find it given enough looking - a player had posted a thread bringing up a legitimate issue with the game in HoN's forums, wherein one of the devs posted calling the player out on his in-game performance. Surely, this environment nurtures a lovely attitude among the playerbase!
The game doesn't mesh with the interface or the metaphor.
On the other hand, goddamn Rym, it's a game, not a glass of fine vintage wine. :V Not every game is going to be a perfect match between all its elements, but people are still going to find it fun. Some people will eat McDonalds when they're hungry because there aren't any restaurants that prepare porterhouse steaks to their liking around.
a player had posted a thread bringing up a legitimate issue with the game in HoN's forums, wherein one of the devs posted calling the player out on his in-game performance.
I think I remember that. I also remember when the "lead dev" guy was called out for sucking at the game. Basically, everyone involved seems to be a dick.
a player had posted a thread bringing up a legitimate issue with the game in HoN's forums, wherein one of the devs posted calling the player out on his in-game performance.
I think I remember that. I also remember when the "lead dev" guy was called out for sucking at the game. Basically, everyone involved seems to be a dick.
I don't quite understand Rym's quarrel (beside bad mannered people) with Dota. It actually has a thing they should like, that is the lack of necessity of perfect execution like RTS (SC2 lately). People like to use fixed builds for order of choosing skills and items, but I like to adapt that to the characters I'm going against. The huge number of combinations for that is what I think got me hooked. Testing and finding out what is better against a certain character or team.
Yeah I don't understand it either. They say they arent good at the execution of games like SC2 or Street Fighter but they still respect them and want to get better at them, but not with Dota? Seems like the same thing to me.
They say they arent good at the execution of games like SC2 or Street Fighter but they still respect them and want to get better at them, but not with Dota? Seems like the same thing to me.
Almost all of the execution in DotA games isn't interesting or even contextual to the narrative of the game. The visual representation of your actions and their relevance to the actual game are profoundly disconnected, and there is little correlation between the strategic landscape implied by the game's interface and the strategic reality of the execution components.
In sum, the skills being tested are non-contextual micro-optimization per poorly represented mechanics. You're testing one's skill at putting (golf) through a black box in a game that looks like NHL hockey.
Almost all of the execution in DotA games isn't interesting or even contextual to the narrative of the game.
I'm not going to argue how interesting the execution of base level mechanics in games are but I'm not feeling the part of your argument that says that the mechanics aren't true to the narrative of the game. I don't think it is trying to simulate anything. DoTA is like golf, in that you verb your proper nouns for the sake of playing the game, as opposed to games like Tiger Woods PGS Tour 12, in which simulated verb your simulated proper nouns for the purpose of simulating another activity.
It is unfortunate that it is using the assets of a game that DOES simulate something else (we're talking the mod here) and that its followers use assets meant to ape those assets as closely as possible without lawsuits, making it seems as though it is meant to evoke a narrative about a League of Legendary Heroes of Newerth Defending the Ancients.
I think you guys are putting way too much importance on "last-hitting". It's only really relevant early-on, and doesn't completely affect the outcome of the game. Harassing the opposing heroes, determining where to scout for incoming threats, knowing when to retreat from an encounter, and coordinating with your teammates are far more important.
Also, creeps are far more important than just farming fodder. Though you have no control over where they go, you still need to coordinate with them. For example, attacking a tower or an opposing hero by your lonesome is far less effective than attacking with your creeps. They are quite important just the way they are.
Now, if you don't find any of these decisions interesting, then that's just personal preference, but the mechanics work for what it's trying to do.
I've played a few of these games, although not very much. I played HoN beta, LoL for a few rounds, and the original DotA for a few rounds. The thing is you guys say that last-hitting, denying, orb-walking, etc. are not that important. They are only important early on. etc. etc.
That may be true in high level play where everyone already has mastered these techniques. If everyone orb walks, denies, and last-hits, then the strategy determines victory. I'll admit that's a definite likelihood.
Here's the thing you are missing. Let's say that you have one player called Scott. Suppose Scott has the best strategies. He's the strategy master. You have another player. That player is Rym. He's the technique master. He has bad strategies. However, he is very good at all the fiddly bits. What will happen if these players fight? Will Scott's strategy make up for the advantage of Rym's fiddly bullshit, or the reverse?
In my experience it's the reverse. All the strategy in the world doesn't matter when the other guy is many many levels higher than you. You might always know the right thing to do, but the other guy is 10 levels higher than you. No matter what you do, he can kill you instantly and you can't possibly do enough damage. Because he was last-hitting, denying, and orb-walking he was able to gain experience and gold much much faster than someone who just tries to level up in a direct fashion. All the strategy in the world can't allow an ant to kill a dragon. The fiddly bits might not matter in the grand scheme when everybody has mastered them, but they are a pre-requisite for play. Until you get a handle on them, strategy doesn't even come into play.
Imagine a Counter-Strike mod called Counter-Strike Bejeweled. Before each round everyone plays Bejeweled. That game of Bejeweled determines how much money you get that round. Team A is great at Counter-Strike, but sucks at Bejeweled. Team B is the opposite. They are Bejeweled masters who are not so good at CS. Depending on how much money is awarded, Team B might win every time. Imagine if Team A, the better CS players, is stuck with all knives, while Team B is all armor, grenades, assault rifles. Team A will be lucky to get a kill.
Us people without the patience to learn and practice the fiddly bits never get to see the strategy because in order for our strategy to matter we have to level as quickly as our opponents. If they out-level us, all the strategy in the world doesn't matter.
One of the reasons that Relic's RTS games consistantly impress me is because clever strategy is far and away more important than micro, and the game is both expansive and deep enough to make determining a perfect strategy essentially impossible and to reward risk-taking and creativity. There is still micro present, and using it can give you an edge, but unlike, say, Starcraft 2, where unless you are at the very highest level of micro play there is no room for creative strategy, in a Relic game out-thinking your opponent, tricking them, or overwhelming their ability to keep track of your strategy are all valid. When is the last time you saw somebody truly get tricked in a game of Starcraft?
Comments
Tactically, the game is almost purely execution; last hitting correctly, harassing at the right time, not taking unneeded hits, not pushing the lane accidentally, ganking at the right time, etc. high levels players' execution is almost perfect and with few small mistakes in the laning phase (the first 15 - 20 min of a game where players are building up their characters by harvesting creeps). Denying results in one team being able to trounce the other (as gold you deny your enemy is as good as gold you get for yourself). Ganking (jumping enemy players two or three on one), takes more coordination and skill and is a primary role of the jungler. Keeping wards up is the counter tactic (allowing you to keep vision on likely areas that gankers will try to jump you). This is usually the job of a support or a jungler that doesn't rely heavily on money to get stronger.
Team fights are another matter. When you get into a 5 on 5, there is usually a 5 second explosion of violence and the team with better coordination and tactical skill will usually destroy the opposing team. This could be considered a "goal" in the soccer sense as it allows the winning team to freely push a lane, get tons of gold and generally make tons of progress, which isn't to say that it isn't an insurmountable obsticle if your team loses (though it become harder the more team fights you lose). The biggest reason why LoL is the baby game compared to HoN is that HoN has more powerful items, crazier powers and and more stuns and a much higher skill cap on execution in PVP.
MOBAs are like a long distance foot race that ends with a fist fight; running and fighting take two very different mindsets and you can't be just a good runner or a good fighter. I know I'm probably talking people like Scott and Andrew even further out of playing MOBAs and I don't deny that they are sort of for crazy people, but I think they're neat.
Splitting the rewards based on % damage dealt is a terrible idea and would destroy how this game is suppose to be played. The problem with Scott's way of thinking, and along with most new player's view as well, is that the game is a single player game where you happen to be playing with other people. It isnt, its a team game. This is why you can't understand Dota from just a few games. First of all, the players not dealing the final hit to another hero does get some gold as assist. The player that actually gets the last hit gets a much higher bonus, regardless of the amount dealt. This is necessary. A common tactic is to, whenever possible, let more gold-dependant heroes get the final blow as the gold on them matters much more than a hero that has a supporting role.
Also, there are tons of strategy to the game, you just wouldnt know from a few games. Creeps also do not exists just for leveling, they are an intergral part to strategic decisions. There is a reason why its a popular eSport.
Yes, it's likely that in the case of DoTA and HoN these fiddly mechanics present a significant barrier to entry, but your execution doesn't need to be anywhere near godlike for strategic or tactical decisions to be what makes or breaks the game.
30 Second Dotamon?
What you guys are saying is similar to me saying "I can have perfect strategy when playing Natural Selection, knowing when to do what, but if I don't have any reflex or aiming skills I cant win and therefore all this clicking I have to do 'masks the underlying strategic simplicity of the game beneath fiddly execution mechanics.' And btw, I've played about 5 games of NS so I can tell you exactly why all the mechanics in the game are dumb and how removing or changing them would make it better. Oh, and I get yelled at whenever I play because I dont know what I'm doing so the community is terrible and this game promotes it. Worst game ever."
DotA clones are the opposite. Their challenges of execution barely even touch the metaphor of the game itself. Their equivalent in NS would be if there were a mechanic in the latter whereby a particular pattern of activating and deactivating the welder timed to some animation cycle of the structure sped the process up. The reality of the actions the players optimize aren't micro, they're disconnected entirely.
DotA is fine as a sport. I just find that its metaphor is stupid and its mechanical narrative is ludicrously disconnected from its appearance. The game doesn't mesh with the interface or the metaphor.
Also, I'm not going to allow you to deny the fact that the MOBA community at large is pretty terrible. LoL less so, but HoN really DOES reinforce it; allowing players to be kicked from games by a simple majority vote while rewarding the players that remain in-game for doing so is a pretty terrible idea. Plus - and I no longer have the link to this at hand anymore, but I'm sure I could find it given enough looking - a player had posted a thread bringing up a legitimate issue with the game in HoN's forums, wherein one of the devs posted calling the player out on his in-game performance. Surely, this environment nurtures a lovely attitude among the playerbase! On the other hand, goddamn Rym, it's a game, not a glass of fine vintage wine. :V Not every game is going to be a perfect match between all its elements, but people are still going to find it fun. Some people will eat McDonalds when they're hungry because there aren't any restaurants that prepare porterhouse steaks to their liking around.
In sum, the skills being tested are non-contextual micro-optimization per poorly represented mechanics. You're testing one's skill at putting (golf) through a black box in a game that looks like NHL hockey.
It is unfortunate that it is using the assets of a game that DOES simulate something else (we're talking the mod here) and that its followers use assets meant to ape those assets as closely as possible without lawsuits, making it seems as though it is meant to evoke a narrative about a League of Legendary Heroes of Newerth Defending the Ancients.
Also, creeps are far more important than just farming fodder. Though you have no control over where they go, you still need to coordinate with them. For example, attacking a tower or an opposing hero by your lonesome is far less effective than attacking with your creeps. They are quite important just the way they are.
Now, if you don't find any of these decisions interesting, then that's just personal preference, but the mechanics work for what it's trying to do.
That may be true in high level play where everyone already has mastered these techniques. If everyone orb walks, denies, and last-hits, then the strategy determines victory. I'll admit that's a definite likelihood.
Here's the thing you are missing. Let's say that you have one player called Scott. Suppose Scott has the best strategies. He's the strategy master. You have another player. That player is Rym. He's the technique master. He has bad strategies. However, he is very good at all the fiddly bits. What will happen if these players fight? Will Scott's strategy make up for the advantage of Rym's fiddly bullshit, or the reverse?
In my experience it's the reverse. All the strategy in the world doesn't matter when the other guy is many many levels higher than you. You might always know the right thing to do, but the other guy is 10 levels higher than you. No matter what you do, he can kill you instantly and you can't possibly do enough damage. Because he was last-hitting, denying, and orb-walking he was able to gain experience and gold much much faster than someone who just tries to level up in a direct fashion. All the strategy in the world can't allow an ant to kill a dragon. The fiddly bits might not matter in the grand scheme when everybody has mastered them, but they are a pre-requisite for play. Until you get a handle on them, strategy doesn't even come into play.
Imagine a Counter-Strike mod called Counter-Strike Bejeweled. Before each round everyone plays Bejeweled. That game of Bejeweled determines how much money you get that round. Team A is great at Counter-Strike, but sucks at Bejeweled. Team B is the opposite. They are Bejeweled masters who are not so good at CS. Depending on how much money is awarded, Team B might win every time. Imagine if Team A, the better CS players, is stuck with all knives, while Team B is all armor, grenades, assault rifles. Team A will be lucky to get a kill.
Us people without the patience to learn and practice the fiddly bits never get to see the strategy because in order for our strategy to matter we have to level as quickly as our opponents. If they out-level us, all the strategy in the world doesn't matter.