How would you improve the MOBA genre?

How would you improve the MOBA genre?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ascW7qOzlv8?t=50
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Create a new genre.

Instead of just controlling heroes, players also control the bases, and need to construct new buildings and units. Also instead of killing enemy units for money, you can farm it at designated points on the map, which you compete with the enemy players over.

Play an actual strategy game instead.

So we turn it from moba back into RTS, that works for me.

Make it a Top-Down Shooter, with Deathmatch, CTF and shit.

Make it straight up lewd.

So like Battlerite basically?

what about a non-balanced map, have the teams play both sides and as a tiebreaker, use a balanced version of the map

perhaps non-balanced is the wrong word, more like having different strengths on opposing sides of the map.

Remove it from existence

Battlerite

I have yet to play it, but it's on my backlog.

First person view for heroes, iso view for a new class, map manipulators. They would be in charge of distributing supplies to the team while waiting on enough points to accumulate so they can unlock new paths or buildings for their team. Imagine TF2 but you have a 10th class, The Architect. They could decide where to drop ammo/health and then open up new paths in the maps or build things to help the less mobile classes get around better. Or build obstacles for the other team like mine fields, laser security, walls/gates, etc.

Or overwatch but with special heroes that have those abilities.

The genre is inherently flawed, because the player bases are both retarded, and refuse change.

>1 Map Only
>It HAS to be this way, as the playerbase refuses to want anything esle

>Spend 15-20 minutes farming
>objectives barely matter

>assuming equal skill, if someone dies early, you're behind for the rest of the game, and it's almost impossible to come back if your opponent doesn't make mistakes

>even if you know you're going to lose, your opponents can't end it and it takes forever

>even if you know you're going to win, your opponents refuse to let up and let you win

>imbalanced stats

>"enforced meta" like in LoL where you're strictly forced into certain roles, and you can't deviate

>not enough gold for everyone on the map. 3 lanes + jungle is enough for 4 people, not 5.
>5th person is literally just a ward bitch, and doesn't get items, and is just a character with a stun, or some utility

>coolest parts are team fighting
>at late game, 1 teamfight will end the game due to death timers being 40+ seconds

>No one cares about any of this
>they all want the game to be this way
>implying you can "fix" the moba genre.

It's inherently flawed.

I trust RIOT games to continually improve the MOBA genre with new and innovating gameplay with each patch.

I actually really enjoy playing LoL for a few hours once in a while. A good streak of jungle Warwick games is incredibly comfy.

most of those are incorrect, at least in dota and iirc hon as well.
lol might be like that though

Interesting how almost all of this don't apply to Smite. It even has the best free to play model, second only to DOTA2, where you can get all the Gods, old and upcoming ones, for about 7-8$.

If only Hirez isn't so fucking retard about blancing the game...

Map Only
Why is this bad?

Return basebuilding RTS elements to it. Maybe give each player a little base they buy items from, that they can expand to a certain limit, this probably requires a large map.

I think there were already variants of this in custom games in WC3, it's just that the simplest version (Dota) was the one that got esports.

It's boring.

Almost every online multiplayer game has different maps. There are different strengths and weaknesses of characters. weapons, or advantages/disadvantages for defenders on these maps. It creates variety, and makes an inherently higher skill ceiling.

a lot of these don't apply to dota or are just plain retarded
you don't see people bitching about soccer needing another kind of field lmao

Dota is already perfect.

>It's boring.
>Almost every online multiplayer game has different maps.
This is not an argument.

Not a true RTS. It would still be watered down and have a strong focus on the heroes.

...

Literally overthrow

Chess is an inherently different game. Same with Soccer The fact that you guys can't take criticism of the genre leads me to believe that I'm correct in my first statement that the playerbase is just retarded.

The quest/objective stuff in Sins of a Dark age is pretty neat, it forces teams to fight each other or risk giving the other team a free advantage, but at the same time the rewards aren't such a huge boost that the first team to finish a quest can snowball their opponents.

Airmech does this and it's deader than yesterday's cat.
Much to my dismay.

Imagine if Overwatch only had one map. ASSFAGGOTS would defend this

1v1 ASSFAGGOTS
And I mean in the Flash sense of
>the other guy controlling the other group of heroes was doing pretty good

why are you moving goal posts

>Chess is an inherently different game.
Again, this is not an argument.
This is a baseless statement.

>almost every online mp game has different maps
how does that matter again?
just because other games does something doesn't automatically mean every single other game has to do it

And everyone in chess, pool, etc, starts off with the same units and tools.
Mobas are not as real of a sport as them. Get over it

RTS died because the skill floor and skill ceiling are both too high for most players.

MOBA's came into power because the skill floor and skill ceiling are much lower.

RTS' are mostly 1v1 as well at a competitive level, and getting out fucking skilled feels like shit in a 20-30 minute game. Even cheesing feels awful since you get wrecked, wreck someone, and rarely if ever does it fail, and it goes into a transitioned macro game.

MOBAs a failure is blanketed across 5 people. It's never 100% your fault that you lost. Where as in an RTS, it is.

Moba's are truly AIDs, and their popularity has ruined the RTS genre.

Actually this is fantastic, a mirrored mode with 4+ teams would be amazing. You'd solve a lot of the game's strategic and flow issues by adding more teams since matches would be more dynamic in who attacks who and when, a teamfight between red and white could be interrupted by black coming in while yellow takes black's base, etc. Speed everything up so games last 30 minutes tops and you've got some deep and varied strategy injected into an otherwise frozen meta.

reminds me of those retarded 3, 4 or 6 way AoSes in warcraft 3

Is there a Future Cop LAPD-style Single-player/Multi-vs-AI for Airmech yet?

>Moba-like with RTS elements
>Literally Airmech
I suggest you check it out if it's something you're looking for. You play as a mech that goes in and out of airplane/ufo/AC130 mode or whatever, create units and command them like an RTS. It's pretty good, and the devs do frequent updates. I'm honestly surprised it's not more popular.

wouldn't work as a competitive game

Correction: it wouldn't work as an esport

no it wouldn't work as a competitive game because no one would take it seriously

good

correction: it wouldn't work as an esport because casuals wouldn't be able to understand it so they would ignore it.

It would be a fantastic competitive game but it'd be too hard for normies and casuals so it wouldn't get esports attention. Long gone are the days of RTS esports.

it wouldn't work as an e-sport or be particularly competitive because it's functionally the same as FFA

why would the games be faster again?
here's a couple of scenarios which would make the games longer.
no one daring to make a move because what if 1 or more teams are moving to your own base to take it down
2 more powerful teams take down the 2 other ones, then starts the real game with the 2 remaining teams.

6v6v6, everyone fights on two fronts, and when one team dies, their lanes get blocked off.

Fleshlight peripheral.

MOBA is just RTS dumbed down to its most basic, mindless form.

Games with large amounts of inherent snowballing only end up being fun child bullying simulators.

But that's a good thing. Esports keep ruining genres and none has been more devastated than RTS and by extension MOBAs.

RTS died because the genre is inflexible not because of a high skill floor or anything. People are too stubborn to admit it.

>do build
>okay I'm kinda locked into it - and the other guy wins because his build is outright better and I will cost more resources to simply change or reform at this point
>or just get rushed and lose in less than 10 minutes and there's nothing you can really do about it besides having a build that would have prevented something like this earlier

... if the guy has a build that's "outright better," then isn't he, by definition, a better player than yoi and therefore deserve thr victory?

this is why scouting is important

Okay, you pick scissors, you build scissors stuff, scissors style.

I picked rock, this build is always better against scissors, doesn't matter if you were better. The whole game is designed to give a bonus to rock over scissors. You lost at minute 0 not because you played worse but because I picked the build that beats yours from the start.

>but I can just change -
The enemy has an advantage now. They're expected to win, while it certainly means you'd be a very good player to comeback all the same the game is inflexible. There is no "war" in RTS games, there is no "comeback" which relies on skill or strategy - the kind of strategy that's intuitive and not bolted into a game of rock paper scissors where it's obviously better to pick the counter to your opponent.

Even Chess is flexible. You lost a Queen, okay well you lose a powerful unit but it's not like you lost the game or every Pawn is stronger than your Pawn or your Rook can't simply kill their Queen. Meanwhile an RTS unit will just be designed to be Rock Papper Scissors.

RTS died because the genre is exhausting to play, even if you enjoy it, and attempta at making a different kind of RTS or an RTS focused on one aspect like unit combat were rejected by compstompers that have never played an RTS seriously in their lives.

I know Sup Forums likes to trot out that webm of the MOBA and the RTS player side by side but they forget to show the other 60 minutes of the RTS player's match, or more likely 20 where he has to keep up that pace all game until a worker unit doesn't deliver resources in the most effecient manner and he has to surrender because he's now created a snowballing disadvantage for himself.

I know the feeling of it too because back in the day, I was an RTS junkie, I would attempt to climb the ranked system of whatever RTS I could get my hands on, but after every match I ended up feeling drained. I ended up getting back into the genre with Dawn of War II but Sup Forums hates that game and it died fairly quickly so I don't talk about it here.

I love Dawn of War 2 because base-building is stupid and shitty and I hate it and the squad-based tactics is fun unlike micromanaging 200 units.

What you just described are shitty micro-focused RT"S" games.

Because it's digital. It doesn't cost anything to have a different layout and it can be consistent with the variations.

It doesn't need "improving", just find something else to play.

Before I installed Dawn of War II I would have been like any fag here calling you a casual that doesn't know what you're talking about but after playing a few matches I realized how fun and satisfying squad-based combat can be.

And in comparison, many of the more "grand" games are shallow by comparison. I remember back when I got Rise of Nations for Christmas, I salivated over that game and how it was going to be the promised Land of real time Civilization. I went back and tried playing the HD version on Steam some and realized that Rise of Nations is actually many degrees shallower than even Empire Earth I.

By deleting it from existence.

But what else can a normie play that makes him feel like an esports pro, without pinning the blame on himself when he loses?

Hahah so just an rts then. idiot.

stop using inherently so frequently

Are you really just realizing this now?
ASSFAGGOT players are egotistical as fuck, that's always correlated with retardation.

make the new game modes permanent instead always fucking rotating for starters

So basically footman frenzy ?

>rotate map 45 degrees so red team isnt always at a fucking disadvantage bottom lane

>for those that dont really understand that your avatar sits a little above your task bar and since you cant click your task bar to move then that gives blue a slight advantage over red since they see more than red and have a more free movement options available to them

This is why turn based games and RTT are superior in every way.

I can't wait for the comeback of turn based games. They're genuinely the best mix of everything that games do well.

Sadly, final fantasy and other chinkgames have completely ruined the genre for a lot of people who think "turn based" implies that stupid "line up and take turns playing whack a mole for 30 minutes"

Real turn based strategy games involve maneuver and tactics. Look at age of decadence, gladius, xcom, and so on.

Put it in the Middle East, add guns and shit, put it in first person, ya know something original.

I do like how people come in a quote League like it's all mobas. There's no farming in HotS.
One kill in Dota or HotS means literally nothing.
This is a meme problem for people who suck, high end games close out leads.
Seriously, your complaining people wont surrender games?
>different stats are bad
Only League enforces a meta, try playing some Mobas maybe?
I could write an entire sermon on why giving 5 ways to make money removes all strategy from the game, but not having to optimizing distribution of limited resouces is literally why LoL is a competitive baby game with static strategy compared to Dota.
If you want to teamfight go play HotS, it's all you fucking do.

that should've got popular and had it's own game, it was way more fun than dota

>>assuming equal skill, if someone dies early, you're behind for the rest of the game, and it's almost impossible to come back if your opponent doesn't make mistakes

How's that bad replace "dies early" with "takes poke damage first" and that's literally all fighting games.

Make a game that's exactly like Demigod but without the persistent level bonuses.

Are you just pretending to be retarded? Taking poke damage first just lowers your life bar. Dying early in a moba gives your enemy bonus gold, which lets him do more damage, take more damage, move faster, etc. The closest thing to that fighting games have are Special moves.

If your opponent can react and read you well then they can just stay defensive and spam nothing but safe or low risk moves the whole time while you have to play catchup.

stop making it

You can't do that in fighting games unless you can react at inhuman speeds like a bot. youtu.be/ascW7qOzlv8?t=50
Taking damage early on just lowers your health. Your enemy doesn't get stronger because of it.

>>even if you know you're going to win, your opponents refuse to let up and let you win
Waaaah just let me win already waaaah.

>It's never 100% your fault that you lost.
No, it's 100% my team's fault I lost

There's more than one way to play darts.
There's only one way to play a MOBA. Hence the need for different map layouts.

I like what Paragon did with a zigzag mid lane. So that one of the side lanes is closer to mid near your base, and one lane is closer to mid near the enemy base.

THIS

>trying to argue that a turn-based game has a single layout so that means a real-time game should too

Please kill me, Pete.

the solution here is genocide of retards

>All the buttmad directed to this post even though it's completely true

ASSFAGGOTS only proving the point

not a single thing you said is true about how dota is played these days

Add little cutscenes when the female characters take damage where their clothes get blown off.

Your opening is usually defined, BUT you always scout to see what your opponent is doing.

If your opponent is doing something weird, you can adjust your build.

I agree, there is an element of blind luck countering, but it's not that high.

literally the only true thing there is "just 1 map" and that's just not a valid concern.

5v5v5v5.

Mix it up a little

>improve what was essentially a minigame

MOBA's were better when they were UMS minigames on starcraft/warcraft. Kind of a shame that none of the other awesome games took off from that era.

Mechanically speaking what is the appeal of Dota clones

1v1v1v1, each player takes a corner, each player controls 3-5 heroes.
King of the hill battle for the middle of the map or attack an enemy base directly.