Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena

Dota

What in the world? a) DotA is not a genre. To say it is is to be stupid. It's the name of a game within a game within a genre? Or perhaps the name of a game in a genre but also in a game which is, as well, in a genre. b) If this isn't fixed, please fix "Dota". It's insulting to see it called Defense of the ancients. Ancients has a capital. Hence, it is DotA. RENAME THE ARTICLE TO DotA!123.211.254.168 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hero Defense

DotA is not a genre for gods sake ! DotA Defense of the Ancientes, Dota just doesnt mean anything, the true genre name MUST BE HERO DEFENSE !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.0.123 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. It is the same as having an article named "Kleenix" instead of "Facial tissue." DotA is not even the first example of the genre as well. The term "Hero Defense" may be too general a name though. 24.250.52.40 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvement

This article will be improved upon. :) --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Compendium of Refuted Arguments

This is a compilation of arguments (opinions) that have been refuted. You are welcome to add to this list. Just follow the given format below and use a notable and unbiased source so that it will be approved. Please be guided accordingly. (Don't forget to sign with your own signature.) --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In defense of Dota genre

*You cannot use the name of a game as the name of a genre. 

This has been refuted. Refer to Roguelike. --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

*You cannot trademark the name of a genre. 

This has been refuted. Refer to Tower Defense. --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In defense of Multiplayer online battle arena

*You cannot use a term that was coined purely for marketing purposes. 

This has been refuted. Refer to Real-time strategy. --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's rather inappropriate to do this, on your part. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:52, 06 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

To Rezecib (the one who submitted the suggestion): A good day to you. I have viewed the Wikipedia article you suggested entitled "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" and judging from the article history, you seem to be a young man with great dedication.

Double checking the references however, it seems majority of them are from either user-submitted community sites with notability problems or Riot Games endorsed content. And here at Wikipedia, promoting unbiased information sharing and integrity is our topmost priority.

My professional advice would be to have the "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" article deleted.

Unless you are an employee of Riot Games (League of Legends) doing marketing for them, I personally invite you to become a regular contributor here. In the next few years, the DotA genre will be bigger compared to it's current state as it becomes more mainstream and by that time, this article will have to grow with the community. And along with such popularity, we expect vandals and spammers to flood in. A dedicated Wikipedia user such as yourself would be a great asset to both the Wikipedia and the DotA community.

Have a nice day! --Dotaveteran (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

First I should clarify that Multiplayer online battle arena is not the first thing I've done on here. I've been an active member of the Wikipedia for about 5 years. I think that any genre named specifically after DotA (which you have incorrectly capitalized there) should be in the DotA article, which to a degree it already is. However, there are multiple other names being used to describe the genre, MOBA being one, and Action-RTS being another. I want to do more research on it (can't really at the moment, too much work), but it may be best to shift the content of both this article and Multiplayer online battle arena into a combined article, e.g. Action real-time strategy. As it stands, Multiplayer online battle arena has content that could be moved here.

Basically, the main points I stand by are:

1. This genre needs an article
2. This genre should not be named after its seminal title. Sure, when a genre first becomes established it gets called by its seminal title; but like RTS and Sandbox games, they move on when other major games (i.e. ones that are not purely imitation or clones) begin to pop up.
3. MOBA cannot be discredited on the basis of being coined for marketing; so were Real-time strategy and Massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
4. What should ultimately decide the name for this genre's article is the most prevalent term

~rezecib ^(talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Rezecib 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, there is no dispute regarding the importance of a Wikipedia article on the Dota genre. We definitely need one due to the emergence of these DotA-based games.
2. There is no hard-rule in the naming of a particular video game genre. If there was, Roguelike would not exist.
3. MOBA isn't being discredited solely because it was coined for marketing purposes. The difference between MOBA and Real-time strategy is the level of acceptance in the industry. The term MOBA may be used often among members of the League of Legends community but this genre is not only made up of LoL players. We have the DotA, Heroes of Newerth and DotA 2 communities to cater to.
4. Agreed. Basing on the MOBA article's history and discussions, the MOBA term has had problems with it's acceptance. And as of the moment, the DotA genre is the more prevalent term being used to classify these type of games.

Final Recommendations: Merger Proposal Removed. Let both articles co-exist for the meantime until the time an overwhelming majority acknowledges the term, MOBA. In the meantime, let the prevailing term be used.

Additional notes: Shifting the content of both this article and Multiplayer online battle arena into a combined article, e.g. Action real-time strategy seems like a pretty good idea. This can also avoid any impending edit wars between LoL fanboys using MOBA and HoN/DotA 2 fanboys using DBG. Waiting for additional recommendations from other editors before proceeding.

Dotaveteran (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not in any position of authority to call this debate over and remove the tag, simply because you say so. I'm reverting your edit, due to the fact that this discussion needs to continue before any rash decisions are made.DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to DarthBotto 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, duly noted. Let the discussion continue. Please refer to Additional notes as the suggested course of action. --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like merging both into a third article is the way to go. Are there any ideas for names other than Action-RTS? Also, is that even a valid term? RPG elements also figure strongly, probably more so, but Action-RPG-RTS is kind of long-winded, and therefore unlikely that it's in use. Here are some basic results from Google on the mentioned terms (I tried to include variants):

1. Multiplayer online battle arena - 509,000 hits [1]
2. DotA based game - 32,100 hits [2]
3. Aeon of Strife game - 32,100 hits [3]
4. Action real time strategy - 18,000 hits [4]
5. Action-RTS - 16,900 hits [5]
6. DotA genre - 2,070 hits [6]

Looking at the hits for ARTS, it doesn't look like that's an appropriate term; it seems to have been used to describe very different games. From those statistics, it looks like MOBA comes out on top. I would like to note that I am not a League of Legends player; I tried it for a day or two and didn't like it much, and haven't played since. However, I would welcome statistics or support for other terms, as that would make the merging process politically easier. ~rezecib ^(talk) 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens, the name of the genre should make no mention to DotA. The only reason that "DotA based game" is garnering so many hits is due to the fact that HoN, LoL, and DotA 2 are in works, which many game journalists are going to refer to as a "dota based game". It is in my opinion that a 4 separate titles do not justify the creation of a completely separate genre, and should be more generic. I'm for Action-RTS or MOBA. I do support Action-RTS over MOBA, due to the nature of the game accurately reflecting the title. MOBA is a bit more of a generalized term. Finally, I wouldn't consider ANY of the DotA-based games to be an RPG: the short-lived nature of a HoN game do not allow the game to develop a story or in-game economy to allow you 'role play'. Just my $0.02 MAGZine (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose MOBA over Action-RTS. For the sole reason that it got considerably more hits on google, and that the function of WP should be to explain existing term, and not to establish new terms that describe something best in the opinion of a few users.

Also, I'd suggest do simply delete the Dota (genre) article entirely, since it doesn't really contain any information that's not given in a more elaborate way in the MOBA article.--Roman3 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of discussions, can anyone provide notable sources stating that both Real-time strategy and Massively multiplayer online role-playing game were coined purely for marketing purposes? Were those terms aggressively pushed or was the naming of it more natural? Was there a prevalent category name referring to those games before their inception? --Dotaveteran (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For RTS: Virgin wanted to market Dune II as a “strategy” game. Sperry thought that sold the game short, so he coined the term “real-time strategy.”[7]

For MMORPG, I think someone would have to dig up the book that's being sourced on its article and its history article. I wasn't able to find anything online.

As it notes in the RTS article, it's not purely marketing, but also an attempt to more accurately describe it in an extensible way. However, I would consider MOBA to have that motivation, as well. ~rezecib ^(talk) 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So this discussion seems to have ended, and it looks like it's more in favor of MOBA than anything else. Is there further disagreement, or can I proceed with merging this article into Multiplayer online battle arena? ~rezecib ^(talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has barely begun. Added a compendium of invalid arguments. Future editors can use them as a guide on the arguments that have been refuted. Please be guided accordingly. --Dotaveteran (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I moved the "compendium of invalid arguments" into Dotaveteran's comment about creating it, above. Originally it was made as an unsigned separate section.

Okay, so Roguelike does use the name of the popularizing game; however, it only refers to a very small subsection (Rogue clones) of the wider Dungeon crawler genre. I think that should be avoided in this case, as this genre may also include games like Monday Night Combat and Bloodline Champions, which are definitely not DotA clones. In every other case I've found, the popularizing game has been used to describe the genre until another game innovates in it; for example, the term GTA clone has been replaced by Sandbox game or Open world. Additionally, regardless of what we think the term should be, usage should dictate what the article is called. Other than comparing Google hit rates, there doesn't appear to be a metric for measuring that, but Google hit rates are strongly supporting MOBA (by an order of magnitude). Yes, it was coined as a marketing term, but it has the plusses of not being confused with previously-used genre names (a problem I encountered with Action-RTS), being an acronym, not using the name of any of its members for itself, and apparently being in the widest use. ~rezecib ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloodline Champions does not belong to the Dota genre and should not be categorized as such. It's gameplay does not have the basic elements that Dota based games like Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, and Dota 2 share together that are essential for it to be categorized under the Dota genre. Referring to Bloodline Champions as a Dota inspired game is a common misconception among gamers who are not well-versed with the Warcraft 3 custom map scene and that is something that I want to correct. Bloodline Champions is actually based on a Warcraft 3 map called Warlocks [8] and the last time I checked, Warlocks and DotA belong to different map categories. The only thing in common with games in the Dota genre and Bloodline Champions is that they're stand-alone games based on Warcraft 3 custom maps. --Dotaveteran (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed it to Compendium of Refuted Arguments to reflect a more authoritative list. It is a list of refuted arguments supported by facts (Refer to). Please do not remove that section as it will serve as a guide for future editors of the Dota genre article. And as for adding your own edits:

*If the game was not the first in the genre, it cannot provide the name for the genre. ''Refer to [[Chronology of roguelike video games]]''. ~rezecib (talk) 9:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

and signing with my signature, please do not do that again. You can add your statement above to the compendium since it has been adequately supported. Feel free to add more as long as it is unbiased and factual. And please don't forget to sign with your own signature. --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Those won't serve as as a guide for future editors of this article; they solely concern the naming of the article for this genre, which is what this discussion should resolve (and, upon being archived, will provide a reference for that decision).

With regards to MNC and BLC not being DotA clones, they're not. A set of clones does not define a genre, it defines a game and its clones. When there are games with separate innovations, it could be considered to comprise a genre; MOBA is a term that can include MNC and BLC. Additionally, BLC has more in common with DotA than being based on a map from the same game (and it's a stretch to say it's based on Warlocks; I'd say it has more in common with DotA, even, as Warlocks is pretty primitive).

As for "signing with <your> signature", that was not my intention, and I apologize. You are placing discussion content outside of the discussion as if it were the truth, which is misleading and presumptuous. I have AGAIN moved it into this part of the discussion, this time, as per your request, keeping my own argument to myself (on that note, please cite that the validity of a marketing term is my argument). Furthermore, I have solicited more participation in this discussion as the third and fourth opinions were clearly not enough for consensus. If after a week, there is still no more participation, I will ask for a fifth opinion. ~rezecib ^(talk) 19:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Additionally, BLC has more in common with DotA than being based on a map from the same game (and it's a stretch to say it's based on Warlocks; I'd say it has more in common with DotA, even, as Warlocks is pretty primitive). 

I would advise you to check out the Warcraft 3 custom map, Warlocks before holding on to that opinion. After playing a game or so, I would love to hear a more enlightened one. Bloodline Champions cannot be categorized under the Dota genre. Warlocks has a PvP arena-style of gameplay and does not meet the basic elements for it to be classified under the Dota genre.--Dotaveteran (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I feel as though it is time that I give my opinion, considering that it was because of me and David Fuchs that the Defense of the Ancients article is what it is today and I also created the Dota 2 article. I tend to stay neutral on these matters, but it does matter how the articles look, as Wikipedia always creates the highly-sought after Google search results.

I feel as though DotA is not a genre. It is a real-time strategy game and a role-playing game, rolled into one. Is it unique? Yes. Is it clever? Yes. Does it have its own genre? No. Having several copies of a title does not make that title part of its own genre. For example, when you discuss Halo, do you necessarily refer to it as a member of the Doom genre? No. The reason why is becaue it already fits a role type that can be applied to, without having to create something new. So, DotA is not a genre, it is a game. "MOBA" is not a genre, it is a coined phrase by a fan site. I think this article and MOBA should both be deleted, due to the unnecessity of such things.

But, this is my opinion. You need not ostricize or criticize, as I won't lose any sleep over this discussion.DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said previously, I agree that BLC is not a DotA clone, but DotA clones do not define a genre. I agree with DarthBotto in that DotA is not a genre, but disagree in that there is a new genre somewhere in there: to me, and from the sources that I've found that are not simply describing DotA clone mechanics, it lies in the team-based gameplay. Yes, DotA is at the intersection of RTS and RPG. However, a team RTS still plays like an RTS, and the same goes for team RPGs. DotA, Bloodline Champions, and Monday Night Combat (the most distinct non-overlapping members of what seem to be the genre to me) do not play like the games most mechanically similar to them (RTS/RPG, third-person action, and third-person shooters, respectively). MOBA, to me, is just one term that could be used to describe the genre, and from what I can tell, appears to be the most favorable one (summary of reasons: an acronym, it's short, most widely used, sufficiently general, and has no overlap/confusion with games described by things like Action-RTS). ~rezecib ^(talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights, DarthBotto. I agree on the majority of the points you cited.

Yes, Dota is a real-time strategy game and a role-playing game, rolled into one.

And you are correct, MOBA was coined by the League of Legends marketing team and aggressively promoted by Jeff Hunter - owner of the now-defunct fan site, mobagamers.com. It has however, failed to catch on.

However, I personally think that the Dota genre deserves it's own article (and not just a footnote in the main Dota article). As we all know, Dota is not just some unknown Warcraft 3 custom map on BattleNet. It has achieved a prominent status not just in gaming circles but also in mainstream entertainment as well. (Basshunter DOTA anyone?) DotA is more than just a game, it is a highly influencing force that has spawned a whole new genre, the Dota genre. --Dotaveteran (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think deleting the MOBA article is not an option. The reason is quite simple, it's widely used. Deleting it contradicts the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If someone stumbles over the term MOBA, which is a quite possible scenario, he most likely heads to wikipedia to look it up. So the MOBA page should at least redirect to the final term, which I'm still supporting to be MOBA though. --Roman3 (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Making the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena article redirect here sounds like the best idea. We can add the MOBA term under the Alternative Terminologies section so that the people searching using the term will still get the information that they need here at Wikipedia. So is it settled then? Or does anyone want to contradict the idea?--Dotaveteran (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to invite my fellow editors who are interested at the subject matter at hand to listen to Matt Gotcher's insights regarding the Dota genre. He is currently one of the developers working on Blizzard DOTA. - www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n0_2EpbE3A --Dotaveteran (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From this discussion, it looks like there's not enough consensus for there to be an individual article for the genre; any arbitrary decision will influence the naming the genre, because as DarthBotto said, Wikipedia plays a large role in creating those Google hits, which in turn influence perceptions of the prevalence of one term over another. I would fully support a further integration of these articles and topics into the DotA article; it certainly warrants more than the three-sentence paragraph it currently has. I'd be willing to write a draft of that if there is support; I know that the issue is probably close to DarthBotto and David Fuchs, at the least, as the quality of the DotA article is of high concern to the two of you (and it is important to me, as well). I don't want to be hasty such that I compromise its quality, but I don't see a valid alternative at this point. Here's why:

The options (I think I'm covering everything here, but feel free to add more):

• Merge Dota (genre) and/or Multiplayer online battle arena into one of those or a third article: arbitrarily decides the name of the genre; there is no consensus, and this may artificially form consensus
• Delete both articles: I think there is notable content to be found here; additionally, as my and Dotaveteran's actions have shown, when an article doesn't cover it, ambiguously helpful stubs are created.
• Move to subsection of Defense of the Ancients: this maintains the content, can make reference to some or all of the names in use, and doesn't arbitrarily decide on a name.

~rezecib ^(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to rezecib with regards to Google searches

In order to make the Final Recommendations, I double checked your results as it appeared suspicious at best. My suspicions were confirmed. It appears that you have grossly understated the Google search results to back up the supposed "prevalence" of Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.

The actual corrected results are as follows:

1. Dota genre - More than 5000 hits (Rezecib understated the figures by halving the actual number)
2. Multiplayer online battle arena - less than a thousand hits
3. Moba genre - less than a thousand hits

This strongly supports my statement that the use of the term, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena is limited to the League of Legends community while the use of Dota genre is the general consensus.

I would like to credit Garrett^Talk for introducing me to the methodology of getting the true figures on Google.

 You must add quotation marks and browse to the last page of the search to get the true figure, as Google crawls every single forum thread in the world, and those must be discounted as minor mentions of the subject matter.

--Dotaveteran (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Tag Removed

Since it has been a month since an editor expressed support for a Merge with Multiplayer Online Battle Arena on Talk:Dota (genre)#Merger proposal, we can safely say that a merge is not appropriate. The merge tag has been removed. The Dota genre article provides the end-user with the appropriate information regarding the Dota genre. A merge with an article that has not met the standards of Wikipedia will only water down this article's quality. If an editor thinks otherwise, please discuss it here. --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The growth of the "DotA genre" which you mentioned would actually just support the merge/change to some other term as the more people will get in touch with the genre from different games it will become increasingly akward to explain a game by referring to a mod coming from WC3 TFT which is a term usually used for DotA Allstars which was based the original DotA from RoC which in turn was based on AoS from SC. A path like this makes so little sense to someone unfamiliar with it that I believe ther to be no reason to call it "DotA genre" when AoS genre or something among those lines would actually make more sense even though quite few would support it as not that many have played AoS and this will at some point be the case for DotA too. There was also a time when programming students might refer to their their grad project as a Wolfenstein based game but noone ever dreamed of starting to call them Doom based games as everyone would've agreed to that being just silly if someone actually dared to mention it. Unless the group is small or the original game's title would trully describe the content which would keep the term's essence the same even with the pass of time. My main argument would still be that it is just way too complex and completely invalid to refer to a whole genre as something based on something, based on something. It is somewhat unlikely that I will even bother to come read a possible response as it seems silly to argue about something so meaningless as what are we going to call a new genre of games but as a philosopher I could not ignore an argument like this where both sides are making irrelevant and invalid arguments. I hope this didn't leave an offensive tone as disagreeing text on the internet usually does. ~Your fellow DotA player 88.194.22.32 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Final Recommendations

The final recommendations of this discussion are:

• Delete Multiplayer online battle arena.

A merger is unneccessary since the Dota genre article provides all the relevant information needed to satisfy the queries of the end-user.

• A reference to the Dota genre on the Defense of the Ancients article.

Moving the Dota genre into a subsection of Defense of the Ancients is not a recommended option as this will result in an article that is too long.

As for considering Dota genre "too short", this does not constitute as valid grounds for a merger with Defense of the Ancients for they are different subjects, albeit related ones. Defense of the Ancients talks about a Warcraft 3 mod. The Dota genre talks about the genre it spawned.

If no editor will oppose this verdict within the next 7 days, we can consider this as "case closed" and we can start with the process of applying the recommendations above. However, if any party rejects the recommendations based on substantial grounds within the given time frame, we shall bring this forth to arbitration. --Dotaveteran (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I oppose this hasty and one-sided verdict; no other user in this discussion has made similar recommendations. As DarthBotto said,

You are not in any position of authority to call this debate over

Furthermore, it's unclear as to whom these recommendations are for, and they certainly can't be final if there is no consensus.

Here's a summary of the most updated stances occupied by each participant, (of course from my perspective, but that's the best I can provide):

• Dotaveteran: Delete Multiplayer online battle arena, keep Dota (genre)
• rezecib: Merge both Dota (genre) and Multiplayer online battle arena into a section of Defense of the Ancients
• DarthBotto: Delete both Multiplayer online battle arena and Dota (genre)
• Roman3: Keep Multiplayer online battle arena (most importantly, that searching that lead to the page, whatever it becomes)

I hope these were accurate reflections; however, it shows that there is no consensus at the moment. Until we receive more input about the possibility of merging both into the DotA article (there is no third opinion on it yet), any "final recommendations" are premature.

I support the move to something more decisive, although I think mediation may be more along the lines of what is required than arbitration. However, I think this could benefit from a little more input, first.

As for Google searches, that methodology (placing quotes around the terms) is exactly what I used. Did you click the links that I posted next to each? The numbers have not changed by any orders of magnitude, so the results remain effectively the same. Do not expect Google result numbers to stay exactly the same over time; even between two searches on the same day it can change, as the web is constantly developing and PageRank is a randomized algorithm. ~rezecib ^(talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I will note that Google results do not decide this discussion. I merely brought them in as the most convenient metric of which I knew to measure usage of each term. For the sake of clarity, I will describe my the process by which I collected the Google statistics in excruciating detail. I hope this will resolve any questions and doubts remaining about how I obtained the numbers I previously posted.

• I started with each term to be used-- "MOBA", "DotA genre", "Action-RTS", "Aeon of Strife game", and "DotA based game"
• I listed possible spellings and configurations of each, and determined if certain ones would be confused with other search results (it should be noted that capitalization is irrelevant to Google, but makes it look nicer)
  • MOBA
    • √ "Multiplayer online battle arena" -- works
    • X "MOBA" -- conflicts with Museum of Bad Art
    • √ "MOBA genre" -- works
  • DotA genre and DotA based game
    • X "DotA" -- can be confused with the game itself
    • √ "DotA genre" -- works
    • √ "DotA based game" -- works
    • X "DBG" -- could be confused with many things, including Desert Botannical Garden, Digital Broadcasting Group, etc...
  • Action-RTS
    • X "ARTS" -- confused with "arts", and many abbreviations
    • √ "Action-RTS" -- works
    • √ "Action real time strategy" -- works
  • Aeon of Strife
    • X "Aeon of Strife" -- could be confused with the original map
    • X "AoS" -- also confusable with the original map, in addition to Alexander Open Systems, Annunciation Orthodox School, etc
    • √ "AoS game" -- works
    • √ "AoS based game" -- works
    • √ "AoS genre" -- works
    • √ "Aeon of Strife game" -- works
    • √ "Aeon of Strife based game" -- works
    • √ "Aeon of Strife genre" -- works
• Finally, I did Google searches with each term completely within quotes, as listed above, displayed in a hierarchical list such that each search has its own hits, but is summed in the category of similar terms (using my trusty TI-84 plus calculator), and linked the searches corresponding to each individual term (I pared down the URLs to remove irrelevant data like my browser).

Here is the updated and substantiated (i.e. click the links I provide to verify) listing of Google hit counts:

• MOBA - 516,828 total hits
  • "Multiplayer online battle arena" - 516,000 hits [9]
  • "MOBA genre" - 828 hits [10]
• Action-RTS - 39,800 total hits
  • "Action RTS" - 20,600 hits [11]
  • "Action real time strategy" - 19,200 hits [12]
• DotA genre - 39,770 total hits
  • "DotA based game" - 34,300 hits [13]
  • "DotA genre" - 5,470 hits [14]
• Aeon of Strife - 10,346 total hits
  • "AoS game" - 6,320 hits [15]
  • "AoS genre" - 1,790 hits [16]
  • "Aeon of Strife game" - 1,400 hits [17]
  • "Aeon of Strife genre" - 775 hits [18]
  • "AoS based game" - 59 hits [19]
  • "Aeon of Strife based game" - 2 hits [20]

To put this in a graphical layout, on a scale of logarithm base 10 (so if one is 1, and the other is 2, the one that is 2 is 10 times as prominent as the one that is 1), you get something like the following:

MOBA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.7
ARTS |||||||||||||||||||||||      4.6
DotA |||||||||||||||||||||||      4.6
AOS  |||||                        1.0

~rezecib ^(talk) 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Google results alone cannot determine this discussion.

However, I cannot let inaccurate statements pass off as facts.

I can see that you were not able to comprehend what I posted above so allow me to repost the proper methodology for you as stated by Garrett.

• You must add quotation marks and browse to the last page of the search to get the true figure, as Google crawls every single forum thread in the world, and those must be discounted as minor mentions of the subject matter.

Here are the actual numbers:

• "Dota genre" - More than 5000 results
• "Moba genre" - Less than 1000 results
• "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" - Less than 1000 results

Using Google as our barometer, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Multiplayer Online Battle Arena is not as prevalent as you make it out to be. If you have any actual substantial proof that "MOBA genre" or "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" is actually used more often than the Dota genre, I would like to invite you to do so.--Dotaveteran (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I did overlook that. However, forum threads are an entirely valid source of data regarding usage. The forums show what people are actually using... Additionally, given that there is more forum activity dedicated to DotA and HoN (combined) than LoL, forums ought to only increase support for DBG over MOBA, if that's what they're using. Regardless, I still think that these articles should be assimilated into the Defense of the Ancients article, as irrespective of Google search results, there remains no consensus favoring one term over the other. ~rezecib ^(talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MOBA has more support over Dota genre? That is a statement you have not proven and something I have already debunked. Why do you stubbornly hold on to your false opinions when the cold hard facts have been laid out in front of you?

If you insist that Google is irrelevant in showing the prevalence of term usage (which is absurd by the way), I would like to present another metric to help gauge the conversations of people... social networks.

Social Networking test number 1: Twitter.

I looked for a Twitter account dedicated to League of Legends with the most number of followers and the highest level of influence and found it to be @LoLupdates - a third party fan account.

@LoLupdates [21] - more than 1200 follows.

@LoLupdates uses Dota genre, not Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. Granted, Twitter only allows 160 characters and the most logical term to use was Dota genre, the fact that Dota genre is being used by the community that supposedly invented the term, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena shows that the use of Dota genre is more widely propagated compared to MOBA.

Here's the tally:

Dota genre - 2 (Google and Twitter)

Multiplayer Online Battle Arena - 0

Guided by the results of 2 of the biggest websites on the internet, it is presumed that the same trend will be shown on websites with lesser influence and traffic - that Dota genre is more widely accepted in comparison with MOBA.

Recezib, I admire your determination. Your opinions are highly acknowledged but single uninformed opinions should not take precedence over the proven facts. As editors, we have a duty for Wikipedia to retain it's encyclopedic nature and we should be guided by the principles that this online resource was founded upon.

As for assimilating the Dota genre article into the Defense of the Ancients article, please read the reasons above why that suggestion is not recommended. If you would like to add a recommendation, I would highly suggest for you to read the previous statements that have already answered your concerns in order to avoid being repetitive. Have a nice day. --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have decided to change my opinion completely. Here we have the Official Dota 2 Website. This is a website run by Valve, the developer of the Dota franchise and IceFrog, the by far longest-serving Defense of the Ancients Warcraft III developer and overseer of Dota 2. Basically, these people have control of the franchise and have the right to describe the genre. Valve stated their view on this opinion on the official website and seem to concur that this is a hard thing to specify.

However, they do not refer to it as the Dota genre and certainly not a MOBA. They refer to it, actually, as an "Action RTS". I would be in favor of merging MOBA and Dota (genre) together into a new article called "Action RTS". It is a fair compromise, it can incorporate the variety of elements, it's just a good thing.

I hope you guys can agree on this, Dotaveteran, Rezecib. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:23, 03 November 2010 (UTC)

I support that. I'm glad that you found a credible source supporting that term, as I stated from the start that merging both into a third term would be ideal, but found some potential issues with ARTS (seems to be used to describe games that are clearly not the same genre, but look more clearly like pure RTS games--then again, terms evolve) and not much support.

Dotaveteran, you have not established the prevalence of "DotA genre" or the lack of prevalence of "MOBA", you have merely demonstrated that Google is a useless metric in this case (different equally valid methodologies produce opposing results). I hope that you can see that, and that you will agree with DarthBotto on this one.

Again, thank you, DarthBotto, for finding that. ~rezecib ^(talk) 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with merging Multiplayer Online Battle Arena and Dota genre into Action RTS. If I'm not mistaken, it seems only Rezecib has issues regarding this. MERGE.

In reply to Recezib: I do not have to issue a proper reply to your claim that Google is a useless metric. You do have quite a sense of humor. --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Google hits are not a valid argument. See WP:GHITS. --Teancum (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In order to address Recezib's concern with "possible issues."

I would like to propose this set-up:

Strategy video game -> Real-time strategy -> Action RTS -> Dota genre

Order of Action:

• Create Action RTS (DarthBotto, please do the honors).

• Redirect Multiplayer Online Battle Arena to Action RTS.

• Keep Dota genre as a resource for all Dota based games.

--Dotaveteran (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Dotaveteran:

First, I think I explicitly stated that I support the merge into Action real time strategy. I do not have problems with it now, I was referring to the reasons why we didn't go with that in the first place.

Also, could you be a little clearer what you mean by that flow chart? It seems to be some hierarchy, perhaps you're referring to category hierarchy?

Third, what you're proposing seems to just boil down to renaming Multiplayer online battle arena as Action real time strategy. If not, could you be clearer about what the differences might be?

What I said about Google being a useless metric in this case was completely serious, for the reasons I stated: different equally valid methodologies for collecting statistics from it result in diametrically opposed results. I accept your results, but I also accept mine. They conflict, so I throw that out the window. Anyway, as far as DotA clones are concerned, Defense of the Ancients#Reception and legacy covers that fine. Action real time strategy (as I would suggest the article be called) would cover more than just clones (see [22]).

In general: I see the discussion below mostly concerns whether this topic merits an article at all... It seems to me that there is a lot of support in news sources for the existence of some new genre here, at least. I have come across several sources that do analyze the genre, so I don't think that should be an issue. Obviously the sourcing doesn't support as long or thorough an article as a more established genre, like Real time strategy, but I think it merits at least a stub. It seems that the people who have discussed here directly are now mostly in agreement on the creation of the Action real time strategy article (if I'm understanding each user correctly, it has been supported by DarthBotto, MagZine, myself, Dotaveteran mostly, other than hanging onto this article, and Roman3 seemed to not oppose it, but preferred MOBA at the time). ~rezecib ^(talk) 01:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting for awhile, I've had no time either. Gamasutra's quasi-interview is the first reliable source I have seen on this entire subject which actually adresses what these articles are supposed to be about. The almost total lack of appropriate sourcing is what has stalled the Multiplayer online battle arena article from the start and the situation is no different here. As far as naming/redirecting to a new article etc. is concerned, it would be helpful if contributors here could highlight exactly which sources are going to be used, because up till now there's been a lot of unreliable sources splashed about and sources being used which don't actually back-up the text they're cited to. If the appropriate sourcing is out there then that's great, but this conversation needs to get over to sourcing and away from personal opinions about what is what. If the sourcing does not adequately support a genre article then the Defence of the Ancients article can always be updated, though as a featured article it's going to need high quality sourcing. Someoneanother 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So what that Valve said "action-rts"? LoL people are saying it`s MOBA, so now its 1:1. I think Valve doesn`t get a free pass for naming a genre just because its Valve and Icefrog is with them(who didn`t even create Dota in the first place). I`d say delete both articles, information in both of them is rather trivial and it seams that you`re spending more time arguing about what to do with these articles than polishing them. My "final recommendation" would be to delete them both and focus your attention on other "dota" games, their articles aren`t perfect and could use some additional editing but feel free to argue more about this. --BlisterD (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can delete Multiplayer Online Battle Arena since these games mentioned in the article are classified under the Dota genre by the majority.

Let's take a look at the game companies involved in the Dota genre and the terms they use.

User of the term, "MOBA genre":

Riot Games (MOBA is the term being pushed by the developers of League of Legends to classify their game.)

Users of the term, "Dota genre"

Blizzard Entertainment (Chris Sigaty - Lead developer of Starcraft II)

S2 Games (Nigma - Heroes of Newerth Community Manager)

So it's actually 2-1, in favor of the Dota genre.

--Dotaveteran (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless appropriate sources are provided that verify the subject of this article then it needs to be redirected or deleted, it's no better than the MOBA article in that respect. The number labels being put forward is a symptom of the problem, recentism, and the urge to document something which apparently has not reached critical mass within the gaming media, which is not what WP is about. Can you please provide the sources which you believe support an article on this? Someoneanother 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources you are looking for can be found in the article. Feel free to analyze them rigorously. If you think a certain reference is without a doubt, unreliable - please include them on the list under the Several issues with sourcing in this article section.--Dotaveteran (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting something important in this discussion and that is that Action RTS already exists. It's a sub-genre of RTS where the games are characterized by having more focus on battle rather than on resource gathering and base building. Dawn of War and World in Conflict for example. HoN would certainly fit in to that description but an article on action-rts must include that there many games except the dota based in that genre.

You also fail to see that the evil Valve corp have the same advantages with the games being called genre:dota genre(which sounds horrible) as the small studio Riot Games have with MOBA.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further input from WikiProject Video games

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Dota (genre) about whether Dota should be considered a genre, and what name should be used to refer to it. I feel some additional input from the project may be useful. Reach Out to the Truth 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UGH. Between original research, unreliable sources and synthesis the whole lot wants to go in the bin until the game industry can decide what the hell it is, genre or no, and what it's called. The sourcing vaccuum is what causes the problems in the first place. Someoneanother 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is some bias between DotA and MOBA to the point of POV-pushing, from a quick glance at the talk page. There are a couple of sources [23] and [24], but it still looks ambiguous as to whether or not that would be called its own separate genre. The big thing is that it is not our job to determine what is and what is not a genre, the same argument we had with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (5th nomination). –MuZemike 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, excuse my grouchy post above. Yes, this comes down to sourcing like the console generation article. The problem with this DOTA-like/MOBA is that there is at the very least a loose grouping, with Defense of the Ancients being an inspiration for other games. The problem is that there is that the press at large has not nailed this down to give a solid base for an article, so editors are splicing together tidbits and trying to bridge that gap with enthusiasm.. it doesn't work. Someoneanother 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely say that it should NOT be a genre. If anything, it all points back to Tower defense, which was around long before DotA was. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Glancing over the article, it appears that this "genre" is discussed only in passing by the actual sources. Genre articles exist because the genres they cover have been analysed, in heavy detail, by a large number of reliable publications. If such sources do not exist, the genre should not have an article; creating one without the proper material is pure original synthesis. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. As for what genre DotA and its clones actually fall under, it's more of a hybrid of RPG and RTS elements, not Tower Defense as was mentioned earlier. Still does not make it unique in the world of gaming. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see Chronology of Dota-based video games. –MuZemike 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I didn't realize DotA game stuff had proliferated so. I would say merge anything at DotA, then AfD the genre page and the chronology. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this. Someday, there may be enough coverage to warrant a separate genre article. Right now, though, it just isn't there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of DotA. Haven't looked at the sources used in the article yet. Going by the article's description alone, I'm also having trouble distinguishing this gametype from tower defense. If its status as a genre is problematic, the article could be renamed to Dota (gametype). SharkD  Talk  10:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no clear definition of what it is, genre or subset or whatever, which is the problem. That may very well change, but between this and Multiplayer online battle arena contributors have had months to come up with the goods and it hasn't happened. This should be redirected to DOTA and MOBA should be redirected to League of Legends, at least until a definite genre or whatever is recognized properly by the relevant press. The merge discussion has fallen quiet so I think it's time to put this one to bed, if we can form a consensus, and move on to the next thing. Someoneanother 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On DotA vs Tower Defense: Tower defense is defined by the placement, maintenance, and upgrading of towers along a path that enemy units walk along. Often, towers are not ever attacked. In DotA-like games, the towers are just there to force the players to gain some power before attacking the other team's base; in fact, the presence of two teams makes it unlike any tower-defense game I've played, at least.

I would like to work on a thorough evaluation of the sources for the two articles, and see what that comes up with (right now, I'm guessing that it'll only be good enough for a small section in Defense of the Ancients). I've been very busy the last week or so, hence my lack of activity in the discussion. ~rezecib ^(talk) 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's do this FAQ style to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games editors up to date. Straight up facts. No BS.

• Is Dota a genre?

Yes. Heroes of Newerth, Demigod, Starcraft 2's Blizzard DOTA, etc. are all classified under the Dota genre. They are commonly referred to as Dota based games, Dota games or simply DOTAs.

• Do the people involved in those games refer to Dota as a genre?

Both the community and the developers refer to Dota as a genre / classification of games/maps/mods. After Matt Gotcher's presentation of Blizzard DOTA at Blizzcon 2010, Chris Sigaty - Lead Producer of Starcraft 2 stated that: Blizzard DOTA is a take on the DOTA genre if you will. It gives you the opportunity to see some of the heroes we've made, we've made some heroes that are cross genre. Not just SC2 heroes, we've got some Diablo characters in the works, we've some Warcraft characters and Starcraft characters and they're fighting together. Read the whole interview here.

Nigma (S2 Games' Heroes of Newerth Community Manager) detailing on how he got into the Dota genre: I got into the DotA genre by playing DotA :) I started out as a Starcraft 1 UMS junkie. I'm a huge Blizzard fan. Of course, years later, I got Warcraft III and my love for UMS was born again. Aeon of Strife and DotA were among the first WC3 UMS games I played and I played DotA for years and years before I heard about HoN.

• What differentiates Defense of the Ancients from the Dota (genre)?

The same thing that differentiates Flash Element Tower Defense and Desktop Tower Defense from Tower Defense, Rogue (computer game) from Roguelike, you get the idea...

• All these Dota games belong to the Tower Defense genre right?

Try asking that here, here and here - you'll get the same answer. NO. Compare Dota (genre)#Gameplay and Tower Defense#Gameplay.

Bonus round:

• Is the increasing popularity of Dota games a worldwide phenomenon?

Would you be interested in a Chinese Dota like these gamers? --Dotaveteran (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You cite forums in differentiating it from Tower Defense. Forums are never reliable sources. Nor is YouTube (unless the channel belongs to a reliable source) nor blogs. mmorpg.com has not been deemed reliable, and though it has an about us page that looks promising, the community would need consensus on its reliability. I'm not going to take a side anymore as to whether it is or it isn't a genre as some arguments could be made, but I would recommend reading up on what makes a reliable source to better formulate your argument as reliable, significant coverage is what it will take to pass Wikipedia's guidelines. (also, I did a copy edit on your post, it was difficult to follow so spread out) --Teancum (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You aren't providing sources which are reliable and non-trivial Dotaveteran. Any topic on Wikipedia needs to be the subject of non-trivial coverage, and it so happens that your interest is a lot harder to cite than many topics because it is an idea, a grouping, rather than something more tangible like an individual video game. Developers name-dropping during press conferences etc. are not going to be enough, it has to be covered properly, otherwise Defence of the Ancients should contain the details of the games it has influenced. Someoneanother 09:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sample sources used in the article. Please refer to WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources to double check their reliability.

Mike Sharkey of Gamespy: DotA was so popular, it spawned its own genre. In fact, popular RTS League of Legends is often referred to as a DotA game. Verify that statement here.

From Kieron Gillen: Okay – the main reason I posted this, bar it being a PC game we haven’t mentioned yet, was that I wanted to take a quick straw poll. While DOTA is an enormous sub-genre, in terms of the response from the RPS readers… well, you don’t seem fans. Read the source here. --Dotaveteran (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• They are reliable, which is great, though in truth a source being reliable just means that it could theoretically be used as a source to cite something, not that it will be of any practical use. In both cases they state there is a genre/sub-genre but neither give any actual details of what that genre is - in order for there to be a separate article on the genre it needs to be the subject of multiple non-trivial and reliable sources. If you were going to write about Vanquish, for instance, you'd need sources like this, not just a news snippet that said "Robots and guns abound, Vanquish is released today, in other news..." That's all that those sources are doing. That base of coverage is needed, which is what I'm trying to say, and currently only that Gamasutra article is of any use, and even then it's part-interview which somewhat dampens the neutrality of it. There is no shame in incorporating relevant details into the Defence of the Ancients article until the sourcing improves enough to support an article of its own, assuming that it ever does. That's if sources aren't up to scratch, it would be helpful if you could show sources closer to that Gamasutra one rather than just passing mentions which are of scant use. Someoneanother 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing regarding this Real-time strategy sub-genre isn't actually the problem here. The question is... Was the recent version of the Dota genre article even read? For the editors interested in the discussion but are not too familiar with the subject matter at hand, let me present to you Brian Leahy's insights on Dota games.--Dotaveteran (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggested it would be a good idea to highlight which sources would be used to build the article 10 days ago on the talk page, something which nobody has done yet, so don't act like sourcing hasn't been an issue. The Shacknews source is another decent one but the article needs looking over and each one examining. Someoneanother 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's your way of answering "No" to my prior question. Anyways... for your convenience, a sub-section for the base sources shall be provided via the talk page. If you really want to help improve the article, I suggest you start reading the cited articles thoroughly since your prior statement suggests that you have not done this. --Dotaveteran (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's my way of answering that ignoring a valid question for days on end then pretending it wasn't asked is neither polite nor helpful, neither is reverting every single edit I have made to the article. No, I hadn't checked the article for a couple of days, I've been busy editing elsewhere. If you want to discuss sources further then fine, but you do not own the article and nobody should have to run edits past you. Someoneanother 14:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was an inclement remark and I should know better. The question about in-depth source was a good-faith attempt to discuss the major sources and find a way forward. The fact that I hadn't been through each source for a couple of days is irrelevant - I explained above what I would have liked to have discussed and why, in a vain attempt to be productive. Instead of providing them in good faith you made a snide remark about me not reading the article. You've since reverted every single change I made to the article, regardless of whether or not they involve sources or not, and have followed it up with "If you really want to help improve the article..". There were improvements totally unrelated to sources, though there's no point in making them if you're just going to revert them. You seem to want to own that article, and I am not spending my free time trying to collaborate with someone treating WP as a battlefield, you're not playing DotA now Dotaveteran. Someoneanother 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back majority of your edits since you were moving whole sections and removing numerous references that were still being discussed about in the Several issues with sourcing in this article section of the Talk page. Please do not take it personally. As for me asking if you were reading the most recent version of the article... it was a legitimate question. It was not meant to be misinterpreted. --Dotaveteran (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You rolled back all the edits I made, not most. The sources were not actively being discussed, that sub-section was opened on the 5th and no comments were made after that date, almost 2 weeks ago now. The only 2 sources which other editors suggested were reliable were not removed by me, for that reason. You were free to disagree and discuss them on the talk page, something which you had elected not to do before then, and reverting back so they were all included would also not a problem, Bold Revert Discuss. That would not be ideal though since potentially unreliable sources should be left out rather than in while they're being discussed. Instead you binned the lot and intimate here that my editing was unhelpful. There was no misinterpretation, you wanted to 'win' and have done so. Someoneanother 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a competition. If you cared to actually double check the article before posting that statement above, you may have noticed that the lead looked familiar for it was your contribution. Let's stop with all these frivolous technicalities and just continue editing. --Dotaveteran (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The contributions history of the page shows you mass-reverting at 11.06 yesterday and not restoring anything until 21.48, which is just over a quarter of an hour after my post above stating that WP is not a battlefield and hours after the struck post at 14.46 which again points out that you removed every edit. Rather than hold your hand up and admit that you made a mistake you'd sooner try and cover that up and make out that I am the author of "frivolous technicalities". You haven't even tried to make out that you were aware that you'd wiped unobjectionable edits and had intended to restore some edits later. Instead you try to make out that it didn't happen at all and again suggest that I've done something wrong by not checking something I should have, and again it's not relevant.

That is exactly the kind of battlefield mentality I was referring to, I am not 'an enemy' of you or your area of interest, though any interest I had in learning more about it and editing the article to improve it for readers has gone out the window. I won't, however, stay silent while you make out that you did not stop my contributions dead on that article when that's exactly what you did. Justifying that with a 13-day stale thread you hadn't participated in and calling it active isn't exactly good form either. I'm quite happy editing elsewhere and would gladly refrain from participating in this conversation or editing the article further, and I'm not stopping you from editing. I'm just not going to stay silent while you make out that up is down in order to avoid admitting a mistake, that's a nasty habit which will negatively impact on anybody trying to work with you. Someoneanother 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A perfect example of blowing things out of proportion. I do not see you as 'an enemy' or anything of that sort. If you only read the article, article history and talk page beforehand, I don't think you would have wasted your time ranting. Plain and simple. --Dotaveteran (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A complete reversion doesn't happen 10 hours after it did. A talk page thread becomes active 13 days after the last post. Pointing out these facts becomes ranting. The timestamps don't lie Dotaveteran, it's a shame you feel compelled to. Someoneanother 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. SharkD  Talk  10:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There's only one way to stop him. Someoneanother 13:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

---END OF TRANSCRIPT---

Several issues with sourcing in this article

Arguements taken from WP:Reliable sources, WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources and WP:Notability

Unreliable

• ActionTrip has been deemed unreliable by consensus twice
• Neutral Creeps has no about us page and appears to be a fansite, thus making it unreliable
• GameRiot is a blog, and according to their about us page anyone can post anything, making it entirely unreliable.
• 4playerpodcast is also a blog, run by gaming fans and not professionals. It also is bereft of an about us page to gain any sort of reliability. There's a FAQ, but it only serves to prove it as an unreliable source.
• PlayDotA is a fansite.
• dedoimedo is a fansite.
• Kalamazoo Gazette seems to allow for user submissions, so the author of this article would need to be proved a reliable source
• The 1UP League of Legends article is written by a community member, and not a member of staff. Reliability would have to be proven.

Also, none of the remaining sources specifically state DotA is a genre, rather they state it as a game that others take influence from, similar to Team Fortress, which is not considered a genre. As past discussions of similar topics have stated, it's not up to us to define what is a genre and what isn't. If it has received significant coverage as a genre on the whole that's more than fine, but all of these sources point to the game, and not the genre. --Teancum (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the 1UP source. Daniel Perez is not currently on the staff, but he was when the interview was posted. The genre statement came from the developer being interviewed though, so make of that what you will. Reach Out to the Truth 17:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PlayDota.com is the official DotA website, so I wouldn't categorize it as a fan site. However, you should note what is written on the official Dota 2 website, they classify it as an "Action RTS". DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:53, 05 November 2010 (UTC)

• This ActionTrip article is referenced at Defense of the Ancients - a featured Wikipedia article.

• Irrelevant - if you would like that source removed from the article, fine. The deeming of it being unreliable came after DotA became a featured article, and so trumps it.

• Actually, I used the Defense of the Ancients article as a barometer on some of the references (whether to include and omit). If it is removed at the Dota article, we could also do the same here. In the meantime, I have temporarily removed it from the article and moved it to the talk page pending action.--Dotaveteran (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Creeps actually has one. Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

• Found the About Us page - it only further verified this as unreliable

• GameRiot is also used at the Defense of the Ancients article.

• I see Riot Games being used, but not GameRiot

• Yes, 4playerpodcast does not seem to be a reliable source. Brad Simons' reliability should be established. (Added to the TO DO LIST)
• PlayDotA is the Official Website of Dota - the Warcraft 3 map.

• I could see this as usable in light of other reliable sources being used - but it falls under self-published, so it would make a difference what it's citing

• According to the Dedoimedo page - Dedoimedo is a site dedicated to computer education on a broad range of subjects, including mostly computer software and security, but also games, highly useful and unique websites, 3D modeling, and more. Igor Ljubuncic's reliability should be established. About page (Added to the TO DO LIST)

Update: Igor Ljubuncic writes for OSNews.

• The Kalamazoo Gazette article was written by Mark Wedel. Here's what I found regarding the author via linkedin: CEO at Freelance (Self-employed), Correspondent at Kalamazoo Gazette, Volunteer at 89.1FM WIDR.
• As for the The 1UP League of Legends article - refer to Reach Out to the Truth's answer stated above.

Sources that have been deemed reliable actually state Dota as a genre / sub-genre. --Dotaveteran (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've posted response to some that I still have issue with. --Teancum (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs, Teancum. I have removed the articles that have been deemed unreliable by consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources Noticeboard). --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq|Action RTS}} Seems what is being proposed is a merge rather than a simple move, so closing the move request to get it off the backlog.--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dota (genre) → Action RTS — It seems as though we have reached a general consensus that a first-party developer like Valve Corporation and their originating lead developer, IceFrog, have classified this genre as an "Action RTS". It is our duty to merge the contents of this page with Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. DarthBotto (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to move the current revision of Dota (genre) nor merge it with Multiplayer Online Battle Arena as this article already provides the needed information needed for Dota type games. I would also like to add that 2 first-party developers in the Dota genre - Blizzard Entertainment and S2 Games refer to Dota as a genre. We could however start compiling sources to create an article for Action RTS. --Dotaveteran (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. Why would we need two, or in this case, three articles saying the same thing, simply in different words? We need to condense the message into one article that can be attributed to the words of DotA's developer. Simply putting Dota (genre) down for the genre in all these articles will not do at all and it frankly does not sound like a decent or even legitimate genre title. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The term Action RTS has long been used for other real-time strategy games that don't belong to the Dota genre. Here are some Action RTS games that can help jumpstart the Action RTS article:

• Trapped Dead
• Lords of Everquest
• War Front: Turning Point
• Kingdon Under Fire II
• Dawn of War 2
• Anomaly: Warzone Earth
• Men of War
• Project Aftermath
• Darwinia
• Under Siege

Heroes of Newerth, Dota 2 and League of Legends are categorized under both action rts and dota. As for the (genre infobox) for the 3 games mentioned beforehand, we can stick with Action RTS. There is no need to change it. I have also added to the discussion on Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena#Requested move 2 --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this page says almost the exact same thing as multiplayer online battle arena, simply in different words. If we're going to remove and transfer one, then we may as well remove and transfer the other. I don't think attachment to this article is that important, considering the same message repeated over other articles up for deletion. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:47, 01 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason why multiplayer online battle arena is saying the same thing in most parts is because Immunmotbluescreen simply copied the content from this article and pasted it there (see article history). In that case, we can nominate multiplayer online battle arena under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. --Dotaveteran (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the diff, all Immunmotbluescreen did was change the order of the sections, reword a sentence, and change a few See Also entries. These articles overlap significantly enough to both be subject to the consensus of this discussion; be it deletion, merging to Action real time strategy, or becoming a small section in Defense of the Ancients. As far as whether to merge to ARTS or not, it seems that, excepting Dotaveteran, there is consensus. Afterwards, whether the article should exist at all will probably still need to be evaluated based on the sourcing, which I hope to comb through and possibly improve when I'm less busy, which should be in a week or two. ~rezecib ^(talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Multiplayer online battle arena is just an inferior version of the Dota genre article and would be best nominated under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Dotaveteran (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What Rezecib is saying is that both this article and MOBA need to be merged into Action RTS. We can keep a combination of both articles' contributions, but we cannot have two articles saying the same things in different words, that will not be acceptable. Both you and Immunmotbluescreen are saying the exact same thing, that one article is superior to the other, thus allowing the deletion of the other one. I believe that any edit war or conflict of any kind involved with this debate needs to end now. Nobody here owns the articles, thus let us not get sentimental if we see any of these articles merged into one condensed, superior and improved article that has just as much backing from a first-party developer as MOBA or Dota (genre) has from Riot Games or S2 Games. I have contacted some administrators, so I am hoping for a speedy resolution to this needless debate. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:28, 04 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it would be best to set up a base for an article regarding Action RTS, I have compiled sources needed for an article regarding Action RTS. Feel free to use them at any time. It is also highly recommended that an article entitled Action RTS should be established first before we proceed with any rash actions. I would highly suggest an outline of the composition of Action RTS before going any further. And I agree with you, no single editor owns a single Wikipedia article but editors have a duty to give the end-user the most relevant information needed for the subject concerned. Deletion of multiplayer online battle arena is just one suggested course of action. Other suggestions include: Redirection to Dota genre or Action RTS(once it is established). --Dotaveteran (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No mention of MOBA (Resolved)

I've always thought that MOBA was the most widely used name for the genre, though I see now that it's apparently disputed BUT I was surprised to read this article and not see a single mention of "MOBA" or "Massive online Multiplayer Arena". I wanted to edit the article and add in the name under alternative terminology, but I've only skimmed the discussions here though I feel MOBA should at least be mentioned.Cyanr (talk)

Nobody really uses the term "MOBA" besides Riot Games (who supposedly coined the term). A few people have picked up on it, but no big names as far as I'm aware. (Maybe I'm wrong, though.) — ^FatalError 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen plenty use the term MOBA, in fact I see it used frequently on the HoN boards as well. You are most definately wrong, and while I'm not sure what sources are reliable, go read the HoN forum and LoL forums for about a week and you'll see it being mentioned plenty. So basically, it's not just Riot Games who uses it, but their playerbase and a part of the HoN playerbase as well Cyanr (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen the MOBA name used plenty, actually Petroglyph's new game is defined as a MOBA. So no it is not only the Riot Games employees, and using another's game to define a genre doesn't seem any more encyclopedic. It's like you use Dune (genre) to define RTS. Charliefr99 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Riot Games coined term, "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" has been included in the Alternative Terminologies section. --Dotaveteran (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Riot Games may have coined the term, but MOBAs, as an over-all genre, do not need to follow the same structure that has become signature to the (more specific) DOTA-style game - specifically, the use of creeps and towers. My only concern is that DOTA is defined so specifically here, to the point where other multiplayer online battle arena games get hedged out, simply because they don't conform to the exact DOTA specifications. Keaven (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC) keaven

This article needs a ton of work

I have seen this article inserted into plenty of inappropriate situations of usage in plenty of other articles in the context of "Dota genre game", yet I this article still looks bad. There is hardly any information here, aside of an elementary-level sentence-long sub-section structure that is not encyclopedia-worthy. This article has been in existence for several months and advertised gratuitously in the actual HoN and PlayDotA forums, yet it has little to offer. Something has to be done.

I either want to see this article expanded upon with proper and fulfilling emphasis on key points that would indicate it being encyclopedia-worthy, or else I am going to bring this up for deletion. I personally like DotA, which is why the quality of this article being sub-par is infuriating.

On a side note, I think "Action RTS" is more appropriate, because mentioning "Dota genre" is every article does not sound like a normal video game article and is frankly, a pathetic excuse for clarifying what it is. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (March 04, 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The decision was: No Consensus. MacMed^talk_stalk 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Dota (genre) → Action real-time strategy — Action real-time strategy seems to be the most-commonly identified method of identifying this particular genre, as well as being more appropriate to identify with in articles. If you look at where Dota (genre) is linked to, it refers to titles being "within the Dota genre". If this is a real video game genre, then it is necessary to identify it in a similar manner as RTS titles, (which are not identified as being part of the Warhammer/Warcraft, etc. genre). If we apply this proper name that even IceFrog is in favor of, as displayed on his blog, then it will be easier to insert in appropriate articles. Also, we will need to ensure that this is a subsection of the RTS genre, with a lot of linkage to the RPG genre, as well. DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:11, 04 March 2011 (UTC)

A move is not necessary. Please refer to the prior discussion and recommendations found on Talk:Dota_(genre)#Requested_move. --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I already did and you were still the only one who wasn't in favor of a change. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the verdict: Action real-time strategy has long been used for other real-time strategy games that don't belong to the Dota genre. A Wikipedia article for Action real-time strategy currently does not exist but you may add a request for it. If you wish to start an article for Action real-time strategy, a list of reliable sources have been compiled below for your convenience:

• Trapped Dead
• Lords of Everquest
• War Front: Turning Point
• Kingdon Under Fire II
• Dawn of War 2
• Anomaly: Warzone Earth
• Men of War
• Project Aftermath
• Darwinia
• Under Siege

--Dotaveteran (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only valid decision in this case is to delete the article. Yes, "Dota (genre)" is a pathetic excuse for trying to explain what the genre is, and breaks all conventions where genres gain a proper name after more than a few games in it have been released (this genre has at least four so far (Defense of the Ancients, Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, Demigod), as well as many custom maps in Warcraft 3 and other games (Storm of the Imperial Sanctum, SmashCraft, Warlocks), and still more games that may or may not be included depending on how you define it (e.g. Bloodline Champions, Monday Night Combat). I believe the breadth of games in the genre justifies a name other than simply the name of the seminal game. However, there is no consensus on Wikipedia or among players of this genre as to what to call it. Sure, "Action-RTS" is used, but it has issues already highlighted by Dotaveteran (often used to describe traditional RTS games or action games within RTS games), and it doesn't really reflect the genre, either, because RTS really has very little to do with it, apart from the mostly vestigial mouse control scheme. Sure, "MOBA" is used, but it's no more prevalent than any other term.

In summation, no term is "on top" of the genre, and there is no clear consensus on what even comprises the genre. Personally, I would include Bloodline Champions and Monday Night Combat, etc, but others would not. The current incarnation of this article is really just about DotA clones (that is, games that more or less exactly copy the gameplay and mechanics of DotA). Clones are usually covered in the article that covers their progenitor (in this case, Defense of the Ancients), so I think this should really just be deleted and turned into a one-paragraph blurb in Defense of the Ancients. Maybe someday there will be more consensus on the genre, or maybe not. It's not the place of Wikipedians to dictate the terminology, as is occurring here. ~rezecib ^(talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there really isn't a genre to identify at this time. In any case, there's hardly enough information on this page to keep it on Wikipedia. However, I do want to see something of this sort, but I'm not really sure what it is, which is the problem. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's enough for a section under Defense of the Ancients, could be titled simply "Genre", maybe with subsections about (a) games that have been said to be in the genre and a discussion of what makes their gameplay similar (special note of clones), (b) the discussion over what might constitute the genre, and (c) discussion over what the genre might be called. Because a full article entails forcing a name on the genre, I don't think we can do that, but I think that section might be doable if there's a healthy dose of objectivity in there. Spring break is coming up for me, so I'll see if I can make time to write a draft. Feel free to help by adding sources or starting it on User:Rezecib/Defense of the Ancients genre or a page of your own. ~rezecib ^(talk) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea. Once it is in place, we can redirect this page to that section. --Dotaveteran (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a complete genre its just lousy to place all text into a game just because we can't define the genre, check with google which name has the most hits and that's the one we must use because it's not a company the one that's naming it, but the people. Charliefr99 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request Title Change to 'AoS (genre)'

The Warcraft III, Starcraft, and Starcraft II communities, as well as the developer of 'Defense of the Ancients' recognize the genre as being that of an AoS-style map, not as a DotA-genre.

I request that the title of the page be changed to AoS (or AoS-style / AoS (genre)), so that it can properly reflect the most common title for the genre (the one used years before DotA was released). Thelifelessone (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this tittle change, is more accurate. Charliefr99 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the change of the name. Either AoS-style or MOBA. While Riot Games did coin the term MOBA, it has been used by both the HoN community and the developers of Rise of Immortals. I see no reason to call this article "DotA (genre)" when Defense of the Ancients did not invent the genre. 98.114.36.210 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"AoS-style" has many of the same issues as "Dota genre" (naming it after a game, not describing the genre), and also refers to something that's far more obscure—although AoS may have been the origin of the genre, there are a few reasons why that does not make it any more suitable than "Dota genre"-- (1) the gameplay was substantially different, so it's arguable that it's even the origin, (2) so far it's not even notable enough for a mention on Wikipedia, and (3) there are precedents with naming genres after the game that popularized them (as opposed to the game of origin) (see Real-time strategy, which used to be named after Dune II). Granted, I'm not happy with this article being in its current state, either; I'd like it to have an article, but there really isn't enough media consensus or even discussion to warrant an article at all, let alone single out any particular name for it. ~rezecib ^(talk) 15:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The advantage AoS has over DotA is that it, although named after a specific game, is a lot more descriptive of what the actual game looks like. Unlike DotA and MOBS which literally say nothing or terms like "Action RTS" which are both inadequate and inaccurate. 85.24.223.146 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"AoS" = "Aeon of Strife". That does not describe what the game looks like at all. "Defense of the Ancients" is more descriptive, in fact, as it actually indicates that you have something to defend. ~rezecib ^(talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I almost always hear the genre referred to as "DotA-like", similar to the genre roguelike. Just as DotA was not the first DotA-like, Rogue was not the first game that could be called a roguelike. If the title is to reflect what the genre's most common name, "Dota-like" wins in Google hits by an incredible amount to everything else mentioned here, other than MOBA, which is skewed by hits for the Museum of Bad Art among other things. (The hyphen is actually ignored by Google, even with quotes.)

• "AoS style": 11,700 results
• "AoS genre": 4,260 results
• "DotA style": 122,000 results
• "DotA genre": 24,400 results
• "DotA-like": 553,000 results

To throw in a few of my own opinions, "DotA genre" and anything-style sound awful, and beyond any of this, why isn't the 'A' capitalized in the page title? --98.163.251.165 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If we are going by Google results, shouldn't we use "MOBA" or "MOBA game"? "MOBA" and "MOBA" "game" both give much larger results than "DotA-like" (1 million to 500k), and that is even including removing terms that MOBA might be confused for. Additionally, "MOBA" actually describes what the game is -- a multiplayer online battle arena. If not "AoS" / "Aeon of Strife," then the best, most accurate name, would be "MOBA" as that is used by multiple companies even if Riot Games invented the term for League of Legends. 98.114.36.210 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Using a term coined by the developer of a DotA clone is kind of an insult. DotA clones are what they are, just like there's a "genre" of games called Diablo clones. Tommkin (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

The definition given in the opening paragraph alone is closer akin to describing what DOTA is rather than the genre. It overlooks the fact that other games within the genre have more objectives than simply destroying 'the enemy building'. The opening definitions goes into little or no detail about the nature of hero selection and the fact that these heroes are unique from one another. It doesn't explain the nature of 'shopping' to improve the character, or anything which actually defines the genre other than 'waves of minions'. Also, stating that it's a sub-genre is all well and good. But you should state why exactly it's different from the RTS genre, otherwise this article's bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.12 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"RTS and RPG action" is what Valve are calling DotA2 http://store.steampowered.com/app/570 considering they have one of the original "DotA" developers on-board this should have weight. Action-RPG was used by a number of sites (ex. http://www.incgamers.com/) when previewing games like LoL and HoN.

As for "Diablo clones" that's hardly true. Diablo is an Action role-playing game (Action-RPG) and so is all the Clones such as torch-light. http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTorchlight&ei=0ghVTuamCoGaOu39mKAG&usg=AFQjCNE7-r0ERFvtx3mpeQAydDEw9LEoeA&sig2=LhQ9RuBxltDS6I_GzN_DMA

Sorry this is a mess of a reply I would be grateful for anyone to clean up my response so I can see what I should do in future. I'm new to the Wiki but thought this evidence seems to be overlooked by this massive talk thus far. I also challenge whoever said the games aren't "RPG" enough. You're assuming the role of a champion/hero/character. The characters level up and earn gold/items. Even though this isn't persistent I see no reason why the length the game is has anything to do with the use of it as a sub-genre. It's the reason it's a sub-genre and not RPG as it has the RPG elements. It's exactly what reporters refer to when talking about FPS-with RPG elements. Action-RPG is close but the RTS is missing. And we all agree that Action-RTS-RPG would be silly and Moba seems a sensible shorthand for Action-RTS-RPG to me. Battle Arena seems to scream Action-RPG to me (in fact when the term Moba first game out the Boss of Incgamers thought I was talking about a diablo-like game but PvP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorjanR (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition improved with consideration of 203.171.197.12 (talk)'s suggestions. --Dotaveteran (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Journalists have suggested the term Arena RPG (ARPG) as the most logical term possible for the genre. The other suggestions all come from corporations, not from the reviewers. ARPG is de right journalistic term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.72.96 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

MOBA-related good-faith edit reversions

Recently, several good-faith changes to the article have been reverted by User:Dotaveteran without giving any reason for doing so, which is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Most of these reverts seem to be more or less directly related to the usage of the term MOBA, which the reverting user seems to dislike. Yes, it has originally been coined by Riot Games for describing/marketing LoL, but it has since been used by a second, independent studio for describing their game (Rise of Immortals, some of the reverted changes even added source links for that), and it is widely used inside the gaming community, both in- and outside the LoL community.

To put the latter into perspective, searching for "moba genre" on Google currently yields 614 »unique« hits (the number displayed on the last search page), while "dota genre" produces only 435 »unique« hits. Looking at the total result count tips the scale the other way, but again both numbers are of the same magnitude. This is obviously not a scientific result and depends on the details of Google's search algorithms, but combined with the fact that MOBA is used by (at least) two studios in marketing their game to the press, I don't see how it would be any less accepted than the other alternatives. Personally, I think »multiplayer online battle arena« is a rather awkward term and would prefer »action RTS«, but Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The changes were reverted due to the removal of a whole section without providing an adequate explanation. The MOBA term with the origin to which company coined it was already in the Alternative Terminologies section you deleted. Since this is a highly competitive genre, we have to be vigilant against any commercial influences on the article and have to stay as neutral as possible. Action RTS, multiplayer online battle arena and Dota based games are all equally accepted terms. There will be no preferential treatment for MOBA. --Dotaveteran (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not »[remove] a whole section without providing an adequate explanation«. If you look at the changelog entry, you'll notice that I clearly mentioned that I »condensed "Gameplay" and "Game Design" into a single section«, and this is exactly what I did. I invite you to look at the revision diff, I didn't remove a single piece of information not present elsewhere in the article.

As for the Terminology section, creating a whole section only to list synonyms for an article lemma without providing any further in-depth explanations is definitely not common WP practice (see MOS:BOLDTITLE). The Dota-origins of the genre are already mentioned in the very first (!) sentence, and to me, listing several variations of "Dota-like", "Dota-based", etc. is unnecessary repetition. The presence of virtually content-less sections has also been criticized by User:DarthBotto in the This article needs a ton of work section above.

I agree that MOBA should receive »no preferential treatment«, but as it is used in a number of press articles (you ironically cited one yourself), at least a sizeable part of the community (HoN players don't particularly seem to like it, but then again, there are about 10 times more active players for LoL than for HoN), and two independent studios have used it to describe their products, I think it deserves to be mentioned among the other synonyms.

I also don't quite see how the per se vendor-independent term MOBA would be any less neutral than Dota-based, which refers to a trademarked name for a single member of the genre, a commercial sequel of which is produced by Valve under the same name.

Again, feel free to discuss any changes, but please refrain from reversions based solely on your own preferences and not backed by any Wikipedia guidelines, since this is considered disruptive editing. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"please refrain from reversions based solely on your own preferences" Don't do so yourself! :^)

As I recall, there was some consensus at WT:VG to have this be the name of the article. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_84#Dota_as_a_genre, and feel free to re-raise the issue at WT:VG as desired. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I just re-reverted a reversion of my change that was made without any explanations, whereas my original change just cleaned up the article, as explained in the change log. I contacted User:Dotaveteran about this on his talk page, inviting him to discuss the changes if (s)he doesn't agree with them. I think generally following WP:1RR is a good idea, which is why I brought the topic up here, instead of re-re-re-reverting the change (the reversion was again done without providing a proper explanation).

Second, the changes by other contributors and me User:Dotaveteran reverted weren't about changing the article lemma (which was covered in the discussion from the gaming project archive you linked), they were merely about the way the term Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) is mentioned on the page. For example, my latest proposal would have, amongst other cleanups, condensed the Alternative Terms section, which was/is really just a list of similar terms, into a list of synonyms in the first paragraph, common practice here on Wikipedia. It didn't take long until User:Dotaveteran reverted the change, presumably because the new version didn't contain the sentence »Riot Games has also been known to use the self-coined term, "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena"« any longer.

Sorry for turning this into a discussion about the behavior of a single user by the way I phrased the above sentence, but in this context it should also be noted that User:Dotaveteran previously reverted other attempts to correct this factually inaccurate sentence (in so far as it suggest that MOBA is only used by Riot Games) without any explanation whatsoever as well. For example, see the reversion of my previous change in which I didn't even touch the part that the term was coined by Riot Games, but added a properly sourced reference to the fact that the term has been adopted at least by another studio developing a Dota-like/MOBA/ARTS/… game. --Clickingban (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no more activity in this discussion, I restored the cleanup change, but this time including »(coined by Riot Games)« where MOBA is mentioned in an attempt to reach a compromise. Personally, I think it looks somewhat clumsy to me, but hopefully this makes the change acceptable to everybody here. Again, please note that although the change removes two sections, no actual content that wasn't redundant has been deleted.--Clickingban (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

An improved version of the introduction has been implemented with the addition of the terms Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) and Action RTS in bold. If anyone is not in favor, feel free to add to the discussion. --Dotaveteran (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not in favor. Besides »[implementing] an improved version of the introduction«, you again reverted my cleanup changes without providing any explanation as to why you would do so. I would be glad if we could reach consensus through discussing matters here instead of edit warring, but unfortunately you refused to participate in this discussion so far, even though I invited you several times to do so.

I am aware that you are the original creator of this article, and that you must have put a considerable amount of time and work into it. Thanks you for this, I personally very much appreciate your efforts, as Dota-like/MOBA/ARTS is a thriving genre, and we should have good coverage of the topic here on Wikipedia. However, this doesn't put you into a position above other contributors, in which you can either choose to graciously accept or to deny foreign modifications to "your" article, which you might be assuming, consciously or not. If you want, I can provide examples for what I mean, but I'd rather keep this discussion focussed on the article.

I am going to apply my cleanup changes again, for the reasons I have already outlined, and will state again below. It would be great if you could take the time to look through them, and if you still don't agree with my changes, at least let me know what you think is wrong with them:

First, the Terminology section is superfluous, because it only contains material already found elsewhere on the page: The origins of the name DotA is already explained in the very first sentence on the page, and the AoS heritage is mentioned in the lead as well. Both are certainly important enough to be mentioned in the lead (they are also in your suggestion), and there is no need to duplicate it. The Alternative terminologies section has been integrated in the first paragraph (as common here, see above). Granted, I removed the long lists of similar takes on the same idea like "DotA style games", "DotA based games", "Dota games", "DotA clones", "DotA-Likes", but I think it should be obvious to all readers that "DotA-likes" and "DotA style games" refer to the same genre.

Second, the Gameplay and Game design sections describe the same topic: the game design elements typical for members of the genre. As described earlier, my changes don't actually remove information from the page, but merely merge the two sections as there is no good reason for duplicating content and two similar sections can be confusing for the readers of the page.

Thanks for reading this! --Clickingban (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me also note that the common practice of mentioning synonyms for the article title in the very first paragraph makes a lot of sense, at least in my opinion: This way, readers not familiar with all of the terms can quickly determine whether the article is what they were looking for: "Oh, so MOBA is just another name for Dota-likes? Sure, makes sense, don't need to read the rest of that page." --Clickingban (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the "Terminology" section since it details other lesser used terminologies that does not merit a mention in the introduction. More details on the origin of the terms will be added on the section so let's keep it for now. On the point of having readers find out if the article is related to the thing you are looking for, that does make a lot of sense. New changes - the synonyms have been moved to the first paragraph. As for merging of Gameplay and Game Design, it has been merged as you have suggested. I hope we have reached a compromise on this matter. --Dotaveteran (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You must have accidentally missed the fact that I actually stripped the duplicate content from Gameplay/Game Design and not just removed one of the two headlines, edited that back in (the Garena-HoN reference unfortunately 404'd, so I removed it). ;) I still don't think the Terminology section is needed in the current state, but if you intend to expand it in the future, that's okay with me. But again, this would've been so much easier if you actually explained your reasoning here, instead of instantly reverting any change to »your« page. Anyway, let's call this case closed, and move on to improving the Wikipedia coverage on the topic. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That I would certainly agree with. Constant improvement is the key. Again, thank you for helping improve the article. It is highly appreciated.--Dotaveteran (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason there are three sections with two sentences, two with three sentences, two with four sentences and a main section for Valve's USPTO Trademark? That could be condensed to two sections easily; there's barely any information in this article. On a side note, you do seem to have assumed ownership and could probably let other people give their input without negating it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory page

" In an interview for Gamasutra, Marc DeForest, CEO of S2 Games has pointed out, "You've gotta give most of the credit to DotA, but until LoL and HoN, DotA was just a mod."

Maps and modifications

Features of Dota existed in early mods like the "Aeon of Strife" map for StarCraft but it was the Warcraft III custom scenario Defense of the Ancients that brought the spotlight to the niche genre. "

That's taken straight off the page, no ...'s in there. On the one hand, there's a section praising DotA for bringing the spotlight to the genre, and in the previous sentence there's a quote from a person stating that LoL and HoN brought "the spotlight to the niche genre", as a wiki editor put it.

I'd agree with Marc DeForest since DotA was simply a Warcraft 3 custom map till I came across LoL and HoN. A lot of people I know aren't cognizant of DotA, but they have heard the name in reference to HoN, occasionally LoL. I won't be getting involved in any discussion/rant/war as to who's right, merely posting my thoughts and moving on.

So, thoughts are, fix the article so it doesn't contradict itself, at least so soon. Put a paragraph in between them if you don't want to fix it or better yet, remove one of them. Chrissd21 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Aeon of Strife" map or mod?

"Aeon of Strife" is referred to three times in this article, twice as a map and once as a mod. I don't know that much about SC mods/maps or if they can be used interchangeably like that, but it confused me. Eagleclaw6 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

BoS/DAL

Battle of Shadows (formerly Darkness and Light) should get a mention, I propose. It is one of the earliest with DotA-esque gameplay, dated back in 2007.

Refer to these or use the search engine, check out videos too:
http://gamelist.mmosite.com/g/battle-of-shadows.shtml
http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Shadows
http://news.mmosite.com/content/2007-08-14/20070814031032394,1.shtml

-- Former DAL SEA player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.143.81 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Change name to MOBA

Looking above, I see a lot of feuding over terminology.

Aside from a user with the screen name "Dotaveteran", the consensus appears to be that MOBA is the better title for this page. DotA should be acknowledged as the origin of the genre, but referring to the genre as "Dota" rather than the descriptive term Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) is just as wrong as it would be to title the "adhesive bandages" article "band-aids".

DotA is the origin of the genre, but it's strange to call the whole genre "Dot(a)". MOBA makes sense because (1) it actually describes the genre (2) it's in-use by the media and several companies making this genre of game.

I'm changing it. I expect I might get reverted by "Dotaveteran". I hope that will incite some discussion. -GenkiNeko (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect; even though most of us don't like the name "Dota genre", we still use the annotation "Action RTS"- even Wikipedia administrators familiar with games of this sort support that. "MOBA" seems to be promoted only for the sake of Riot Games and League of Legends. Even though "Action RTS" could be said to be true for Valve, it still has been the one that has gained the most support. I will say that there wasn't a singular discussion that concluded that "MOBA" would work, so don't be surprised when your edits are reverted. However, I won't be the one to do that, since this page hasn't been of terrible interest to me, (I actually questioned if it had enough content to warrant a separate article). That's my contribution to this discussion. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I appreciate your other edits to this page. The name should be evaluated and solved further, but other than that, I don't believe anything else you contributed should be questioned. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How bout we just call it Action RTS genre instead as it seems it is called that in the media? Then we list that some people refer to it by the brand name of a popular form of it, while others refer to it in as MOBA but that is pushed by a particular but plurality influential segment of the gaming world?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support that, except I'd prefer Action real-time strategy, rather than having the "genre" portion. DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My Dark Lord Botto -- thank you for the compliments. As to the name, I see your point. I don't think sponsorship by a particular company should matter in itself; the problem I have with "Dota genre" isn't that it's promoted by Dota, but that it's (as I argued earlier) like titling a page "band-aid (bandage)" rather than "adhesive bandage". It refers directly to a particular type of the genre, and I'm not persuaded that it's common enough to warrant genericization. (And even when "xerox" is synonymous with photocopying, we don't have a generic "xerox" page on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia tends to be more formal.) However, I see your point in that "action RTS" is even more descriptive than "multiplayer online battle arena". I'd never heard "action RTS" before, but whatever its usage rate it is quite descriptive (if somewhat awkward-sounding ... I mean, what? As opposed to non-action RTS?). I support. --GenkiNeko (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I came here from the third opinion page and just had a thought. What term do reliable sources support? Eomund (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are split between "Dota", "Action RTS" and "MOBA". There really isn't consensus. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I digress, however, when I say that I have the least support for "Dota", because it seems like a lazy title that would be the equivalent of naming FPS games after the "Castle Wolfenstein genre". DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like consensus is leanly toward Action RTS or some variant. Is there anyone who strongly believes that something else should be used? (We can mention the other names in the article and use redirects). Eomund (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Also most of the pages in Chronology of Dota-based video games seem to use this phrase. Eomund (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue of seeing eye-to-eye with this page is resolved. Shall we finally settle this by renaming the page, then? DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone has had a chance to object (and no one has). I would move it, but I don't know how (or even if I can). Eomund (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves covers this. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Okay, let's do Action RTS" "Yeah, let's do that" --> someone changes it to Dota

Look at the section above. I had changed it to MOBA. I was then persuaded by others who argued that "Action RTS" is a better genre title. We all seemed to be in agreement. Then, someone came in and switched it all back to Dota. I don't like name-calling, but here I think the name is relevant: the person's username is "Dotaveteran". I am reverting this page and reporting this person. --GenkiNeko (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)