Do Mobas Actually hold more stratengy than RTS games? Or is it the other way around?
What your opinion?
>MOBAS
>Have to take into account at least 5 types of different players building different items and having different playstyles
>have to control a map
>theres usually objectives to fight over
Meanwhile RTS seems more about who has faster APM to see who builds the army first and just rushes the enemy
>You didnt Click the minerals fast enough, welp guess you lost.
Thoughts?
neither. any game that depends on cps as a metric for skill inherently lacks strategy. only turn based games have require real strategy.
>depends on
It's a factor but not the only one. Any real competitive game factors in decision-making time for tests of skill, even your turn-based ones.
Case in point, chess clock
"MOBA" is and has always been babby mode RTS
moron
MOBAs are the natural evolution of RTS and are the most competitive genre on the planet.
>are the natural evolution of RTS
always? inherently? couldn't we have maybe ended with something different if we ran it back?
Not only rts but fighting games also
Yeah
Except street fighter
Thats literal gay baby mode
Just like touhou is to shmups
Are there any singleplayer MOBAs?
there's this PoS I made, it plays like one kinda, but works best on controllers.
https://ditzbitz.com/pricklypincushions.html
Fairly sure most mobas let you play against bots by yourself
Literally diablo
>controlling 1 unit and zero buildings on the same map, every time
>more strategy
Theres way more to take into consideration in mobas, whereas an classic RTS is just one faction with a set piece of units that you know the other person will do.
>the same map, every time
Are you implying chess is difficult or good?
Its literally a solved game
Calling it solved doesn't make it so.
Show me a tournament where the black player wins
No draws or loses.
Serious chess events let both players use white and black the same number of times. Lose is 0 points, draw is 0.5, win is 1.
Dont give a shit
Show me the black player winning.
Googled a random world finals, this was 2021. As many wins for black as white. You're one of those autists who confuses something being the best bet with something winning all the time.
>The only finals where this happens
Nice """""random""""" search pal
Literally no point talking to you.
>Litteral best player in the world dunking on some scrub
No shit, Magnus could play 100 games against (you) as black and win 100 times. That just means you are shit
Seethe
Consider the possibility that Fischer was actually nuts later in life.
you're a flk
Nothing in there says it's solved because it isn't solved
You have no clue what a solved game is
Chess is not a solved game.
i hate this weird perception where people think chess is for geniuses
Depends what you consider genius to be. All the top players are genetic freaks with moronic memories. Is that genius?
>have to control a map
>theres usually objectives to fight over
Because neither of those are a thing in RTS games?
My thoughts are that you’re fricking moronic.
Depends on the RTS, but usually resource caches and things of those nature can be stuff to fight over/control.
name the best 5 games
t.secondary
i hate sc drones so much fighting over nothing
Most MOBA games are very hard to play and strategic on their higher levels. Ganker would admit this if they were a niche genre. I've played so many games in my life and high level DOTA games take more brainpower than almost any other currently popular game. But MOBAs exploding into popularity means they're normie goyslop therefore this can never be admitted.
Oversimplification. Mobas are about team work, but you're only really responsible for one unit at a time, RTS is usually about resource and task management. Theres some build orders in both, but theres usually more overall for RTS. Also, RTS games aren't cookie clicker, clicking on a resource node isn't going to make it deliver more resources faster.
I'd say they both have strategy, but personally I think Mobas are more about fighting the controls than anything. Its always struck me as weird that they kept the rts control scheme rather than try to do something more intuitive.
MOBAs played at a high level take more strategy overall when taking into account group/team dynamics. RTS takes more individual mechanical skill and strategy.
Any moba except league is on part with rts
League is fricking baby mode one shot fiesta with low cd rotations
No.
>ITT: R(e)T(ard)S getting mad because their genre is dead
laughing out loud, laughing my ass out even
RTS 'died' because it split into subgenres
Mobas for microgays
Grand Strategy for autists who want to sip wine while taking over the world
colony builders & management sims for people who just want to build a cool base and manage resources
4x and TW for ppl who want something turn-based.
they're all good at their own thing. half the reason Mobas are popular is because if you lose you can just blame your 4 moronic South-East Asian teammates for feeding.
problem with RTS games is that the pressure is all on you and only you. zoomers cant handle that kind of pressure.
>problem with RTS games is that the pressure is all on you and only you
It can also be extremely taxing just to play a game. You don't know beforehand if you're in for a 5 minute or 40 minute game and you have to constantly be active for every single second of it, which is absolutely part of the RTS appeal, but it's super draining mentally (and in the long run for your wrists, physically). A lot of those other genres have designated periods of downtime. Even in a moba game where you end up in an extended teamfight or active laning phase, you have periods based on minion wave cadence and spawn timers where you're not actively having to think or do things. You get time within the game to rest and regroup mentally. There is no such peace offered in RTS, and this puts a lot of people off.
Working as a team isn't strategy. It's a different skillset entirely. It involves suppressing your own ego, anticipating the needs of your teammates, shit like that.
how to make the best multiplayer RTS ever
1: Copy starcraft/warcraft as a base
2: Make gates that require a certain number of units/ unit upgrade to open
3: Place those gates in a way that forces large scale battles instead of homosexual harassing meta gayshit
>large scale battles
You have no idea what you want. One giant blob mashing into another is fricking awful because you're just describing SC2 deathballs.
not that anon but you are so wrong. Battles at set points are WAY more fun than tower rushing, base harassment, and other gay shit.
The eternal problem nuRTS has is that the first decently sized battle ends the game 90% of the time because the surviving army just rolls into the base and you win. The most underappreciated aspect of Brood War is just how large the defender's advantage is.
>how to make the best multiplayer RTS ever
AoE2? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE_a7vtAVy8
I actually think you're onto something here, the main problem with a lot of these games is that through kiting, mounted units, and unit abilities people spend a lot of time simply avoiding combat.
An RTS where you are forced into a pitched battle - like real battles! - would be really, really cool.
Same with age of empires 2, the strength of walling and defensive play really carried it imo, while aoe1 and aoe3 died miserably.
>I actually think you're onto something here, the main problem with a lot of these games is that through kiting, mounted units, and unit abilities people spend a lot of time simply avoiding combat.
Fix is simple, make certain resources generated only by killing, and grant special resources for engaging in larger scale battles, those resources are then necessary to generate higher tier/more units.
Another fix could be a sort of res system, where when units are dead they respawn after a set time.
If more RTS actually incentivized STATEGIC combat it would be a hell of a lot more engaging.
>If more RTS actually incentivized STATEGIC combat it would be a hell of a lot more engaging.
Detail a scenario. Trouble with "strategy" is that to most people it's just a buzzword.
Lets say you have a couple of armies stacked up including some basic infantry, anti airs, and some scouting vehicles. In typical RTS you blobmash them into big group, but in my ideal scenario it would be balanced in a way that positioning your units and managing advantages in unit type would be the strategy.
Stealth units could also be an option. Have a group split off and flank around a map obstacle, but they're in cloaking as they approach so you catch your opponent off guard and take out some of the support units etc etc.
Just in general i think having less unit types and more verticality to their upgrades would go a long way in making battles feel fresher. Something where you are actively trying to use real military strategic thinking to win battles vs just APM numbersmashing
>positioning your units and managing advantages in unit type would be the strategy
You haven't detailed anything and are still using buzzwords.
>Stealth units could also be an option. Have a group split off and flank around a map obstacle
Flanking plays already happen in current RTS games.
>real military strategic thinking
Current military "strategy" is just pouring money into drones because they don't risk manpower and using artillery.
Buy one of the Wargame games when they go on sale and play against the AI.
>Fix is simple, make certain resources generated only by killing, and grant special resources for engaging in larger scale battles, those resources are then necessary to generate higher tier/more units.
I disagree here, I mean first of all those are just 'win more' mechanics. Win a battle or two and then gain a lead that's insurmountable, that sounds terrible, and is the game logic that honestly made MOBAs worse and worse over time.
What you're proposing is "rewards for battling", what I think is preferable is "forced battles". You can still be rewarded for choosing the terms of engagement, and you don't lose the game just because you haven't had a string of victories.
I can't think of a way to do this other than forcing everyone's units into a tiny box custom game style. On a timer maybe, like you suggested earlier.
If only you could capture that crusader kings / total war "army movement getting caught" style in an RTS...not really possible though.
Total Annihilation and it's successors/spinoffs do this pretty well with the streaming resource economy and unit wreckage. Every battle creates a new objective since the wrecks are too valuable to ignore. It also provides indirect defenders advantage since the defender is typically in a better position to recover combat wreckage, and if the attacker stalls out his offensive then the defender can recover quickly by scrapping the wrecks.
>An RTS where you are forced into a pitched battle - like real battles! - would be really, really cool.
it literally already exists, its called Company of Heroes 1
just now people associate the franchise with the 2 newer, shittier games made by SEGA where you just spam tanks with a paid DLC to win
company of heroes 1 is, and I hate to invoke this word, clunky.
The movement is bad. Units have difficulty doing what you order them to do. You can win or lose an engagement depending on whether your units successfully attacked like you wanted them to, or whether they got stuck on the fricking floor. Also artillery is cancer, and was the worst part of both these games and dawn of war.
You can type up some vitriol & tell me to kill myself now, but a decent chunk of people agree with me because those games weren't that popular.
Company of heroes has resources and base building...relic rts is really not that different to normal rts
>1: Copy starcraft/warcraft as a base
wrong lol
literally just remake Company of Heroes 1 instead
MOBAs are the moronic bastard spawn of CRPGs and RTS. They don't require the actual strategy of an RTS or the stat/item management of a CRPG. They're like Action RPGs in that the whole is less than the sum of it's parts and you're a fricking moron if you think otherwise.
t. never actually played it
I don't feel like either genre, or any genre in fact, is "more strategic". Every game requires you to formulate a plan to win and enact it. Both parts of this are strategy, since even if you have a genius plan that will guarantee victory you may not be able to enact it under some circumstances and you have to understand what you are realistically capable of executing as situations unfold.
MOBA requires less divided focus and management, but makes up the difference in complexity in the teamwork, especially if you're actually coordinating with your team in voice chat. Competitive RTS are almost always primarily 1v1, where MOBA are at least 5v5. You have only one unit to manage, but you have many more players to predict and analyze.
>MOBA requires less divided focus and management
I'm actually not sure this platitude is wholly true. DOTA's early game involves so many unintuitive mechanics that playing support at a basic level is a pretty immense casual filter that you'll never pass without studious memorization of bullshit like "pull times" and "ward spots".
I'm beginning to think that economy itself was a mistake. Wouldn't it be more fun to start in fixed scenarios and purely play out the battles? You know, put the 'strategy' in real time strategy?
It's actually fricking moronic if you think about it, the simcity elements add nothing. They were honestly only tolerable in warcraft 3 because your base had combat effectiveness that could swing fights.
There's always resources to economise.
But what do resources actually add to the core gameplay?
-They delay your access to the strongest/coolest parts of the tech tree
-They spread you thinly across the map, adding travel time and annoyance. You can find yourself wishing there wouldn't be combat!
-Encourage non-combat tactics - I don't need to beat your army with my army if I can rush you/out boom you
Meh. I mean I've tried deathmatch gamemodes and they weren't...fantastic...but if you, from the beginning, designed the game around objectives instead of resources I think you might end up with something interesting. Something that can actually compete with grand strategy.
I don't think you've thought about any of this long enough as you don't seem aware of how abstract concepts like time can function as resources too. When I made that post I wasn't thinking for a second of minerals or gas.
>logistics isn't part of strategy
Frick you moron. have a nice day. Supply lines are the key to victory 100% of the time.
That's what real time tactics games are about, you can go play those
Yeah, that's fair. It's actually incredibly cringe to even suggest radical changes to a game genre.
I actually like RTS, so don't hate me too much, the post came from a place of love.
name some
APM autism is one of the shittiest memes about RTS hatred. Just admit that you're bad.
I think most of the complex in Mobas come from having 10 people in a game. There are just so many ways how things could go down.
There is no strategy to mobas. If you are an ADC main in LoL all you're doing is the same thing *every* game, right click the minions last hit them the games are autisticly repetitive if you take a step back and think about the gameplay.
No class in any game has caused more asshurt seething than the AD carry class in League of Legends.
Absolutely rent free in the minds of gays everywhere
>picks jungle champion
>does the same 4 camp clear every game, same 2 item + boot combo every game
>such in depth strategy such skill
Just curious what rank you were?
Game can seem very low IQ below diamond. Junglers especially are too stupid to even do basic things like countergank.
There is 0 strategy, the whole game is who throws harder because it's been meta gamed out the ass for over a decade. Their 'esports' is just an advertisement that took any fun that could have been had and threw it out in the name of 'balance'.
I got to diamond 2 twice literally playing just teemo in all 5 roles before i gave a shit
Dota 2 is better
No wonder you thought the game was stale, you're a fricking one trick. Good lord I hate this board
When are you posting your rank pussy
And you better not play the easiest and most broken role in the fricking game:
Adc.
yeah nah I'm just gonna recap to make you realise how fricking stupid you are
>There is no strategy to mobas ... in LoL all you're doing is the same thing *every* game
>I pick the same champion and play the same way every single game
Like wake up to yourself
>Too much of a pussy to past a screencap of their profile
Heh. Nothing personnel
Adcs are for homosexuals and eceleb wannabes anyway
Just like 95% of fightan pros in Ganker
He probably doesnt even play the game
I'm a Master top laner by the way. But that's just elo inflation...master this year is d4 in season 3.
You are a fricking giga gay and legitimately trash if you think the game has no depth. This is evidenced by the fact that you one trick cheese shit.
Nice samegay by the way. Embarrassing.
Post summoner name.
>Teemo
>Cheese shit
I am literally gimping myself when I could be playing homosexual shit like Ekko or Jhin or Samira or Zeri or Lucian or...
>Dox yourself
No. It isn't like you did either megagay. Take the loss and move on.
>Take the loss and move on
Do you think I am you?