Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Smite

Smite is also played in a third person perspective. I didn't play MNC but I would think, that it would be very similar to HiRezs Smite --139.18.188.181 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

May be true. Needs a WP:RS at the least. Beyond that, it should probably also have an article to be in the genre level article, which it does not. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does now. Salvidrim! 03:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Action real-time strategy → Multiplayer online battle arena – My rationale is provided above. DarthBotto _talk•cont 02:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Under DarthBotto's reasoning above. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support under the same popularity-based reasoning. I think Action RTS was a good "neutral" option that just described the thing, and helped ameliorate the Dota vs. LoL feuds simmering beneath the surface of the prior debate, but if MOBA is what the industry really uses then go with that. --GenkiNeko (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support MOBA seems to be widely accepted by now, and the term ActionRTS just doesn't fit for games like Super Monday Night Combat, Awesomenauts or SMITE --Roman3 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral (because I cannot make up my mind) - On one hand, MOBA was a "buzzword" term coined by a single company to describe their product, and their product only; using a company's marketing strategy to describe a whole genre of other games seems kind of "fanboyish". ARTS doesn't seem to accurately reflect the subject either -- a lot of "classical" RTS games include plenty of action. I guess "Single character RTS", or "RPRTS" would be a better description. However, Wikipedia is usually unconcerned with accuracy itself, favoring verifiability, thus usually reports whatever the sources dictate... but even then, I am not seeing overwhelming evidence that either MOBA or ARTS is the most commonly used term to describe the genre throughout the media. Salvidrim! 16:03, 30 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Note. The old histories are now located at Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena/old article and Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena/old talk. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This action should be reverted. MOBA is a vague term with no inherant meaning that could easily also include every multiplayer genre. 92.18.9.111 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Moba doesn't fit

"Multiplayer online battle arena" could also just mean Quake. Its a marketing-word intoduced by S2 and shouldn't be used in a neutral encyclopedia. The genre name used by the gamers before the scene was flooded with casual naps was "AoS" (for "Aeon of Strife", the first Starcraft map of that type). + DotA is a map, not a mod- going to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.177.73 (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and people said "Dota genre" didn't fit, people said "Action real-time strategy" didn't fit, people said "Aeon of Strife genre" didn't fit and people said "Multiplayer online battle arena" didn't fit. There isn't a genre title that will appease everybody. It was previously Action RTS, but now it is apparent that MOBA is incorporated to a greater extent and is therefore, the more appropriate title. It's senseless to change it now, simply because a couple of voices are raised. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The frustrating point from my PoV, 91, is that we agree with you. But we can't change it: the gaming industry seems to have adopted the terminology MOBA, for better or for worst, and we are required to reflect that naming per WP:COMMONNAME. --Izno (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Command & Conquer: Sole Survivor?

This game was released in 1997, before Starcraft. It featured units from the RTS Command & Conquer, which could upgrade themselves by picking up crates on the map. One of the game modes required players to work together to destroy the other team's base defenses. Since they then had to capture the flag rather than destroy a central structure, I'm not sure whether it counts within this specific genre, but it definitely qualifies as a single-player RTS, as some of the commentators have described such games. BattleLaf (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not without some WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusing overlap of MOBA and ARTS. Also, what about FPS?

It seems like MOBA could be used for any type of game that fits the enemy base parameters, not just RTS or specifically ARTS. Even the Unreal Tournament series has an Assault mode, which is more or less the same deal but without the upgrades (at least older versions; not sure about newer ones). Also, as mentioned in the article, Awesomenauts is a MOBA, but is a side-scrolling action platformer.

I think more sources would help clear up the terminology.--Kaleb.G (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some references from companies using terms, that aren't Riot or Valve (Which this seems to boil down to.

MOBA:

• SMITE http://www.hirezstudios.com/hirezwp/?cat=17
• HON http://www.s2games.com/core_pool.php
• ROI http://riseofimmortals.com/

ARTS:

Currently I can find no other than Valve 87.194.204.30 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Demigod is called "real-time action/strategy" by its developer. That one falls under action RTS. Unflavoured (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. However, the far greater majority of the public designates this genre as "multiplayer online battle arena". Most of us more frequent editors disagree with this public outlook, but we acknowledge it as today's dominant name. I do hope that it eventually changes to "action real-time strategy", but unfortunately, it simply doesn't seem to look that way at the moment. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is acceptable, if it can be proven that MOBA is more popular in the mainstream than ARTS. I take issue with your revert on the DotA 2 page, since that term has no source for DotA 2. Other games call themselves MOBAs, but DotA 2 calls itself an ARTS. Why did you revert when a verifiable source was provided ?! Unflavoured (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to take offense, since none was intended. Developers can call it whatever they wish, but we have to set a standard for categorization here. MOBA sticks far more than any other term, with action real-time strategy being the second, but as of now, a far second. It doesn't matter if Valve says it is one term, when most others would call it another. Them being a larger company than others does not make them necessarily more reliable on a subject of genre, in encyclopedic terms, at least. DarthBotto _talk•cont 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. Unflavoured (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is incorrect and misleading

Sorry if I contradict your beliefs, admin-bots, but this page is incorrect. It calls RTS games like DotA, HoN, and others MOBA(?). The title is very misleading. I have never heard the term MOBA myself and I have never EVER seen someone reffer to DotA, HoN, or similar games as MOBA. I don't know where this term came from, but it doesn't describe these games at all. If we refer to games such as Quake, Unreal Tournament and Bloodline Champions, then yes, they are MOBAs. DotA like games are obvious Action Real Time Strategy games and should be referred as such. Why?

This genre revolves around commanding a single unit in a team of people. You gain a small army sometimes but the main goal of this game is not macro. This genre focuses on assaulting the enemy base, specifically planing attacks and correctly exploiting weaknesses while also requiring team-play, while also establishing map control. Most games are have multiple phases, such as the lane phase (where players focus on farming and ganking), mid phase (when players have acquired key items for their heroes and start planning team fights) and late game (when most towers are down and players focus on planning a final assault). Whereas Battle Arena focuses mainly on battle and planing/strategy is established by a team before the battle. This genre puts players head to head in a short match. Do you guys even play this games? Or just put these terms because you heard someone calling them so?

The only time I've heard someone calling such games MOBA is when Riot Games refers to their game, League of Legends. Only League of Legends is referred as "MOBA" and it is inaccurate to call other games as such. Please fix the wrong information displayed on this site. I don't care if your opinion is that these games should be called MOBA. They are called ARTS all over the world and they should be called by the proper term. After all, we are on Wikipedia, not on Wikiopinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faestus (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the rest of the talk page. We call it that because the RSs call it that. That's not our fault. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The what in a what now? Everyone I know calls the genre ARTS. It's even a suiting name. I don't care if magazines call it MOBA, MMORTS or whatever. This is Wiki-Enciclopedia not Wiki-Mediafacts or Wiki-Opinions. Please refrain from using common/personal opinions and use real, valid facts. Please refrain from breaking the most important Wikipedia rule "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable site that provides valid information, not a admin commanded site that provides their own opinions. Also why is DotA locked? "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Please don't break the Wikipedia Rules. --Faestus (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.178.196 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand anything about how Wikipedia works. Verifiable data is based on having reliable sources. Players and random editors who drive by at this page are not reliable sources, they are people expressing opinions. The reliable sources, which are critics, developers, maganizes, news papers, etc, etc, etc, have a tendency to use the term MOBA. We don't really like it any more than you do, but because we ARE following Wikipedia rules, we're forced to name the article MOBA in line with the reliable sources, i.e. the verifiable facts. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core policy, and it requires the use of reliable sourcing. The media (magazines, editorial columns and websites, etc.) qualify as reliable sourcing. You, and the people you claim call it ARTS, do not so qualify. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Unless you can find websites calling it ARTS, your opinion, though it may be true, just doesn't work. (I find it really funny that you have so misconstrued Wikipedia's core policies to think that the name of the page should reflect what you think and not otherwise.)

As I have stated, we don't like it anymore than you do.

DotA is locked due to continuing vandalism. --Izno (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating that all your friends call it "action real-time strategy" and that you are not familiar with "multiplayer online battle arena" does not warrant renaming the page. You yourself stated that Wikipedia is not based around opinion, yet all our reliable sources on this page refer to it as "multiplayer online battle arena". Magazines are reliable sources. As you said, please refrain from breaking Wikipedia's rules. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Source on Riot coining MOBA?

Yo, I've seen a lot of claims on this talk page and the article itself about Riot coining MOBA, but I haven't seen any sources. Are they out there? I've looked, but I haven't found any "smoking guns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.56.106 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively... I'm agreeing with you. I just did a basic dig for a source and couldn't find anything.. except for 3 year old forum posts of people arguing that Riot didn't coin it... They may have been the first developer to directly embrace the term but I'm not sure they coined it. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this called moba

never heard of "action real time strategy" before. does it refer to real-time strategy games (e.g. command and conquer, starcraft) with a lot of "action" (e.g. command and conquer, starcraft)?

what team of morons decided against even referring to moba in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.73.84 (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

MOBA could be a term for anything. Quake 3 could be MOBA, aswell as Counterstrike. If I want to explain Dota or League of Legends to someone and I use the term "MOBA" nobody will understand me. However, if I say RTS with only 1 unit, or action RTS (with a bit of explaining) I'm sure more people will get it. --178.113.245.166 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

except that quake and CS already have their own genre names. if no-one understands what you mean when you say moba, it might be because you are talking to non-gamers who won't know what MMORPG, fps or platformer means either. my point was that action real time strategy is a name both made up and used by nobody that plays moba games and doesn't even have the benefit of being descriptive. it sucks.92.231.205.78 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

plus consider a game like Awesomenauts. It's definitely a MOBA game - it has multiple lanes, both sides have minions, and the goal of the game is to push and destroy the enemy towers. But it has no relation to RTS games at all, the game is from a sidescroller perspective. So while most MOBA games are ARTSes at the moment, it doesn't mean that every MOBA game HAS to be from the RTS prespective. Also I've seen a MOBA game that's from a 3rd person prespective. So this should be MOBA, with ARTS being just the most common type of MOBAs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.217.2 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This genre is known as MOBA. Please refer to the many online and print media publications that follow and report on MOBA games and tournaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.79.239 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 June 2012‎ (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't simply declare that without consensus. Arriving at the current article name followed months (years, really) of debate, and it IS based around online and print media publications as well. -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have *never* heard DotA, LoL, or HoN referred to as 'ARTS' games. The universally used term, at the current time at least, is MOBA. As far as the vagueness of the acronym, same goes for lots of recognised gaming acronyms. What part of 'Real Time Strategy' defines that the player must control multiple units from a god perspective? The acceptance makes the name.

It's an Arena RPG. Who came up with RTS? It's an RPG limited to an arena. ARPG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.72.96 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Arena RPG? That's a new one. ARPG is already used by Action RPG though. As for ARTS, it's usage in reliable sources has been around for a while, and in some cases, even predating Valve's usage. It's clear where it came from though, since the genre originated as mods/maps of RTS titles. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of the sources mention "Action RTS"? I've never heard of the genre either. I would have thought that real-time strategy games were action-y already. SharkD  Talk  22:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's easy enough for you to Google yourself. The article uses several of them already. If you need more history on how the article reached it's current name, please check into the Archive. In particular, Talk:Action_real-time_strategy/Archive_1#Requested_move_.282012.29 was the last move request which ended with 7 opposed to moving the article from Action RTS back to it's older name Dota (genre). That section also links to several other relevant sections, and shows the history on how Action RTS was chosen over MOBA. The name of the article has essentially been debated since it's creation (90% of the archived talk is about the name), and no new arguments have been brought forth at this time. I'm certainly not opposed to a move discussion around the name MOBA if there's a compelling argument that will reach consensus. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see mostly bickering, a few Google hit comparisons, but not a lot of actual sources. I like this one, however. Quote: "As the genre grows, Defense of the Ancients-style games, or MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arenas), or ARTS (action real-time strategy), or... wait... what are we calling this genre?" LOL. SharkD  Talk  01:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What you guys have here is ABSOLUTLY incorrect, just because Valve tried to coin a genre does not make it fact. From a player and developer angle this genre is called a "MOBA" as others have stated please change this to reflect accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.226.41 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And Riot coined MOBA, so... -- ferret (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "failed" to coin a genre? Dota2 is an ARTS because that is the genre name its creator (developer) gave it. If this isn't a good enough reason for you, then the term MOBA should also not be used for League of Legends - the game the term was specifically made to describe. It is entirely possible that LoL and Dota (HoN is excluded, S2 will do anything for money. For the almost 2 years that I used to play it, it was never described as a moba by players or S2), although both under the RTS genre, are a part of different subgenres entirely. (for example, LoL uses a system of leveling up your player account for ingame bonuses; a feature unique to that game, and one that has a major impact on the game itself) What is wrong in having two separate wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solideye (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

MOBA input

I'd like to give my input, since I had a strong impact on the naming of this page since it was created. The name that never worked was Dota (genre), for several reasons, namely that it was being called after a single game, rather than gameplay characteristics and that Dota is now a term that legally belongs to Valve, which mucks this entire thing up in many regards. When we renamed this page "Action real-time strategy", it was an appropriate title, as it seemed to have equal prominence to "Multiplayer online battle arena" and neutral editors agreed upon this; it wasn't a "team of morons", like what the above comments have said and the reasoning wasn't "ABSOLUTLY incorrect"- it was just what we figured.

That being said, things have changed since then. There have been numerous studios endorsing the term "MOBA", even multi-billion dollar companies like Warner Bros. and what-not. S2 Games has even endorsed this name, and even though they are not more qualified or in a position of power on naming this genre than Valve, they do add to the strong presence of what this genre is to be named. From what I have seen from the news media and video game developers, the term "Multiplayer online battle arena" has about ten times as much prominence than "Action real-time strategy" by this point. This is not to say this is me taking sides or what not, because warring on Wikipedia is borderline retarded, in my opinion. So, I do not want to see anymore ad hominen comments from anonymous I.P. addresses anymore if this page is changed, kapeesh?

Long story-short, at this point, I would accept this page to be changed to "Multiplayer online battle arena", even if I do not personally prefer said name. DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've also said several times, begin an appropriate move request. Also, it should be "Multiplayer online battle arena", the full name, not the abbreivation "MOBA". -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. DarthBotto _talk•cont 02:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of whether or not MOBA is used more than A-RTS to be honest. May need to do some more researching. What I do know is that MOBA was coined by Riot Games - is that relevant? EryZ (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

By now, it is used more than Action RTS; most new games have adopted the term "MOBA". When the prominence of Action RTS was equal to MOBA, the fact that Riot coined the term did hold some significance, but with its prominence now, it matters little. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of assertions that this or that is the more pre-eminent term, but precious little explicit reference to sources. I'm not familiar with this genre at all, and have no opinion, but anyone care to refer to some actual sources here? Just curious, bridies (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This should be called MOBA because Riot Games made the decision, and their Product, League of Legends, became the most popular on the Market. Wikipedia must submit to corporate marketing, and ignore any logical or reasonable explanations. In fact, even if Riot Games decided to call the genre G.A.M.E. with no explanation, and forced gaming sites to use that name in articles (see Video_game_journalism#Ethics) - you would be forced to rename this page. Genre Names for Video Games have a long tradition of naming conventions: Short, Descriptive, and based on an evolution of terms. There were Shooters before the First-Person. There were Strategy games before Real-Time. When a new Genre is created, as a hybrid or evolution of an existing one - the previous genre is mentioned or used as part of the acronym. Aeon of Strife and DotA evolved from an RTS game. The mechanics already used for the Hero Units in Warcraft 3 became a focus of their own game. The strategy element still exists (destroying bases, timing pushes) - but a greater emphasis was placed on the Action-Game convention of Character-Abilities. See WP: Action_Game#Character_abilities Following the traditional naming convention - Action-RTS fits, and if Valve released Dota2 prior to League of Legends, that would have been the case. Naming the article MOBA is not reasonable or logical, it's an acknowledgement of Riot Game's success at promoting and marketing, and the work of it's many fans among Video Game Journalists. It's a self-feeding circle - they called it MOBA first - LoL had success - journalists use Riot Game's marketing - Wikipedia Editor checks Google for # of matches - Article changes name to MOBA - last remaining islands of sanity comply to the Collective Stupidity - generic non-descriptive acronym becomes Wikipedia "fact" and we're stuck with it forever. Tenet-GWP (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments go to the bottom of the section. I fully expect the page to be renamed every 6 months as there's a constant battle over it's name. Now that it's MOBA, the talk page will be full of editors clamoring for ARTS. Then it'll maybe get changed, and the cycle will begin again. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I don't share your expectation, because the "MOBA" support group has video-game-promotion-sites (can't call most of that Journalism) on it's side. Writers know what happens when they don't follow the party line. History, logic, conventions, English Dictionary, all ignored. It's all about marketing momentum. Tenet-GWP (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the 4X genre? Its name is not an evolution of any previous genre names. SharkD  Talk  02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but you have to admit 4X is significantly better. It got accepted because it was good, not due to a marketing campaign. Do you think if Alan Emrich called that game S.P.S.G (Single-Player-Strategy-Game) it would have stuck? When you explain the 4X term to someone, they instantly have a decent idea of what the game is about. When you explain MOBA, an uninformed individual could still ask "so, like Quake Arena?". Out of all the options presented - it's the worst.Tenet-GWP (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

These are not arena games

The objective of this game is not to kill other player's units, like an arena, but to destroy the other team's base. A team can be far behind in kill/death ratio but still win due to having a better late game or better pushing/base destroying ability. Eventually winning by becoming stronger than the other team by being ahead in K/D ratio (ganking) is just one of several strategies a team can use to win. The "arena" part of MOBA is completely wrong. The other three letters are also wrong. "Multiplayer online" is redundant. (Nearly) every major multiplayer video game these days is online. "Battle arena" is also extremely redundant, wich doesn't need explanation. But again, more importantly, these games are not arenas because the objective is not to kill the other player's units. The objective is to push the balance of a number of lanes into the enemy base with the aim to destroy it.

The term MOBA is a marketing ploy by a company creating one game in the whole genre to distance it from another older game in the genre. If they wish to call their game a MOBA, that doesn't mean the entire genre is called MOBA.

RTS for example doesn't completely describe a game in that genre but it doesn't give false information about the game either, unlike MOBA. RTS games take place in real time and there is strategy involved. This is no false description and there is no redundancy.

Wikipedia is neutral, therefore it shouldn't take sides and not side for one company's marketing ploy. If that name were fitting, that would be acceptable, but it isn't. Though ARTS is a more fitting description than MOBA, it's still suboptimal (this genre is too radically different from RTS) and wikipedia shouldn't side with one company's suboptimal opinion on how this genre should be named.

I think we should find a fitting description for the genre we can agree upon and use that as the title for the article. It doesn't have to say that it's the name of the genre, only that it's a description. "MOBA" and "RTS" can simply be redirected to the article. On that same page for the sake of neutrality it can say that it's a description of the genre and that the naming of the genre is a controversial topic, then name the most popular names; MOBA, ARTS etc.

For example:

[title]

[title] is a description for a genre of video games known as [the various names]. The naming of this genre is a controversial topic. [rest of the article]

I think this is a good solution without any downsides.

Yurnerothejuggernaut (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not how it works unfortunately. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Marketing ploy or not, MOBA is what the reliable sources appear to have settled on, with ARTS sometimes being mixed in since Valve coined it. I'll note that while ARTS on the surface looks like a more generic genre title, it's also technically a marketing ploy, as Valve is the one that really introduced it for Dota 2, and likely simply because they didn't want to use MOBA. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Valve didn't coin the term ARTS. People were using that name before Dota 2 was even announced. Back when HoN/LoL just went into beta people were talking about a name for the genre, and the popular 2 were MOBA and ARTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thysios (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"The objective of this game is not to kill other player's units, like an arena" This definition is innacurate, which as the basis of this argument makes this section redundant. Arena for a definition. 87.194.204.30 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unrelated content

I have removed content regarding games that (while sharing gameplay mechanics) are clearly dissimilar to Dota/HoN/LoL and as such - do not and logically cannot be a part of the same genre. 92.29.187.141 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that they share game mechanics which are very particular to classical AoS and not found in many other game genres is what makes them MOBAs. I'm not sure I agree with their removal. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it, under pretty much the same reasoning as Izno. "These games aren't identical to Dota/HoN/LoL" is not the strict definition in use here. If sources refer to a game as Dota-like, MOBA or ARTS then regardless of our personal opinions, that's what the sources say. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is irrelevant. This article should either rightfully define the genre as according to Dota, HoN and LoL - or be rewritten as Awesomenauts is clearly not an offshoot of Real Time Strategy, nor an "Action RTS". 92.29.187.141 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is everything on Wikipedia. Note also that the article is known as MOBA, not ARTS, which is listed only as an alternate name. You are also misunderstanding the stated definition of an RTS and confusing it with a specific implementation, i.e. WC3/SC style RTS's. -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Sourcing is only valuable in matters that are not easily verifiable - such as scientific papers. In this case, it is clearly evident that Dota and Awesomenauts are completely dissimilar games and should be categorized accordingly, not according to what the developer thinks. I am not confusing the definition with the specific implementation, because the definition IS the implementation, that is the very notion of what a genre is. If we are going to twist these definitions in such a manner, then I suggest we add an entry for Quake 3 Arena, a game that is arguably Multiplayer, Online and involving Battle in an Arena. 92.29.187.141 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Find me a source that calls Quake III a MOBA and I'll gladly add it. Getting hung-up on the particular words used in the genre name isn't going to get you anywhere. "Real time strategy" ultimately means nothing more than a strategy game that is not turn based. It doesn't mean anything more than that at it's core. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming issues into main article

For better understanding you might want to add a line or two into the main article about how the official terms for these kinds of games (multiplayer online battle arena, Laning and Sieging games, Action RTS, Aeon of strife styles fortress assault game) is still disputed in the communities, might help to avoid walls of text on this talk page. thanks 217.224.10.125 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Meh

Everything is bad about this name. Its forged by riot. "Multiplayer Online" are such a filler words its like gobbledygook , one would be enough, also some of these games can be played offline with bots like dota2 and wc3 dota (with AI map) so why people call them as "Multiplayer Online (..)" ??? Arts is so much more meaningful. And about "Battle Arena" this makes you think about small arena where some kind of deathmatch takes place... This whole abbreviation sucks in describing this kind of game. Zazae (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The map image is missing 4 towers.

Hi, my first time here so sorry if this is posted improperly or in the wrong place, but I just wanted to point out that the small map to the side that shows the "generic layout" of MOBA style games is missing 4 towers. In each base, there are a total of 5 towers - you have the 3 towers in top, mid, and bot, and you also have two more which guard the ancient/nexus or whatever the case may be. The image does not show these two towers I'm talking about on either side. It's not a huge issue but just for the sake of being accurate, both bases should have two dots right in front of the largest dot that represents the ancient/nexus to show these two towers. It's a change that would take any person with any image editing experience a few seconds to add in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.82.32 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I always considered DOTA an RPG.

Well lets see you play a character, who levels up, builds items, and your goal is to eliminate the other side. I dunno, I have had a lot of arguments on this so maybe I'm wrong, and there is literally no source that agrees with me on this... --108.83.115.179 (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The RPG elements of DotA are very weak and that generally falls under the "Tactical RPG" genre. That's why is more correct to refer to this genere as "Action RTT" (Real Time Tactics) or at least "Action RTS" (Real Time Strategy) even if there isn't resource management (as required for a strategy game) than the generic and undescribing "MOBA" (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, a term that can fit many games, from World of Warcraft to Super Smash Bros, and also a term invented by the Riot Games marketing department and not by game analysts).--79.45.32.150 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming discourse

I would like to open us up for discussion about pertaining to the naming of the page. Considering how many anonymous I.P. addresses have deliberated one way or another and that there was recently a move attempt en masse, I think we should evaluate what naming conventions we should adopt for this matter. Now, I personally will remain neutral in this discussion, but all interested parties should begin talking, whether we adopt action real-time strategy, Dota (genre), or simply keep multiplayer online battle arena. DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone has specific evidence or reason, I don't see the point. While people have cropped up periodically on the Dota 2 talk page, it's all been people arguing about player preference in terms, not what sources are using. Those editors have been directed to discuss the matter on this page, but do not. The return of Dotaveteren performing a mass move and redirect campaign, with his past history on this subject, really isn't pertinent to reopening the discussion. I'd personally prefer ARTS, but like I said: I have no sources or evidence to back my position. Nothing has changed that I know of, even the angry players aren't new. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to DarthBotto for adding the "Team Brawler" bit back for HotS after it was reverted without good reason by Flyer22. I know there was no source attached, as there is now, so my apologies for that, but there was no good reason given for simply reverting a valid edit. Personally, I really like the Team Brawler term and we'll have to see what the community does with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.85.8.91 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

MOBA acronym

Without wanting to emphasize the more correctness of the definition ARTS (as suggested by Valve) or ARTT (even more correct because of the absence of a true resource management in videogames of this genre), I would like to point out that the "O" in the acronym MOBA means "online", but not all games of this type are always played on the Internet. Often they are played via LAN (as in Dota for Warcraft III) or even offline against computer controlled enemies (as in Dota 2, even after setting Steam in offline mode). So, the definition MOBA for this type of videogames is incorrect. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion makes even more sense now that Valve has released the game mode via local LAN for Dota 2. This is a further proof that Action RTS/RTT aren't played only "online" as the MOBA acronym is implying. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter. ARTS as a simple term is extreme generic and uninformative as well. Per usual: When the reliable sources stop using MOBA, we'll stop using MOBA. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who are the "we" you are talking about, I think you should account only for yourself. Anyway, I would be grateful if you would try describe to me why in your opinion the definition Action RTS (or better, Action RTT) is extreme generic and uninformative. It identifies well the type of the game (tactical or strategic games), it identifies the time ("real" instead of "turn-based") and the simplified gameplay mechanics over common RTS and RTT. Instead the acronym M.O.B.A. don't identify anything except online videogames: it stands for "multiplayer" (many people who plays) "online" (can only be played on Internet) battle (a fight) arena (the place where you fight): if these are the premises, also an FPS like Battlefield 2 could be considered a MOBA! Instead anything but a strategy/tactical game could be considered an Action RTS/RTT, so it's not generic, it identifies clearly a subgenre. And now the important question: what are your "reliable sources"? The developers of League of Legends? I don't think they matter, because that term was invented right by Riot Games marketing department to sound like the "MMO-" acronym (at the time they were advertising a lot the "persistent elements of the game" - like they called the player levels, masteries and runes), and instead more experienced developers like Valve and Blizzard uses the Action RTS definition. Or your reliable souces are generic videogame websites like IGN and Gamespot, that in ten years of the existence of Dota they discovered that videogame only when it was taken by Valve? Obviously they are repeating the "MOBA" acronym all the time because all they know anout these videogames came from the success of League of Legends. They aren't really "reliable sources": a proof of it is that they didn't know a single thing of the history of Dota (and they don't have any clue about Aeon of Strife, the custom Starcraft map that inspired Dota) and everytime they mistake IceFrog or Guinsoo as the inventors of the game instead of Eul. Last but not least, everything that was written in the Wikipedia page of Defense of the Ancients before the success of League of Legends was taken from fan-made websites like Dota-Allstars.com and Playdota.com, the only reliable source about Dota history, because it was a fan-made Warcraft III mod and only the fans cared of that game. Ignorant journalists that writes about videogames only when they are famous and sponsored are only second-hand sources. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer ARTS. But Wikipedia policy supports MOBA, as the sources use it most consistently. That's really all that matters, regardless of anyone's individual preference. Ultimately, your opinions of journalists don't matter either. -- ferret (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy supports also "Action RTS", because it's used by Blizzard and Valve. I don't know what sources are analyzing the acronym "MOBA", but anyway it shouldn't be deleted: the usage of that term linked to League of Legends is an historical fact and should be documented. However this don't mean we shouldn't discuss about the accuracy of this terminology at all: there's many assumptions of the popular culture that are debunked by the critics. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, blizzard refer to the game type as MOBA ( http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/careers/posting.html?id=13000CP ) and I can nowhere find that Riot invented the name MOBA, HoN, SMNC, Awesomenauts, infinite crisis etcetcetcetc all refer to thier games as MOBA, I can only find valve mentioning ARTS these days. Even valve do not mention it on the Dota2 store page anymore.94.174.222.110 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The page you linked isn't reachable, but here (this is the Google Cache copy, because Blizzard retired the job offer recently) Blizzard is searching "talented lead game designer with experience in developing top-quality Action RTS games" in the page about Blizzard All-Stars. Valve never referred as Dota 2 as an ARTS in the store page, that tag never existed in Steam. The name "ARTS" was a citation of a Gabe Newell speak in the page of the beta access. "MOBA" was a term invented for League of Legends and popularized by the media. Before Riot Games no one called "MOBA" their games, even Demigod developers called their work an "action and strategy videogame". --79.51.10.79 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note the google cache actually points to a different job URL, look at it closely. The job has now been deleted but here is a reference to it. http://careerpowerups.com/producer-irvine-california-united-states-54990 Please note the bottom "Fanatical love for real-time strategy games, MOBA-style games, and the burgeoning world of eSports" 00:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.61.187 (talk)

No matter its initial relevance to the genre or origins, the term MOBA has indeed stuck to the type of hero-oriented gameplay DOTA/League utilize. Logitech referred to a certain gaming mouse I bought as being for RTS/MOBA. Dawngate explicitly refers to itself as a MOBA, despite having the explicit RTS element of worker harass. I honestly have no idea why we're even discussing this--ARTS has failed to catch on with the more League-inspired and experimental titles in the genre, or to my knowledge even the more DOTA-inspired titles in the genre besides Dota 2 itself. 129.21.179.122 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of correctness of the terminology and not a matter of usage of it. There's plenty of terms used wrongly by the laymen and deprecated by the experts. Also, I didn't know that Logitech was videogames analysts, I thought they only did computer devices. --79.51.10.79 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "A" in MOBA stands for Arena, which is a misleading and inaccurate term when used to describe the playing area in many of these types of games. 2602:306:CDD3:CCE0:F892:5230:D5E2:73F7 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. "Arena" implies a sandbox or free-for-all type of gameplay, which might be appropriate for one of LoL's game modes, but certainly does not apply to Dota-like games. "Action RTS" (if not RTT) is a much more fitting term considering DotA started as a custom map for an RTS and uses elements of RTS gameplay and GUI. Aozf05 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This statement on the meaning of the word "arena" is true: for example, I remember that on Warcraft III and its expansion there were a lot of so-called "arena" maps (one of the most played was "Diablo Duel", but there were many other). In that custom maps there weren't buildings to destroy, only rounds to win (with the option to set a time limit or a kill limit). Some of that maps could feature creeps to kill to get experience points, but they stayed in their zone, they didn't come in waves. Substantially these "arena" maps were apparently like DotA, but the gameplay was largely different because of the lack of every tactical component: it was just a battle between heroes, where only the scores counted. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't disagree with you, but none of that matters. Go give a read of WP:COMMONNAME. The sources (Specifically, the reliable secondary sources) are using MOBA most frequently, so that's what Wikipedia uses. Check the talk archives. Statistics on the usages of various terms have been ran multiple times over the past debates on this article's name. If the sources begin to lean towards ARTS, then Wikipedia will change to follow. If you've got some clear evidence that this has happened, please post it. I'll gladly support a move discussion if you do. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, that supposedly "reliable" sources you are citing (the videogame journalists, not experts in videogame theory) are instead "fake" sources because they are lazily repeating the definition invented by Riot Games. If Dota 2 was released before League of Legends now that ignorant journalists would be using the name "Action RTS" just because Valve defined this way their videogame, without asking any further question. But videogame analysts shouldn't take as Gospel truth the advertising of the videogame companies like many journalists actually does. Games like Defense of the Ancients or Heroes of Newerth are clearly a sub-genre of the real time tactical games (except Sins of a Dark Age that will include strategical elements for the commander), so why should we have to use a definition just because it is the preferred one by those who know very little about these video games and their history? Writing on big websites or magazines don't gives reliability per se, thinking otherwise would mean giving importance to the ipse dixit, and that should be avoided in any critique in Kantian terms. Those who writes for videogame magazines aren't academic videogames historian or analysts, and most of them have not even received an education in videogame analysis (in contrast to many of the cinematographic critics). Giving reliability to the statements of people uneducated on a specific argument would be like passing as true the Plato's cosmology in the article that talks about the planetary motions! Instead this is properly described as a theory of the past now obsolete, and we should do the same with the definition of "MOBA": specify that it's the term most widely used, although it's also the least correct. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me give another example probably more useful for this dispute. In Italy the snails, when used for escargot (the French dish), are often wrongly called slugs (even by many journalists!), but this serious error (the slugs are not edible) is clearly stated on the article of the italian language edition of Wikipedia. --79.45.32.150 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling all the sources, (that have been used in hundreds of other articles), "ignorant" is not helping this discussion. Simply saying that they know less about video games than certain people doesn't work in this situation. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference between your example and this situation is two-fold: One, there is already an animal called a "slug", therefore referring to an edible snail as a slug is misleading/confusing. In the case of this article, there is no such other game genre known as MOBA, so no such confusion is possible. Two, unlike with the slug/snail distinction that there is no clear consensus on the part of experts over what terminology is appropriate. Video game analysis/criticism is hardly a well established discipline and terminology is still very much open to debate. Even well established terms like MMORPG can be disputed (what exactly does "massively" mean? Should it exclude games that have phasing or multiple servers? At what point does a game go from being multiplayer to "massively" multiplayer? etcetera). There is no one authority we can look to in order to define our terms. In this instance the only responsible thing to do is note that most people call them MOBAs. --87.82.207.195 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Then Dota 2 would be exclude from this MOBA genre, right? Because Gabe, one official of Valve Corporation and his customers accept the term ARTS but not MOBA. That would include Valve's partners, NEXON Co. (Korea) and Perfect World (China), designers (creators of the ingame items) and tournament providers as well as the team who works on the project. And as what I can see here, the number of editors who accept ARTS term is higher. Could we make a vote here? Squall282 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You can request a move any time you like, but "personal preference" isn't sufficient reason, nor is Gabe's preference. I prefer ARTS. But the reliable sources prefer MOBA, including when they talk about Dota 2, and Wikipedia is built on sources. If you open a move discussion, you need to be prepare to offer strong evidence that ARTS is more prevalent than MOBA in usage by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

MOBA is NOT a sub-genre of RTS

"The typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units." MOBA games do none of this. DOTA was originally a custom game for the game WarCraft 3 which was an RTS RPG hybrid and only took elements from the RPG part of it. There is no base building in MOBAs. The only resource gathering is from killing enemies like in RPGs. There is no mining of resources like in RTS games. There is no technological development like in RTS games, only buying items and leveling your character like in RPGs. You control a single unit just like in an RPG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.15.87 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hero Brawler?

This is a marketing term invented by Blizzard to further differentiate their upcoming Heroes Of The Storm MOBA from DOTA 2 and League of Legends. I think putting this term as a definition of the genre in the header is confusing. Hervegirod (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. Agree it shouldn't be in the lead until it's been applied to games other than blizzard's new one. bridies (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Same deal with Valve calling them ARTS. In an interview with Blizzard, they said "the hero brawler genre". And what's the problem with mentioning it anyways? Szqecs (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You need reliable, secondary sources which use the term in reference to the genre. Blizzard isn't a secondary source (neither is Valve, but it's not the only one to use the term ARTS). The term is mentioned in the Heroes of the Storm article, as it should, but not here until it's demonstrably prevalent in the secondary literature. bridies (talk)