Will shooters EVER be supplanted as the favored game type?

TheFlosser said:
You are either trolling or really, really dumb.
Click to expand...

1/10 troll.

if you seriously think MOBAs are some intellectual pursuit, I'm not sure what to tell you... Seriously

Casus said:
Death: That you think there's no feints, flanking, scouting, and the greatest tactics involves what to buy in what order shows you really you don't know what your talking about.
Click to expand...

You can write books of tactics about snap... Doesn't make it some great tactical game...

You can't flank on a map with 3 corridors...you can't gain terrain advantage on a map with no real terrain/cover/anything... There's no point scouting a map if that's the only map you ever play and there's no base building and it says every unit the enemy has... Or you have 0 clue what flanking/scouting/feints even are, which sounds likely.
 
Casus said:
Never played DAOC, but did play EQ, Aion, and WAR which suffered badly from those.
Click to expand...

WAR was a far cry from DAOC on gear progression (it was harder and more vertical by a large margin) but, even there you only really needed RR40-50 to be competitive, and that was generally obtained either in conjunction with, or shortly after, hitting the level cap. EQ and Aion are the classic "gear grinder" type games and always have been well known as such.
 
DeathPrincess said:
You can't flank on a map with 3 corridors...you can't gain terrain advantage on a map with no real terrain/cover/anything... There's no point scouting a map if that's the only map you ever play and there's no base building and it says every unit the enemy has... Or you have 0 clue what flanking/scouting/feints even are, which sounds likely.
Click to expand...


Ganking an over extended enemy is extremely common. You aren't stuck in your lane, you can move between them, and doing so effectively is what gains you an advantage. It is extremely easy to 'flank' enemies in Dota, and typically the hero that goes in the middle lane has a responsibility to do exactly that during the early game. Controlling the creep equilibrium is critical to this - you need to get them drawn away from their tower. Baiting enemies into a trap is equally important. If the enemy team is grouped up, presenting an apparent easy kill(s) (say, showing your Carry alone, or having your supports on their vision) to draw them to a particular area to either A) Force an unexpected teamfight to try and kill them or B) Push down a tower.

That's not very different than drawing an enemy force away for a base raid, or to smash them with an unscouted force of your own in an RTS.

If you don't place wards, or maintain some vision on the map, while the enemy does, you are going to fail. Hard. Just because you start in the same place doesn't remove the importance of maintaining map vision and being aware of enemy movement and activity.

Creep waves and towers are critical to this concept, and keeping your own lanes 'pushed' (always close to enemy towers) minimizes enemy vision, which you can use to your advantage. If the enemy ignore the creeps - they will eventually lose a tower, if they kill the creeps they've shown where they are. Here's a guide to Dota 2 warding. Note: You can efficiently only have 4 wards up, as the item has a timer in the shop. You can technically save to place more than 4, but it's not very common - largely because maintaining map vision constantly is so important.

Peaking enemy heroes to see what items they are building can drastically changes how you approach them. (From a Dota perspective - If the enemy carry has an escape item like Shadow blade (makes user invisible) you need to bring Dust or Sentry wards (items that reveal invisible units) if you want to prevent them from escaping) Just as scouting an opponent to see them teching a certain path in an RTS, seeing an enemy that you KNOW has a lot of gold continue farming can indicate they are saving for a large purchase as opposed to seeing them stock up on cost efficient items.

It's not about buildings, it's about items. Knowing weather or the enemy is capable of doing certain things. This ability is devastating, but seeing at the 30 minute mark that the hero does not have a Blink Dagger (An item that lets the user teleport a full screen length) changes how you approach team fights when he is not around.

Exact same concept as scouting in an RTS - Knowing where they are, and what they are doing.

Terrain advantage exists to a much higher degree in Dota than in League of Legends (which sounds like the MOBA experience you have) here's a video of a player making excellent use of terrain and trees (turn down volume, annoying music) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYhUTqAuF14 Tree's block line of sight, but can be destroyed with certain items and abilities, juking between tree's can mean the difference between life and death. Height gives you additional vision, the enemy can't see up cliffs, ranged attacks have a chance of missing when shooting up. (Making your final set of towers in each lane a natural choke point to recover at.)

Taking over the enemy jungle (Top left if you start on the bottom, Bottom right if you start on the top) provides you with extra gold from the creeps that spawn in the jungle, and can allow you to push the lane very hard. If you are all grouped up in the enemy jungle, it can be very difficult for the enemy to get you out because of the terrain. (They have to travel UP to get to you, and trees block substantial vision as they enter as well as throughout.)

The river is the lowest point on the map, but provides the quickest paths. Making the river to dangerous to travel - through a combination of wards and hero presence, can limit the mobility of the enemy and how they can react to you.

That sounds like terrain advantage to me.
 
Casus said:
Map awareness, scouting, resource management, time as a resource, and unit positioning are all there.

Being inefficient gathering resources (last hits on creeps) seriously hampers your chances of success.

Scouting is extremely important (and wards are the best scouts) and not having them can be extremely dangerous, just as in an RTS going in blind is extremely dangerous.

Hoard gold for big item or buy cheap utility items can be, and often are, critical decisions. Similar to pumping out a bunch of cheap units, or getting a few high quality ones.

Positioning is extremely important, and good positioning can overcome an apparent disadvantage just like in an RTS.

The elements are there.
Click to expand...

Elements? You can apply most of those points to any competitive multiplayer game. And trying to compare last hitting to mining in an RTS or the gold hoarding comparison... really?
 
DeathPrincess said:
1/10 troll.

if you seriously think MOBAs are some intellectual pursuit, I'm not sure what to tell you... Seriously
Click to expand...

You seem to keep coming back to trying to debunk some assertion concerning intelligence and MOBAs when no one has really made that claim and I made no such notion myself. Insecure much? Where you called a retard one too many times in a game of LoL? That really seems to be what's going on here.

MOBAs are fairly straightforward but have pretty steep learning curves and lots of depth, some more than others, and the games do get very complicated. I'm not a huge fan of them but anyone can see that just by how competitive they've become.

Not saying it's equal to a high level 1v1 Starcraft match, because it's not. But no one remotely good at an RTS is going to say being a dota pro or something is easy. You just seem incredibly ignorant and overall butthurt on MOBAs.
 
I actually play a MOBA (League of Legends) more than ANY other pc game at the moment. It's what stopped me from playing wow back in late 2010 since I was having more fun and satisfaction in lol than wow.

And it's true that they are a popular form of game that is less twitch based than many competitive shooters and rts games (which I prefer, in the game of twitches, I will never be near the top, not one of my gifts).


As for how popular they are relative to the shooter genre on pcs, that I am less sure on. I wish I had player totals across different game types so we could calculate exactly how many people are playing specific genres. Steam may have that data, but they don't have the really popular games to track like LoL or WoW.
 
TheFlosser said:
Elements? You can apply most of those points to any competitive multiplayer game. And trying to compare last hitting to mining in an RTS or the gold hoarding comparison... really?
Click to expand...

Dota is basically an ultra condensed version of a Warcraft 3 match. Sure, it borrowed elements from predecessors (Aeon of Strife most notably) but WC3 gave a very strong foundation to build off of. Playing WC3 ladder, and transitioning to Dota was extremely easy, because so many elements remained the same.

Last hitting is EXACTLY like mining in an RTS. Missed last hits are no different than having idle or empty mineral patches in SC2.

Gold, experience, and time are your resources, and last hitting nets you the first two faster than passively sitting around in experience range. A missed last hit can never be regained.

Top MOBA players are EXTREMELY efficient at last hitting, and are typically able to acquire much larger sums of gold, and gain levels faster because of it.

Now you don't have to build expansions, and manage worker ratios, but last hitting every creep in a wave IS much more efficient, or clearing the jungle every minute as opposed to half the jungle every minute. There's no workers to harass, but warding a jungle can prevent spawns, or even just putting vision on a spawn spot (Having vision of the area where jungle creeps spawn prevents them from spawning) puts a cap on how much they can acquire in a certain amount of time. Much like a successful mineral line harass can severely set back your opponent in an RTS.

Gold hoarding, especially in Dota, is an opportunity cost (due to gold loss on death) Expensive items are slot efficient and gold inefficient (Expensive items give more per slot, but cheaper items are much more cost efficient in terms of bonuses gained vs. cost) (This is also a reason why LoL gets pooped on, because expensive items are just flat out more efficient) It's no different than tech vs army decisions in RTS. You're sacrificing strength for an amount of time (not building units) so you can build tech and get stronger units later. Or, alternatively, you purchase cheap efficient items (building an early army) in the hopes of using them to cause enough damage to compensate for your lack of climbing your tech tree.

There are cheese builds in MOBA's just like in an RTS. In LoL this can be purchasing extra Doran's items early on, in Dota it would be building extra Bracers/Talismans/Bands. 3 or 4 bracers on a potent Strength hero very early on can give you a significant advantage in the early stages of the game. (Now the chances of it succeeding are pretty slim, but that's why they're cheese)
 
TheFlosser said:
You seem to keep coming back to trying to debunk some assertion concerning intelligence and MOBAs when no one has really made that claim and I made no such notion myself. Insecure much? Where you called a retard one too many times in a game of LoL? That really seems to be what's going on here.

MOBAs are fairly straightforward but have pretty steep learning curves and lots of depth, some more than others, and the games do get very complicated. I'm not a huge fan of them but anyone can see that just by how competitive they've become.

Not saying it's equal to a high level 1v1 Starcraft match, because it's not. But no one remotely good at an RTS is going to say being a dota pro or something is easy. You just seem incredibly ignorant and overall butthurt on MOBAs.
Click to expand...

"Were" not "where". But no. Also you seem to have not read what is even going on here, or what posts relate to, so perhaps actually read stuff otherwise you are just going to sound silly.

You seem to have some impression that are completely false, and are trying way too hard. I'm not sure why you find this particularly genre complicated, or find the learning curve so steep. But not everyone is good at everything and some people like you have greater difficulty with tasks people find simple. Some people have difficulty eating with chopsticks. So people can't eat with a knife and fork.

People are just different; you find these games to be taxing and have a high learning curve. I don't have the same problems with them. They aren't difficult, just really dull and repetitive and giant time sinks.
 
DeathPrincess said:
"Were" not "where". But no. Also you seem to have not read what is even going on here, or what posts relate to, so perhaps actually read stuff otherwise you are just going to sound silly.

You seem to have some impression that are completely false, and are trying way too hard. I'm not sure why you find this particularly genre complicated, or find the learning curve so steep. But not everyone is good at everything and some people like you have greater difficulty with tasks people find simple. Some people have difficulty eating with chopsticks. So people can't eat with a knife and fork.

People are just different; you find these games to be taxing and have a high learning curve. I don't have the same problems with them. They aren't difficult, just really dull and repetitive and giant time sinks.
Click to expand...

Anyone can claim something to be easy. Where's your proof of how simple these games are for you? Your tournament wins, high ladder ranks... where they at bro? Truth be told you're a simpleton with no clue, finding justification to rage at a genre you suck at.
 
TheFlosser said:
Anyone can claim something to be easy. Where's your proof of how simple these games are for you? Your tournament wins, high ladder ranks... where they at bro? Truth be told you're a simpleton with no clue, finding justification to rage at a genre you suck at.
Click to expand...

I am not going to argue with or against him but this doesn't make sense. The whole problem with simple games is that they are actually harder or impossible to win in consistently, because the skills that differentiate players are so much smaller and less consistent. Note I am not taking sides on MOBA, but I will say this it has been my observation that all sweeping new games in gaming for a very long time have done so by making things simpler and less difficult not the other way around. And that makes it so much harder for a dominating skilled player to rise to the top because he's just going to have so many random losses. You won't see that in a skilled game like quake or sc2 nearly as often.
 
rudy said:
I am not going to argue with or against him but this doesn't make sense. The whole problem with simple games is that they are actually harder or impossible to win in consistently, because the skills that differentiate players are so much smaller and less consistent. Note I am not taking sides on MOBA, but I will say this it has been my observation that all sweeping new games in gaming for a very long time have done so by making things simpler and less difficult not the other way around. And that makes it so much harder for a dominating skilled player to rise to the top because he's just going to have so many random losses. You won't see that in a skilled game like quake or sc2 nearly as often.
Click to expand...

What you are describing as a game of skill is exactly what DOTA is. A skilled player WILL dominate you in your lane. A skilled team WILL totally crush yours within 10 minutes. There are literally thousands of players that want to get to the top, but it is always the same teams that win all the tournaments. DOTA rewards skill more than any other game. You lose gold for dying, and you gain gold for killing people. If that does not reward skill I don't know what to say. Everyone here that is calling DOTA and similar games easy I can guarantee you have never played them competitively. If it is that easy there is over 2 million dollars up for grabs: http://www.dota2.com/international/compendium/
Just take 2 months off from work and take this easy money!
 
People are just different; you find these games to be taxing and have a high learning curve. I don't have the same problems with them. They aren't difficult, just really dull and repetitive and giant time sinks.
Click to expand...

If it is so easy why don't you go ahead and join up with the other posters who think they are easy and grab the $2.5 million for the Dota 2 International. Go on... I'll be watching for you.

What you are describing as a game of skill is exactly what DOTA is. A skilled player WILL dominate you in your lane. A skilled team WILL totally crush yours within 10 minutes. There are literally thousands of players that want to get to the top, but it is always the same teams that win all the tournaments. DOTA rewards skill more than any other game. You lose gold for dying, and you gain gold for killing people. If that does not reward skill I don't know what to say. Everyone here that is calling DOTA and similar games easy I can guarantee you have never played them competitively. If it is that easy there is over 2 million dollars up for grabs: http://www.dota2.com/international/compendium/
Just take 2 months off from work and take this easy money!
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.
 
newster said:
What you are describing as a game of skill is exactly what DOTA is. A skilled player WILL dominate you in your lane. A skilled team WILL totally crush yours within 10 minutes. There are literally thousands of players that want to get to the top, but it is always the same teams that win all the tournaments. DOTA rewards skill more than any other game. You lose gold for dying, and you gain gold for killing people. If that does not reward skill I don't know what to say. Everyone here that is calling DOTA and similar games easy I can guarantee you have never played them competitively. If it is that easy there is over 2 million dollars up for grabs: http://www.dota2.com/international/compendium/
Just take 2 months off from work and take this easy money!
Click to expand...

Well any game is like, this the question is how much? And I think that is the argument. I will also say that team based games typical are the result of less individual skill, requiring that skill be amplified over multiple players in order to amount to something. Certain games simply wont work 1v1 to any major level of competition. I think that is what people are trying to argue, now I have never played either LoL or Dota, more than just installing them and playing 1 or 2 rounds but I have heard consistently that Dota is more skill based than LoL and many people complain that LoL has problems with not enough skill base. I was more just pointing out that its stupid for someone to say oh if you think a game is not skilled then you should easily be able to go in and make a million bucks.

We all know that rock paper scissors or tic tack toe are low on the skill front, so If I posed the same question to you, hey you think they are low skilled why don't you go show me your world class ranking, you can see how stupid that would be, it simply wouldn't work because the best psychologist in the world might not be able to make it up in the ranks and in a game like tic tack toe almost every game would end in a draw.

So obviously most video games are not that bad but it doesn't mean that just because they have some skill, they are high skilled. There are levels of this. And that is more the argument. And the argument I was making is that the trend in gaming has been for big competitive games to be less skilled rather than more skilled. CS supplanted quake, no one who isn't bias should be able to say that the skill cap and curve in CS is higher than quake. In game after game we have seen this push to simplify and remove skills because when a game is too skilled theres just a hand full of dedicated guys who can even hang at the top world wide. And they tend to dominate so hard its actually bad for the game because you always knew all season long fatality was going to win almost all the tournaments.
 
rudy said:
Well any game is like, this the question is how much? And I think that is the argument. I will also say that team based games typical are the result of less individual skill, requiring that skill be amplified over multiple players in order to amount to something. Certain games simply wont work 1v1 to any major level of competition. I think that is what people are trying to argue, now I have never played either LoL or Dota, more than just installing them and playing 1 or 2 rounds but I have heard consistently that Dota is more skill based than LoL and many people complain that LoL has problems with not enough skill base. I was more just pointing out that its stupid for someone to say oh if you think a game is not skilled then you should easily be able to go in and make a million bucks.

We all know that rock paper scissors or tic tack toe are low on the skill front, so If I posed the same question to you, hey you think they are low skilled why don't you go show me your world class ranking, you can see how stupid that would be, it simply wouldn't work because the best psychologist in the world might not be able to make it up in the ranks and in a game like tic tack toe almost every game would end in a draw.

So obviously most video games are not that bad but it doesn't mean that just because they have some skill, they are high skilled. There are levels of this. And that is more the argument. And the argument I was making is that the trend in gaming has been for big competitive games to be less skilled rather than more skilled. CS supplanted quake, no one who isn't bias should be able to say that the skill cap and curve in CS is higher than quake. In game after game we have seen this push to simplify and remove skills because when a game is too skilled theres just a hand full of dedicated guys who can even hang at the top world wide. And they tend to dominate so hard its actually bad for the game because you always knew all season long fatality was going to win almost all the tournaments.
Click to expand...

THIS
 
rudy said:
So obviously most video games are not that bad but it doesn't mean that just because they have some skill, they are high skilled. There are levels of this. And that is more the argument. And the argument I was making is that the trend in gaming has been for big competitive games to be less skilled rather than more skilled. CS supplanted quake, no one who isn't bias should be able to say that the skill cap and curve in CS is higher than quake. In game after game we have seen this push to simplify and remove skills because when a game is too skilled theres just a hand full of dedicated guys who can even hang at the top world wide. And they tend to dominate so hard its actually bad for the game because you always knew all season long fatality was going to win almost all the tournaments.
Click to expand...

To the first half: That's where most of my argumentation has been directed at. MOBA's do take skill, and lots of it, to be at the top. I've played both LoL and Dota, and I would certainly argue that of the two, Dota is much more difficult, and that LoL suffers from a higher floor, lower ceiling, largely due to design choices. But both require a fairly high level of skill that most cannot attain.

The so called 'dumbing down' of games? Certainly that's happened to an extent. But, and this is an angle I come at it from, does the removal of certain skills really ruin the game and experience? Quake required a lot of physical dexterity compounded with game sense to compete at a high level. Is removing the insane physical requirements for top competition bad? In real professional sports, those with less than ideal physical attributes are able to compete at high levels by excelling in others. You could have an outstanding tactical mind and timings and aim in quake, but if you couldn't perform all the strafe jumps, bunny hops, and hand contortions you just weren't going to cut it.

Point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of 'skills' that are neither fun to perform, watch, or deal with that I'm not sad to see go. Dumbed down? Maybe, but I also like the refinement and emphasis on certain skills over others. Removing some things doesn't kill skill, it just forces a greater emphasis on others. Is that really a bad thing? I don't think so. Gaming is more accessible than ever, and E-sports is on the verge of becoming a pretty big thing.

Is Starcraft 2 really that much worse because it's removed the requirement of certain skills from Starcraft 1? Is CSGO really that much worse because it's removed certain skills from 1.6?
 
TheFlosser said:
Anyone can claim something to be easy. Where's your proof of how simple these games are for you? Your tournament wins, high ladder ranks... where they at bro? Truth be told you're a simpleton with no clue, finding justification to rage at a genre you suck at.
Click to expand...

So keep telling yourself that.

Do you have any "argument" other than "lawl yous must suckz at dis zo u mst hat et!!!". If you don't think 20 minutes of grinding low level mobs on the same map isn't boring (or simple), you have a high boredom threshold, or are easily entertained.
 
I think your problem is that your brain is bronze league. Honestly, if you show me your high ranked ladder account on whatever RTS you play, I will reconsider your statements and might even take the time to put forth actual effort in a discussion. But, by all indications you're probably a bronze leaguer in game as well as in the head. Prove me wrong.
 
TheFlosser said:
I think your problem is that your brain is bronze league. Honestly, if you show me your high ranked ladder account on whatever RTS you play, I will reconsider your statements and might even take the time to put forth actual effort in a discussion. But, by all indications you're probably a bronze leaguer in game as well as in the head. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

So you have no argument other than more ad hominem crap?

But, other than blizzard games, what RTS has "ladders"?

DoW2, no
DoW, no
MTW, no
STW, no
RTW, no
ETW, no
TA, no
C&C, no
RA, no
SCom, no
CoH, no
WC3, no
etc. etc. etc.

Even if provided with previous tournament rankings you'll just come up with some other silly crap. Also not provide any counters other than "youz must suckas!!111".
 
timeoutbillywalker.gif
 
DeathPrincess said:
So you have no argument other than more ad hominem crap?

But, other than blizzard games, what RTS has "ladders"?

DoW2, no
DoW, no
MTW, no
STW, no
RTW, no
ETW, no
TA, no
C&C, no
RA, no
SCom, no
CoH, no
WC3, no
etc. etc. etc.

Even if provided with previous tournament rankings you'll just come up with some other silly crap. Also not provide any counters other than "youz must suckas!!111".
Click to expand...

You were given a chance to substantiate some form of credibility to your past long-winded, inane diatribes. You fail my friend. Better luck next time. And yes, pretty much all of those games you just listed had ladders of some kind. You should just leave the thread and stop being awkward/dumb. And out of respect to the rest of the posters in this thread, I will be doing the same, because I know you poopsock these forums hard and have nothing better to do than to keep replying nonsense.
 
TheFlosser said:
You were given a chance to substantiate some form of credibility to your past long-winded, inane diatribes. You fail my friend. Better luck next time. And yes, pretty much all of those games you just listed had ladders of some kind. You should just leave the thread and stop being awkward/dumb. And out of respect to the rest of the posters in this thread, I will be doing the same, because I know you poopsock these forums hard and have nothing better to do than to keep replying nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nice QQ, they do not, and that wouldn't "substantiate" anything, so I'm not going to bother (and no they don't have ladders).

You still have failed to point out the inaccuracies or any pro arguments and have just posted a bunch of stuff about how you feel about me, again. Troll harder.
 
TheFlosser said:
You were given a chance to substantiate some form of credibility to your past long-winded, inane diatribes. You fail my friend. Better luck next time. And yes, pretty much all of those games you just listed had ladders of some kind. You should just leave the thread and stop being awkward/dumb. And out of respect to the rest of the posters in this thread, I will be doing the same, because I know you poopsock these forums hard and have nothing better to do than to keep replying nonsense.
Click to expand...

YouLoseGoodDaySir.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top