If you made a moba, what design choices would you try...

GetMariahCarried·Nov 21, 2015·4 votes·1,504 views

... to prevent issues that you see with current mobas? League in particular (although thoughts on others are welcome.)

Post your thoughts. (I'll keep mine separate from this topic post.)

40 Comments

Good Be3rNov 21, 20153 votes

I would try something with 3 teams, probably 3 vs 3 vs 3 to offer something new to the community.

GetMariahCarriedNov 21, 20154 votes

Even the classics demand it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Chess_for_Three_-_Hexagonal_Board.jpg

WolfessNov 21, 20155 votes

{quoted}

Even the classics demand it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Chess_for_Three_-_Hexagonal_Board.jpg

how the hell do bishops even work here?

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20152 votes

Bishops always move on one type of colour (black squares v white squares). They control the middle of the map the best because it gives them 5 directions rather than 4.

wait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Man_Chess

I was wrong, they apparently change colour at the center

Irelia BotNov 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

how the hell do bishops even work here?

like they alwasy have. single color and able to keep going in one direction based on the color. This actaully buffs the utility of the threat of a bishop since in the middle they can in effect might be able to do 2 different directions.

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20151 votes

http://imgur.com/irMzLyj

I got bored and decided to make a 3 team version of summoner's rift with all the roles. Sadly it requires at least 7v7v7 to have all roles at least once but even then it won't be the same. I'd say to make them equivalent, it'd probably have to be 9v9v9. Two junglers, two top laners, four bot laners, a mid laner. Obviously champs will have to be rebalanced, I'm looking at you, Karma. You too Sona, Janna and Soraka.

Being outnumbered is much more impactful, but split pushing will be a lot harder to control, while poking will be very scary. Comps will have to be more defined as stretching out your champion's places puts a lot of strain on teamfights.

Wombo combo comps will be good at fighting another team. They just chain their abilities. Split push comps will be good at evading teams. They'll push lanes as needed. Poke comps will be good against all teams at once. They have abilities that keep them from participating too deeply in a fight while still contributing, so one of the other two teams will be in a disadvantageous position if they pursue.

Green dot is each team's nexus. They have to protect from 5 lanes instead of 3.

red lines are equivalent to top lanes, the outer lanes. They're longer and encourage TP, sustain, or mobility to avoid the extremely long walking time to lane. They literally just guard buffs early game and have extreme pressure across the map.

Blue lines are equivalent to bot lanes, the inner lines. They're not as short as long as the outer lines, but at the same time they encourage farming as the walk isn't short either, while being 2v2 oriented because if it were 1v1 roaming outer laners, junglers, and intersection laners would have more impact (1v1 to 2v1 > 2v2 to 3v2) on the lane, making a game of "who gets ganked first" rather than "who out trades who, with occasional help". This is really bad because inner lane is adjacent to all lanes but does not have the shortest walk. Roaming supports are now completely viable as they have mid lane level map access, but are risky at the same time.

Purple lines are equivalent to mid lane, the intersection lane. They're the shortest and they're the only 1v1v1 lane. This encourages champions that scale with levels, do the best with more kills rather than farming or have AoE (mages and assassins). They give the most map control but not secure objective control (those are for inner lanes). If there are two junglers, this lane can be ganked at the same level of efficiency as top lane (if not more), (if the junglers work on the opposite sides of the map), as it goes from 1v1v1 to 3v1v1. Extreme objective control balances out the fact you have a lane that splits in two and halves your farm if you push too far. Also, if a laner pushes too hard and causes AoE champs to be forced into 1v1, the third laner, now left alone, can snowball from free farm if they're a late scaling champ, technically grief by assisting one of the enemy teams by ganking for them if they're an assassin, or push, either flanking the over pushing laner (imagine having two minion waves push against your one minion wave... Free ganks or lost tower?) or taking the less guarded tower. This means 1v1 champs have extreme map defense by making pushing a risk, AoE champs have extreme map control by forcing an opposing laner to shove them then get ganked or let them snowball from being in optimal conditions, and waveclear or farm champs have extreme map pressure by being able to shove lane quick enough to transfer back to the intersection and proceed to farm or shove the other lane.

Now, the jungle is more complicated; I assume any jungle objectives aren't multiplied but are instead shifted into an alternating pattern (so there are 3 of each jungle objective, and appear on one side of the map, so player placement relies on choosing between denying a buff or securing one)

the faded green lines are rivers. They contain the epic monster - team benefiting buffs. Dragon will presumably be located on the intersection blue buff sides, and rely on control early game while Baron will be on the outer red buff sides, and is only competed by two teams rather than all three early on, then can be occasionally reached by the third team late game (if two freaking baron buffs isn't enough, and they want to completely pulverize both teams)

Each team competes two barons and two dragons (tune down the benefits a bit because who enjoys going up against double baron buffs?). Each team also has an advantage to the other like in two team SR, where dragon is closer to one team, baron is closer to the other team, but this time the advantages are equal (rock paper scissors rather than something like, idk, gun person or cat dog) due to each team having each map wide buff two times rather than one.

Yellow side contains blue buff and light blue side contains red buff (I did not think the colours through, lol), because intersection laners need more reason to overextend and push while junglers hog red buff from top laners. Also, walking distance.

Team comps will usually be like this:

A mid laner depending on what the other team picks, AoE > 1v1 > push > AoE. Maybe two mid laners, but that would stretch EXP and gold out too far.

Two junglers, one with late game map control for Baron, one for early game Dragon control, on each side of the map. Whether you want to control the baron or dragon closer to your side or an enemy's side is up to the situation

Two top laners, one with gank reliance and one without gank reliance, as late game map control and early game map control tend to give up ganking also, unless they have a weird scaling

four bot laners, a utility ADC who has early game lane and dragon control to compensate for the baron control jungler (two dragons, remember?) with a roaming or sustain support, depending on whether they're paired up with a late game ADC or early game ADC (late game ADCs are weaker than utility ADCs to the point of utility ADCs being able to 2v1 at a barely-living level), or another utility ADC. On the other side of the map, with the early game map control jungler, is a late game ADC with a peel or engage support, depending on whether they want farm or kills.

The Sword SaintNov 21, 20151 votes

This idea has been examined to death, and riot has even stated why they won't make a mode like this.

In short, this type of three way game promotes exactly 2 strategies: either two teams gang up on the third team and destroy them with no realistic way for the solo team to compete and then they fight each other afterwords to determine the winner, OR two teams fight each other and the third team sits back pushes down the bases of the other teams whenever they are busy fighting before retreating to guard their own base.

In either scenario at least one team doesn't get to have a meaningful impact on the game, in the first situation one team is just chosen to lose and there's nothing they can do to stop it (assuming even skill levels) and in the second situation engaging with the enemy team seems like a losing strategy because you'll just be backdoored anytime you try and actually play the game.

Meep ManNov 21, 20151 votes

Yeah, I think this would be really cool. I would do 4v4v4 though since 3v3v3 seems too restricting per team comp. Plus, we know a server that is at least LoL good can handle a 6v6 (Hexakill).

GetMariahCarriedNov 21, 20153 votes

So here's my thought:

Consider making all customization options in-match and out UNIQUE to each character. No items that can be used by all characters. No runes/masteries/spells/whatever that can be used by all characters. ALL choices for a character are specific to that character.

Why? I think the cross-character tooling options in mobas are what lead to the constant balancing, re-balancing and then balancing to re-balance the last balancing patch trash shoot of neverending fixes. Not to denigrate the effort devs put into refining these games, but I think the main struggles all stem from the foundation. In League, when you have an item that can be used by any of 115 champions, then when you buff it, you balance a dozen weak champions, but then break a dozen already balanced champions. When you nerf it, you temper a dozen stupidly broken op champions, but then neuter a dozen other champions that were doing just fine. And if you then try to tweak the champions, then you inadvertently change the effectiveness of various items on those champs, which then brings the spotlight back on item-rebalancing, and around and around the wheel of ever more obsessive-compulsive fix-it frenzies goes.

I bet you could cut this problem off at the foundation by eliminating all these inter-champ dependencies. Sure, we want an interesting system with interesting synergies between different characters and different progression choices, but there's gotta be another way about that that doesn't include this cross-the-board progression feature we call itemization.

Teridax68Nov 21, 20152 votes

iirc, Heroes of the Storm has a system like that, where instead of buying items you instead make your character more powerful via a personal talent tree. I personally really like itemization for its ability to offer meaningful and interesting power progression, and I wouldn't recommend removing itemization simply for balance issues (there are so many effects that impact on balance, such as the state of the map, minion mechanics, objectives, etc., that itemization only constitutes one aspect of the whole thing, while also being one of the easier factors to tweak), but it would be interesting to try a MOBA without any sort of itemization system. The big thing to consider, though, would be how you'd compensate for the lack of itemization in order to bring customization, if you even want to compensate at all: on one hand, you could go the way of HotS and implement character talent trees or something along those lines, though that might carry its own balancing issues (what happens when one progression path is always better than the others by design? What about the impact of the metagame on talents?), and on the other you could streamline even harder and have a much more straightforward progression system, which would then allow you to either add more complexity to other parts of the game (e.g. objectives that do more, more intricate character synergies), or just make for a much simpler game overall, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

GetMariahCarriedNov 21, 20152 votes

Not saying it WOULDN'T create balance issues, but rather that those balance issues would be a heck of a lot easier to address in isolation if they WERE isolated. So one talent tree of one character is weak? Okay, buff that one talent tree of that one character. Does that suddenly break half the other champions in the game? No! They're not effected! Except by talents that may be, say, aura buffs for instance. But re-adjusting one talent isn't always guaranteed to theoretically affect EVERY character in the game, like changing an item is. The cases where it does are the minority. And if you ultimately have to remove a talent because it's un-balance-able, are the mains of every other character in the game gonna cry a river? No!

Thanks for reminding me of how HotS works. I forgot that they didn't have items. In some ways, HotS may seem too simple, but I feel that most of the "intricacies" of other mobas are really just roundabout mechanics to accomplish what are really just simple goals, and if you actually take a step back and ask what you're REALLY get from these extra complexities, it's not that great (like creep scoring... who the heck decided watching 6 green bars on your screen and an ad stat to time clicking on each green bar as its dwindling is fun? It's just obnoxious simple-minded grinding of utterly unedifying mechanics.)

Having items that interplay with masteries that interplay with runes that interplay with summoner spells that interplay with ability leveling is just a roundabout way of doing what you could just as well do by having, say, talents that interplay with other talents, period.

Teridax68Nov 21, 20151 votes

You strike a very important point in bringing up issues of depth and complexity, which I think are also core to the accessibility of MOBAs (or rather, the lack thereof). I personally think that mechanics and systems such as last-hitting, summoner spells and itemization do bring valuable depth of gameplay in addition to a certain degree of complexity, but ultimately League, as well as Dota/Dota 2, HoN and even Smite, are all far more complex than the average videogame, and also have steep learning curves that, imo, lose a huge amount of players along the way, especially more casual gamers. HotS is definitely oriented towards more casual play, and has a lot less complexity (but also a lot less depth) than League or Dota, and I think it might be possible to simplify games in the genre even more. It might be interesting to have a game that does away with the laning phase completely, for example, and thereby gets rid of last-hitting and creep wave manipulation tactics in favor of more intense player-versus-player interaction, which would lose a ton of complexity (which is a good thing) and could have its resulting loss in depth either accepted as a valid tradeoff or compensated for via other mechanics, or a greater focus on existing ones.

GetMariahCarriedNov 21, 20151 votes

I'm not necessarily saying depth is a BAD thing, just that sometimes it feels like an after-thought in how it's implemented. Creep scoring is depth, buuuut I don't find it valuable. Items do bring valuable depth, buuuuut that depth can be introduced far more simply to avoid far more balance hazard. I consider "complexity" and "depth" to be orthogonal concepts. You can add more depth to a game very simply. I also consider "complex" and "interesting" to be orthogonal. Something doesn't have to be complex to be intellectually engaging. In fact, when it is complex, it's probably majoring on the minors. I don't care that creep scoring is simple, I just think it's a boring concept. It's a constant minor timing challenge, nothing more to it to really engage you.

Teridax68Nov 21, 20151 votes

I'm mainly basing my concept of depth and complexity on this Extra Credits video, so while depth is a good thing, complexity isn't. Last-hitting was probably not a good thing to include in this on my part, as it has minimal depth and complexity (missing a last hit when you had the option to get it is often not a meaningful choice, or a choice at all) and is more of an expression of mastery than anything else, so you're right that if you don't value last hitting enough to keep in a MOBA, you shouldn't, and doing away with it would likely lead to a game where players would express much less frustration and disparity in earning resources, at that cost in mastery. What I meant to say was that some mechanics, like itemization, do carry depth (choosing between different items often carries meaningful choice) as well as complexity, and removing the mechanic would incur a loss in both, which would be a good thing overall if you're aiming for a simpler, more accessible game, or could be compensated for with alternatives, such as talent trees.

One thing to be wary of, though, is that character-specific customization risks incurring a fair amount of complexity on its own, as well as issues that itemization could solve. For example, there are a lot of talents in HotS that are repeated across many characters, such as Block or Executioner, which accomplish the same core function as items (i.e. add a new effect that many characters can benefit from), but add a greater overall amount of clutter because they're copy-pasted across many different talent trees and not concentrated on one easily recognizable item or item line. That doesn't mean on its own that items are better than talents, but itemization does do some things in a way that would be extremely difficult to replicate with a completely different system (i.e. effects that can benefit multiple different characters).

Sire HippingtonNov 22, 20152 votes

creepscoreing would be boring if you're alone. So would be scoreing goals in soccer. It's the other player that makes things interesting. trying to get cs while keeping your enemie away from tham and harrasing them while at the same time trying to avoid their harras is what makes it interesting.

csing is actually what i miseed the most in HotS, laneing feels pointless without.

GetMariahCarriedNov 22, 20151 votes

Yeah, I suppose I'm mostly alone in my thoughts on that. I don't feel that way at all. Even the challenge of trying to shoot that poor sap of a minion while juking his overlord (who doesn't really give a crap whether the minion dies or not, just how) I mean... no, I don't care for that at all. I found HotS to be more fun BECAUSE they removed that primitive goal. Smite was also less creep-oriented, and that is probably why I found Smite to also be more enjoyable. The main reason why I stick to League is that most of the people I know stick to it. Half the fun of playing multiplayer games is playing them with friends (which at the same time is annoying. You people and your League obsessions...)

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20152 votes

The problem is the amount of resources needed that'll make a huge game, even if it's the only game the company has made(LoL), have only five to ten champs. Or champions would only have around 3-10 choices each, compared to around 20 items, in combinations of 6.

Sire HippingtonNov 22, 20152 votes

I like the basics of that, but thats a damn big scope if you want to add meaningfull choices and progression, as you have to do a whole items set for each single character.

And from what i've seen/heard from HotS so far, that either still is pretty hard to balance, or blizzard sucks at balanceing(HotS prettymuch uses your system). The main reason why balanceing is so hard in mobas is that it's a 5v5 with many different variables. you could play 100000games and always have a different matchup. A moba is simply a chaotic system, and thus it's hard to predict outcomes of any change. Your aproach should make balanceing easier, but i'm not sure if the actuall impact is big enough to warrant the huge increase in scope that it brings.

SpoofghoulNov 21, 20152 votes

I would made balance a thing

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20152 votes

My main design choices would be:

no targeted abilities, aim everything including auto attacks. Just for pure preference and because they're a pain to deal with (remember when Taric was viable? He was annoying because of that stun)

all champs/heroes/characters scale off AP/magic/int and AD/physical/str well, and are equal in power considering both niche (how generally useful) and flat numeric stats (how much damage, etc) received.

KONO RUBICK DANov 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

My main design choices would be:

no targeted abilities, aim everything including auto attacks. Just for pure preference and because they're a pain to deal with (remember when Taric was viable? He was annoying because of that stun)

all champs/heroes/characters scale off AP/magic/int and AD/physical/str well, and are equal in power considering both niche (how generally useful) and flat numeric stats (how much damage, etc) received.

you shall know that dota 2 has disjoint to balance point and click ability

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20151 votes

LoL also has disjointing, like Ekko's ult on Caitlyn's ult.

It's just annoying to have a mechanic that's unintuitive. If a bullet follows me through several dashes and extreme movement speed, why does teleporting around or blinking suddenly make me give up and cause the it to disappear? I understand if it continues to follow me but I'm invincible when it hits, but just moving slightly but in a no-transition method to a heat seeking homing bullet causes it to pop out of existance?

KONO RUBICK DANov 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

LoL also has disjointing, like Ekko's ult on Caitlyn's ult.

It's just annoying to have a mechanic that's unintuitive. If a bullet follows me through several dashes and extreme movement speed, why does teleporting around or blinking suddenly make me give up and cause the it to disappear? I understand if it continues to follow me but I'm invincible when it hits, but just moving slightly but in a no-transition method to a heat seeking homing bullet causes it to pop out of existance?

no it doesn't

disjoint= dodge a spell (completly negating it) by blinking dashing or going in stealth, and this balance a lot point and click spells, it doesn't matter if it makes sens or not balance is the first goal

clearly, if you blink with ez a taric's E you won't dodge it

TeCoolMageNov 21, 20151 votes

Ekko can disjoint projectiles, along with Zed and Yi, and melee point and click abilities can't be disjointed.

Also, it matters a lot for something to make sense, otherwise the game would just be barred to pros who memorise lines upon lines of rules rather than just a handful, it's acceptable for core mechanics like "Gold magically disappears if you don't shoot minions on time" because minions appear almost every game but having stuff like "If I have one of the three champions that spin in a circle while dancing, I can use that to negate a sight related effect only present in two other champions" isn't

KONO RUBICK DANov 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Ekko can disjoint projectiles, along with Zed and Yi, and melee point and click abilities can't be disjointed.

Also, it matters a lot for something to make sense, otherwise the game would just be barred to pros who memorise lines upon lines of rules rather than just a handful, it's acceptable for core mechanics like "Gold magically disappears if you don't shoot minions on time" because minions appear almost every game but having stuff like "If I have one of the three champions that spin in a circle while dancing, I can use that to negate a sight related effect only present in two other champions" isn't

it's not called disjoint, just invulnerability working as intended. only champions with invu can dodge spells. Ezreal can't dodge a spell by blinking

and lol? you think that a dazzle should follow you everywhere you go even if you blink makes sens? rofl

TeCoolMageNov 22, 20151 votes

Things shouldn't follow people at all

Why does Jinx shoot a lightning bolt in a straight light, but Ezreal's visually similar auto attack follow people

Or more importantly, why does grave's ult go in a straight line, while Caitlyn's bends and curves

IcyPepperNov 21, 20152 votes

I've have better starting items for anti-ranged, allowing melee characters to lane against ranged characters on equal grounds at the start of the game.

I would also introduce exp mechanics on support items, encouraging supports to roam (I believe Bard's meeps work in that way?) instead of being a carry's bitch. It would have movement speed but no combat stats, discouraging all but the bravest of junglers from taking it.

Teridax68Nov 21, 20151 votes

I don't think it would be viable to create a new MOBA simply to "fix" issues with the current ones. If you want your game to fix a MOBA, or several, what you're asking is just for those games to change enough to no longer have their issues. The alternative is to create a MOBA with a different foundation, in which case you're not really answering the issues of current games in the genre, so much as presenting a new set of core values closer to what you're looking for. Even though LoL was inspired by Dota, and is now being played alongside Dota 2, it wasn't really made as an answer to the original game, nor does comparing both franchises work that well, because they run on fundamentally different design philosophies (e.g. Dota is closer to its RTS roots, which is why you often directly control multiple units at a time, whereas LoL is more RPG-focused in the sense that you only directly control a single character, and have more streamlined controls for anything else). Smite has many similarities to LoL, including items that are pretty much copy-pasted from League's Season 2, but its third-person perspective completely changes the way its matches are played.

Personally, I would like to see a first-person MOBA come out. Overwatch sort of has some aspects of that, but to only a very limited extent (it's much closer to TF2 with abilities than LoL/Smite/Dota in first person), and it would be cool to see how core mechanics and tenets in MOBAs would change in such a setting. A big advantage first-person shooters or even Smite have compared to League is that even marksman-type characters are heavily dependent on aiming skills, which from what I understand makes balancing easier and gameplay feel a bit more fair (League still doesn't really know how to balance melee versus ranged properly in lane, for example), and the change in perspective also makes stealth and ambush effects much more natural to implement (by contrast, stealth in League or even Dota doesn't really feel natural, though Dota's turn speeds make attacks from behind more valuable).

The big issue, though, would be adapting first-person to the MOBA genre, as very few multiplayer games ever fully commit to first-person while also having a match time of more than a few minutes. This might be Fallout 4 influencing me, but I think it would be interesting and possible to have the sort of journey-like experience you get from a singleplayer shooter while also keeping it in a firmly multiplayer environment: if the game were to have the equivalent of a jungle and jungling role, for example, clearing the jungle could itself be a novel singleplayer experience, with the added tension of other players, both allied and enemy, moving through your territory. Perhaps there are FPS MOBAs out there that I'm not aware of, but if not it would definitely be worth experimenting in melding those two genres.

GetMariahCarriedNov 21, 20151 votes

You're arguing semantics there. I changed the first post to say "to prevent issues" instead of "to fix issues", if that makes it more clear (it's about the same actually, but w/e). Of course I'm not trying to FIX current mobas. I'm just asking, "how would you make a moba such that it doesn't have the issues you don't like in other mobas?" This is different from saying "how would you fix League", because there are all sorts of small tweaks that pop into people's head when they think of that question for League, but "how would you make a moba" centers the question on more foundational (as you say) mechanics that you might say "ditch those" to. Of course, you could never ditch a foundational mechanic to an existing moba. Nobody's gonna come out with "League should get rid of items". No one would ever do that to League. But someone might have the idea "a moba in principle would run into a lot fewer balance issues without items."

Teridax68Nov 21, 20151 votes

I think it's important to make a distinction, because if you're setting out to create a new videogame purely as a reaction to one or more existing ones (e.g. "I don't like League's itemization system, therefore I want a MOBA without itemization"), then once you get past the differences you want to implement, you'll have trouble going further or coming up with a clear full picture. I agree that it's worth questioning all the tropes and unspoken rules surrounding anything, in this case current MOBAs and mechanics such as itemization, last hitting, leveling, runes/masteries, etc., but that is a different process from what you initially suggested, in that what I'm suggesting is to set out to create a new game and then take care not to automatically incorporate mechanics that you'd want to analyze first, whereas the overall mindset in this thread has been to instead analyze existing games and build a new one around whatever you disagree with. Basically, instead of thinking "Itemization seems unnecessary, why now make a MOBA without itemization?", you'd be thinking "Okay, so I'm making a MOBA. Do I want itemization in my game?", and that would likely bring you to very different results.

PennsNov 21, 20151 votes

I would make a ranked system that doesnt suck the fun out of the game because you always know that it doesnt really matter how well or bad you do most of the time, what matters is how well the 9 random strangers do lel.

Woodsy2575Nov 21, 20151 votes

Muh Russians

RebonackNov 21, 20151 votes

Items don't give stats at all.

Items would provide new passives/actives for your champion to utilize, not raw stats. Raw stats (both base and scaling) would be covered by something akin to a more robust Rune system.

All abilities grow in raw statistical power as you level up. Your level-up skill points are instead used to augment your abilities with new features rather than bigger numbers. Basically, everyone gets Kha's Evolution system with more options built in.

FeathermaneNov 21, 20151 votes

Friendly fire enabled. Abilities affect all champions equally, including the caster, and can be blocked by terrain unless it makes sense thematically that they go through. No shared vision between teammates.

HybridNov 21, 20151 votes

At the moment League of legends is a noob friendly game whitch is bad. Best MOBA WAS SEASON 3 LOL. Enough said.

Irelia BotNov 21, 20152 votes

{quoted}

At the moment League of legends is a noob friendly game whitch is bad. Best MOBA WAS SEASON 3 LOL. Enough said.

season 2 was better then season 3 in some aspects. I really wish riot would take the best parts of seasons 1 through 3 that have been lost and try reapplying them to the current game.

The Sword SaintNov 21, 20151 votes

I'm currently working on an independent game project that simulates designing and balancing a moba. You create and edit characters, tweak various numbers such as tower durability, adjust the effectiveness of types of play such as assassination or poke, and otherwise adjust the state of a moba game you invent. Then you sit back and see the results of a month of simulated ranked play, and adjust from there.

There's no action to be seen (though you do get to upload images to represent the champions), the game is about being a developer, and you win by building up your game's popularity and trying to keep the various champions balanced.

I'll probably post up in progress links to a web version of it at some point if people here seem interested.

Meep ManNov 21, 20151 votes

I dont know about issues with current MOBAs since they are all unique, but I would want to try a 10v10v10 style MOBA myself where it is three teams of 10 people. It would really make it action packed. I would also try and make the game have an ongoing story and then make games, depending on the characters you picked, influence the story.