Tactics vs. Patterns: Why MOBAs beat RTSs
I still rank Warcraft 3 as one of my all-time favorite games, and during its peak, I would have called it my favorite.
Which is why I had an intense prejudice against DotA for so long. It looked to me like a modder had taken WC3, removed 90% of the game, enhanced the remaining 10% a bit, and the crowds of shallow people who just couldn't handle the greatness of the full game all migrated over to playing a small fraction of it.
It was a long time before I was willing to try it and even longer before I was willing to admit that it was good (despite being hooked in my very first game). Month after month, I almost always preferred to play DotA over WC3, but I had to tell myself it was only because DotA was newer, and I'd go back to preferring the unmodded game. I still didn't understand what made DotA so good, so admitting that I liked it better was admitting that I preferred the shallow game, and my ego couldn't handle that. Because how could controlling one hero with four abilities possibly be as deep as controlling up to three heroes (each with four abilities) plus entire armies?
Looking back, I can see that my denial and confusion was primarily because I hadn't yet learned to distinguish between tactics and patterns.
(By the way, if you aren't familiar with WC3 or DotA, replace them with almost any major RTS and MOBA, and what I say probably still apply).
But then in most games, our tactics start turning into patterns. Optimal choices rise to the top, and a large portion of our game becomes pre-planned. The first five minutes of a Warcraft 3 game ceased to contain any tactical choices because I had already figured out what to build when, how many characters to send scouting, what abilities I should choose on my hero and in what order, etc. Even going into mid-game, success had far less to do with making good choices (because most choices were actually pretty easy) and more to do with landing a good execution of those choices (ie: Am I issuing commands fast enough? Did I accidentally leave one of my heroes idle or forget to start an upgrade?).
In other words, the strategy/tactics is what got me into Warcraft 3 (and many other strategy games), and for a while, mastering the game expands your tactical choices. But then those tactical choices start getting replaced by patterns, and I begin succeeding less by being clever and more by perfectly executing routines. There's certainly still strategy--but not nearly as much as there used to be.
Choices in DotA that seem simple to an outsider actually take in an incredible number of ever-changing variables. For example: an enemy hero just moved forward to last-hit a creep, and you're thinking of throwing your stun spell at him. You have about a quarter second to make the decision, so here are some of the factors to consider during that time:
How much mana and health do you each have?
How close are your allies?
How close are his allies (that you can see)?
How probable is it that enemies that you can't see are nearby?
How quickly can he get under his tower?
How quickly can you get under your tower if the combat goes badly?
What is the status of your cooldowns?
What do you think is the status of the cooldowns of nearby heroes based on recent observation?
How many creeps do you each have nearby?
What do your various options for follow-up look like (i.e. Are you just poking down their health? Are you going all in? Are you just pushing him back so you can farm creeps?)
How did it turn out last time you tried? Is there any reason to believe it will be different this time?
And this is nowhere near a complete list.
In short, DotA is a game of continuous tactical decisions, while Warcraft 3 is a game with many tactical decisions but enormous effort poured into routine execution. Gamers wanted highly tactical games and MOBAs delivered it far better than RTSs.
Roguelikes: Even when the changes per playthrough are small, you can't fall quite as deeply into following patterns as you do in a statically defined game. You always have to adapt.
Complex RPG Combat: A recent star in the RPG world is Larian Studios with their excellent Divinity: Original Sin games. Though I'm far from making it through even one, I have found every battle to be unique, which is a first for me in RPGs. Though I have a few standard tactics, they have to be adapted every battle. And if I did a new playthrough with different characters, I would need entirely different tactics for all of those same familiar battles.
Super Smash Brothers: There's a lot to say about this game series, but in the tactics vs. patterns realm, one major step compared to other games is the idea that the more you're hurt, the further you fly when hit. Thus, so many of the combinations and strategies you might try to rely on are only applicable when your opponent is at certain health percentages. An easily understood (and very fun) mechanic dramatically increased how much players have to adapt to their circumstances rather than fall back to standard sequences.
Which is why I had an intense prejudice against DotA for so long. It looked to me like a modder had taken WC3, removed 90% of the game, enhanced the remaining 10% a bit, and the crowds of shallow people who just couldn't handle the greatness of the full game all migrated over to playing a small fraction of it.
It was a long time before I was willing to try it and even longer before I was willing to admit that it was good (despite being hooked in my very first game). Month after month, I almost always preferred to play DotA over WC3, but I had to tell myself it was only because DotA was newer, and I'd go back to preferring the unmodded game. I still didn't understand what made DotA so good, so admitting that I liked it better was admitting that I preferred the shallow game, and my ego couldn't handle that. Because how could controlling one hero with four abilities possibly be as deep as controlling up to three heroes (each with four abilities) plus entire armies?
Looking back, I can see that my denial and confusion was primarily because I hadn't yet learned to distinguish between tactics and patterns.
(By the way, if you aren't familiar with WC3 or DotA, replace them with almost any major RTS and MOBA, and what I say probably still apply).
The Fine Nuances
When we think of tactics, we picture looking at the battle and all the complicated variables therein, analyzing the situation, and making a choice on how to proceed. If you're into strategy games, you probably love this process.But then in most games, our tactics start turning into patterns. Optimal choices rise to the top, and a large portion of our game becomes pre-planned. The first five minutes of a Warcraft 3 game ceased to contain any tactical choices because I had already figured out what to build when, how many characters to send scouting, what abilities I should choose on my hero and in what order, etc. Even going into mid-game, success had far less to do with making good choices (because most choices were actually pretty easy) and more to do with landing a good execution of those choices (ie: Am I issuing commands fast enough? Did I accidentally leave one of my heroes idle or forget to start an upgrade?).
In other words, the strategy/tactics is what got me into Warcraft 3 (and many other strategy games), and for a while, mastering the game expands your tactical choices. But then those tactical choices start getting replaced by patterns, and I begin succeeding less by being clever and more by perfectly executing routines. There's certainly still strategy--but not nearly as much as there used to be.
Back to DotA
What I didn't see for a long time was that many of the elements of WC3 that DotA removed were those that most quickly changed from tactics to patterns. Very little of my time in DotA is ever following routine or executing a pre-planned set of actions (apart from an ability rotation that usually takes less than one second).Choices in DotA that seem simple to an outsider actually take in an incredible number of ever-changing variables. For example: an enemy hero just moved forward to last-hit a creep, and you're thinking of throwing your stun spell at him. You have about a quarter second to make the decision, so here are some of the factors to consider during that time:
How much mana and health do you each have?
How close are your allies?
How close are his allies (that you can see)?
How probable is it that enemies that you can't see are nearby?
How quickly can he get under his tower?
How quickly can you get under your tower if the combat goes badly?
What is the status of your cooldowns?
What do you think is the status of the cooldowns of nearby heroes based on recent observation?
How many creeps do you each have nearby?
What do your various options for follow-up look like (i.e. Are you just poking down their health? Are you going all in? Are you just pushing him back so you can farm creeps?)
How did it turn out last time you tried? Is there any reason to believe it will be different this time?
And this is nowhere near a complete list.
In short, DotA is a game of continuous tactical decisions, while Warcraft 3 is a game with many tactical decisions but enormous effort poured into routine execution. Gamers wanted highly tactical games and MOBAs delivered it far better than RTSs.
Examples From Other Genres
This principle applies all over the gaming world. Here are a few examples where I believe a significant factor in their success came from mechanics that followed this same principle.Roguelikes: Even when the changes per playthrough are small, you can't fall quite as deeply into following patterns as you do in a statically defined game. You always have to adapt.
Complex RPG Combat: A recent star in the RPG world is Larian Studios with their excellent Divinity: Original Sin games. Though I'm far from making it through even one, I have found every battle to be unique, which is a first for me in RPGs. Though I have a few standard tactics, they have to be adapted every battle. And if I did a new playthrough with different characters, I would need entirely different tactics for all of those same familiar battles.
Super Smash Brothers: There's a lot to say about this game series, but in the tactics vs. patterns realm, one major step compared to other games is the idea that the more you're hurt, the further you fly when hit. Thus, so many of the combinations and strategies you might try to rely on are only applicable when your opponent is at certain health percentages. An easily understood (and very fun) mechanic dramatically increased how much players have to adapt to their circumstances rather than fall back to standard sequences.
Comments
Post a Comment