A couple of months ago I gave a talk at the Bristol Games Hub on the on subject of MOBA games and the role that emergent play has in their function, development and popularity. I want to revisit those themes here and touch on some of the perspectives and frameworks I have been recently considering to further understand why some modes of play are considered beneficial (emergent) and some dangerous (exploitative) to the play space.
It is a commonplace topic among players of MOBA games, the same as many online games, to fiercely debate the way developers are reacting to developments taking place within the play space. A quick search of the most talked about topics on the League of Legends reddit page (a discussion space that attracts thousands of daily users) on January 22nd reveals the most talked about topic with over 3000 comments is one regarding developer’s reaction to innovative play. ‘Nerfing every champion that breaks into the competitive scene is getting really old riot’ see’s players discussing in fervent detail the way that the developers Riot Games, are controlling (or ‘nerfing’) aspects of their game in reaction to innovative competitive play. The format here is as follows, if players (in particular professional players as is taken issue with here) prove an aspect of the game to be particularly effective through innovative combinations or strategies then developers will review its properties and decide if that particular aspect requires ‘balancing’. Or in other words, a structural change to the rules. It is this continuous process that utilises the experiences of huge amounts of players that saw the original modification that inspired the MOBA genre, Defence of the Ancients (DotA), become the highly varied and refined game that it became. Unlike the mod however, the MOBA games that exist now are the site of many different value sets as games such as League of Legends or Dota 2 have corporate developers implementing balance changes. It is a subject I have discussed before, however this process of continuous reaction towards developments taking place in the play space represents a highly co-creative (Banks and Potts, 2010) context of play with different approaches being explored towards the regulation of innovative play.
Some developers such as Riot games and their phenomenally popular game League of Legends, a game which now attracts 27 million daily players, are often criticised by players for the way their playful innovations are handled. In the discussion already mentioned, many players criticise Riot Games for destroying elements of the game that have proven effective in professional play and in the process destroyed elements of the game that players have spent non-trivial amounts of time and effort perfecting. Taking issue with the choice of changes made to the gameone poster points out:
‘It’s their balance philosophy that irks me. If they only brought overtuned champions down to par then I’d be fine with it. But when Riot nerfs, they often gut a champion in one patch to the point that there’s no reason to play them. So people find new things to replace them and the whole thing continues.
If the changes were ‘balances’ instead of ‘nerfs’ then I could keep playing my favourite champions without that fear of them becoming unviable. But it barely seems worth trying to master a champion when in 2 weeks they may appear in the LCS [professional e-sports league] and get steamrolled in a patch a shortly after.’
The expertise or ‘gaming capital’ (Consalvo, 2009: 122 – 23) of players is at stake here as the game changes according to logics that are beyond the players control. As this comment demonstrates, balance changes can often result in a conflict of interests as players, professional players, user generated content producers and the developers all have differing notions of what is considered ‘balanced’. Paul has described this strive towards balance in online games as an underlying ideology of ‘meritocracy’ that is prevalent among players and developers. Similar to any functioning meritocracy, Paul (2012: 147) argues that online games represent a space constantly ‘striving for perfection in balance’ to ensure that ‘skill, rather than birthright, will enable players to succeed’. However as this discussion and MOBA games illustrate, the ‘balance philosophy’ utilised by those controlling the game is an incredibly nuanced and influential process that is seeing differing approaches being utilised towards achieving this ‘meritocracy’[1].
The underlying distinction any balance related decision hinges on here is if the innovating play style in question can be considered an ‘exploit’ (Consalvo, 2009: 114). in the game or an unproblematic form of ‘emergence’ (Juul, 2002). Adapting the term ‘emergence’ from the field of complexity studies Juul (323) describes emergence in games as ‘simple rules combining, leading to variation’ and it is this depth of playful variables that MOBA games embody to an often problematic extent. Emergent play is the core consequence of any game with variation and it represents the ability of players to creatively explore or re-imagine the rules or materials of a game. In many games, in particular sandbox games, all forms of emergence are encouraged due to the ludic (Caillios, 1958: 27) element of the game not manifesting into strict goals of the game. In other words, due to sandbox games representing a blank canvas emergent play can only re-imagine the game rather than challenge it. In contrast, games with strict ludic boundaries such as the arena MOBA’s represent are often less varied, less open to emergence but also fairer and ideally suited to competitive play.
MOBA’s represent a combination of this as their form along with their clear ethos of balance represents an extremely ludic bound genre that accounts for its extreme popularity as an e-sport. Importantly however, it is a genre that allows for an enormous reservoir of potential emergence. As of January 2014, League of Legends contains 116 different player controllable ‘champions’, each of these have champions have four different unique moves that combine with other characters moves. In addition there are a variety of items that further customise and add depth to variety taking place here. Considering every game contains ten different player controlled champions and the dynamics of teamwork vary with every game, the potential for creative expression through emergent possibility is almost endless. User generated content such as guides, videos and live streams demonstrate how far this depth of theorycraft goes as their constant search for new potentialities or particularly strong modes of play continues to emerge.
In this series of player made lectures surrounding League of Legends players discuss in depth the prevailing ways to play the game
MOBA’s may be arenas as their name alludes to, however they offer an incredible degree of space for the emergent practices of players to flourish. On the subject of ‘agon’ or the competitive element in games, Caillios (1958: 30) asserted that ‘a situation [seemingly] susceptible to indefinite repetition turns out to be capable of producing ever new combinations’ and MOBA games have come to crystallise that notion to new extents. It is a depth of complexity and room for emergence that is why the genre is as popular as it is however it is that ultimately ludic form that also accounts for emergent play often being considered exploitative and thus removed, by developers. As approaches towards balance in MOBA games continue to be experimented with it is likely that players, user generated content producers and developers alike will continue to be perplexed, enraged and thoroughly entranced by the combination of variety and balance MOBA’s have come to represent.
Notes
This is a subject I have discussed in more depth in another post, however in the two most popular MOBA games, League of Legends and Dota 2, a different ethos towards balance separates the two games. To put it succinctly, League of Legends favours a more heavily regulated and less varied game whereas Dota 2 favours a more hands off approach towards balance that see’s the playful innovations made by players have a more lasting impact.
Bibliography
Banks, J. and Potts, J. (2010) Co-Creating Games: a Co- Evolutionary Analysis, New Media and Society, Volume 12: 2, pp 253 – 270.
Consalvo, M. (2009) Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames, London: MIT Press.
Juul, J. (2002). “The open and the closed: Games of emergence and games of Progression”. In Mayra, F. Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, (pp. 323–329). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
Paul, A, C. Wordplay and the Discourse of Video Games: Analysing Words, Design, and Play, New York: Routledge.
In this post I thought I would share some thoughts I have recently had surrounding issues of balance and regulation that underpin playful online ecosystems. With a focus on MOBA games, I look at how innovation is defined in this new playing environment and how those innovations are causing a renegotiation of the role of players and developers. Weighing up two distinctive approaches towards regulation of playful online ecosystems, this post goes on to ask what can be learned from similar discussions of balance and innovation.
Cheating or Innovation: defining fair play in online games
The latest major Dota 2 tournament was met with a huge reception and the largest prize pool in e-sports history to date. For the developers Valve, the tournament was a huge success and another stepping stone in e-sports rapid rise towards mainstream popularity and acceptance. However Valve also made another and no less profound statement of intent with the tournament that marks them as a distinctive force in the e-sports and wider gaming industry and that is one of emphasising the generative power of play. This statement of intent became clear after a controversial incident occurred with the Ukrainian team Natus Vincere who employed a strategy that many considered to be a ‘bug’, ‘glitch’ or ‘exploit’, or at least, certainly to an outsiders view. The strategy in question was the now infamous ‘fountain hook’ Pudge / Chen combination that utilises a unique ability of the two champions (Pudges ‘Meat Hook’ and Chens ‘Test of Faith’) to create an effectively unstoppable move that pulls an enemy hero into the certain death of the base fountain if executed correctly. The ‘if’ word is key here. This was an extremely hard combination to successfully employ that not only relies on a perfection of team unity in combining moves, but also on a huge level of individual skill on the part of Natus Vincere’s ‘Dendi’ in landing the initial Meat Hook from Pudge. However for the average spectator, many of whom were from a League of Legends background (1), it looked like an (albeit fun) exploit in the game and one that should be removed. By all accounts the move was an exploit. Valve and Dota 2 lead designer ‘IceFrog’ never intended for the abilities to be used this way and as such, it was proving controversial. However it is important to remember that cheating is, as Kerr argues (2011: 30), a ‘negotiated practice’ that is always reliant on context.
Taylor (2006: 69) has described the notion of ‘cheating’ as dependant on the classification of players themselves as either ‘casual’ or ‘power’ players. For the power players, the ones pushing at the boundaries of a games premise and rules, ‘cheating’ is a very blurred concept as if the game allows it, it is seen as fair play in their context of ‘power’ play. Professional players playing for potentially millions of dollars, needless to say, fit this category. Indeed, notions of cheating with regards to the players themselves are a subject almost (2) entirely absent from the e-sporting arena with descriptions such as skill, innovation and metagame development all being preffered than what may once have been described as ‘cheating’. Conversely to traditional games or sports (Huizinga, 1949: 52), the pressure of fairness is put entirely onto the developers to ensure the play environment is suitably balanced enough for competitive play. However Valves response to the controversial ‘fountain hook’ was not like the one typical of game developers such as Riot Games who continually balance and refine their MOBA League of Legends against perceived ‘exploits’. Valves response, much to the surprise of the huge international audience, was simply to leave it in and let the players figure out a counter of their own.
Although this may seem like a minor footnote in the larger picture of a huge event, this decision marks an approach that defines Valve as a distinct force in the competitive gaming space as it effectively empowers their players in the ongoing evolution of the game in a way that no other online developer does. It should not come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with Valve and IceFrog that this stance was adopted however. Valve’s history of empowering players in the creation of their games and their hiring of IceFrog as lead designer for Dota 2, an ex player / modder himself, is crucial here. IceFrogs influence on the original DotA was essential to the games substance and identity. However in a similar manor to this example, IceFrog adopted a relaxed approach to the way DotA governered its metagame, preferring to take a backseat and see what solutions players could develop first before taking actions such as ‘balancing’ a controversial development in the metagame. For years, this approach was hugely popular with fans and despite constant cries of ‘unbalanced’ or ‘over powered’ which are seemingly always the case within MOBA games (see any forum, discussion space or in-game chat from frustrated players), IceFrogs approach endured and was crucial in making DotA develop in the multifaceted way it did. Now contrast this with Riot Games approach to what is now undisputedly the most popular game on the PC and there is a huge contrast.
IceFrog versus Morello: the question of regulation in playful ecosystems
In contrast to IceFrog’s approach, the lead content designer for League of Legends, Morello, has a notorious reputation within the community for destroying facets of the game that players innovate. To take an example of a comparably contentious development in the metagame within League of Legends, for example that of ‘AP Tryndamere ’, the resulting reaction from Riot Games was one of swift severity in controlling a contentious development in the metagame. A player solution, if one existed, was never given a chance in Morello’s approach and now ‘AP Tryndamere is a player innovation of the past, no longer a viable option for competitive play. The value of player originality, innovation and participation is diminished here in favour of a more widespread acceptance of what is considered ‘fair’ within the wider gaming culture (a common criticism labelled at League of Legends as opposed to Dota 2 is that it caters for ‘casual’ play in a way Dota 2 does not, their approach to balancing against perceived exploits or ‘cheating’ certainly supports this). Although it is important to remember that League of Legends is economically successful, phenomenally popular and the largest competitive computer game in the world, this approach to player innovations does seem incredibly short sighted when comparing it with wider notions participation and online value creation.
On the subject of corporate tied knowledge communities Lévy (1997: 236) has claimed that ‘By preventing the knowledge space from becoming autonomous, they deprive the circuits of commodity space…of an extraordinary source of energy’. For Lévy, the freedom of participants to act freely in the way they want and not be constricted by any overarching power is essential to ushering in a new form of creative intelligence he dubbed ‘collective intelligence’. Although Lévy never discussed the application of these ideas into game systems, the underlying logic here is applicable. Integral to the concept of collective intelligence is a position that has been repeated many times since with reference to games, that the most profound innovations happen in a ‘circular’ fashion (Kerr, 2011: 31) or through what Banks and Humphreys (2008) have described as interwoven ‘hybrid relations’. Game developers must work in tandem with their players in the ongoing evolution of gaming ecosystems because the innate time, passion and connected expertise of the people playing cannot be understated. In order for games to achieve a sustained level of grassroots innovation, games developers, the same as intellectual property rights holders or digital platform holders, should arguably grant the same level of autonomy given to participatory actions (Jenkins, 2006: 37; Bruns, 2006: 275) with regards to their lasting impact. What is at stake here is not the act of play itself but rather the ongoing repercussions of that play. Innovative play such as the examples taken here have the ability to add undoubted depth, development and longevity to a game however that level of impact is decided by the developer.
Both Valve’s IceFrog and Riot Games Morello embody different approaches to balance. However that ideal level of developer involvement is still a subject being defined. Comparing innovative play with intellectual property, although seemingly disparate, provides an intriguing comparison and one that suggests autonomy should be given to players to regulate their own ecosystem of ludic balance. It is only through this approach that the innate expertise, creativity and gaming capital (Consalvo, 2009: 122 – 23) of the people playing can flourish into lasting structural changes in a games metagame. Lawrence Lessig (2004, 1999), another critic of intellectual property laws and a major proponent of the free culture movement is absolute in this position towards deregulation as he has claimed;
‘Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes an extraordinary opportunity for democratic creativity that digital technology enables.’
IceFrog’s approach with DotA and subsequently Valves Dota 2 certainly supports this position and when IceFrog was recently asked about who should control the balance of these games his answers were strikingly similar;
The players. That’s how games like basketball are balanced. Each generation has its necessities, so the rules are always evolving. It’s the same with Dota.
Indeed the subject of balance itself is for IceFrog oxymoronic, as he argues;
Balance is the arch-enemy of art and creativity. Creativity comes from a conflict of different ideas. Controversy is a natural part of creativity. Accidents like Blink Dagger + Epicenter would never surface in a “balanced” game.
IceFrogs assertion that a deregulation of ‘balance’ from developers is essential in harnessing the innate potential of players towards the evolution of the ‘art’ of gaming systems is a subject Iand others have touched on before and IceFrogs position echoes that of Lévy and Lessig, however it is important to remember both positions carry merit here. Morello’s position towards balance, although it goes against the wider logics of participatory value creation touched on here is nonetheless phenomenally successful on multiple levels. It is important to remember that, for the argument supporting deregulation of player innovations put forward here, that play is still an innately participatory act. Play, even for Morello and Riot Games, has still been a significant driving force in defining the metagame of League of Legends. The art of balance for Morello and Riot Games is as I have argued before, an innately co-creative process of advances and retreats from the developers in adopting influential player innovations. This can be seen in a core facet to the League of Legends ‘metagame’, that of the positions of ‘attack damage carry’ and ‘support’. These positions that are now a core facet of the game that developers design specifically around was originally an innovating European style of play that surfaced during season one (it played a significant part in Europe’s season one dominance). In this example and many more, it is players that have defined an aspect of the game and it is their innovations that have been built around subsequently by Riot Games. So although there is a clear difference of ideology between IceFrog and Morello, they both acknowledge the role of the player as integral; they just do so to different extremes.
In many ways these differences of approach with regards to balance have similarities with many wider discussions of similar subjects throughout wider society. The classic oppositional positions of economic philosophers Fredrich Hayak and Maynard Keynes is in many ways similar to that of IceFrog and Morello. Hayak, similar to IceFrog, saw economic growth and prosperity as the result of deregulation and a total empowerment of the potential of people to effectively control themselves and thus innovate the wider structures of society. Keynes on the other hand, saw the role of government (through regulation and stimulus spending) in promoting economic growth as indispensible in the same way that Morello see’s the developer’s role in balancing the metagame. Both positions have since been open to a multitude of criticisms. Hayekian economics has been criticised as promoting a survival of the fittest society that ultimately comes to embody the ideologies of social Darwinism. Keynes has been criticised for curving the economic / innovative potential of people through the regulation of their profits. Although I am only touching on these influential economic approaches in both examples it is easy to see the similarities to IceFrogs innovative player driven, but hardcore and uneven gaming system ecosystem, to Morello’s extremely balanced and player friendly but arguably less innovative and risky model.
The stakes of this comparison may be different however it is not worth discounting the comparison completely. Games, especially MMOG’s such as MOBA’s attract a huge and fervently dedicated player base who scrutinise the games details at length. Cook (2013) recently made the compelling case for games as an exercise in mastery through the playing of single games for large amounts of time. For Cook games in a pre-electronic era were an activity of mastery, defined by lifelong play and a social identity tied to the play of that single game. The onset of electronic games and subsequent influx of single player games (see Herz, 1997) created a market that relied on the sales of multiple games. However with the onset of free to play models and continued development of games via content updates, games such as League of Legends and Dota 2 mark a return of the single mastery focused and identity driven game of that were typical of a pre-industrial era. The stakes for players of these games is much higher than the typical experience of a computer game as huge amounts of non-trivial play and an incredibly pervasive sense of identity is at stake here. The same issues of fairness and innovation that underpin larger economic debates are not entirely alien from the ones now taking place in playful online ecosystems and it is possible that any widely accepted model may be just as illusive.
It may be entirely too soon or indeed it may never be possible to say with any certainty that one approach is more effective than another. However as touched on here, online games, in particular the MOBA genre, are bringing these discussions regarding playful ecosystems and their management to new levels of scrutiny and severity. Given that the growth of these games does not look to reside any time soon it is likely that these debates are ones that will also keep resurfacing as players and developers both attempt to negotiate their role in the increasingly complex milieu of playful online ecosystems.
Notes
1. Riot Games cancelled their own LCS series events which usually draw hundreds of thousands of views in respect for the Dota 2 event. This partnership between Valve and Riot Games is one that looks to continue as the two developers continue to grow the e-sports space and in this case, it meant a lot of the League of Legends audience switching over to Dota 2.
2. ‘Cheating’ in an e-sports context is a discussion that has a far less prominent role than in other sporting contexts. There are very few examples where accusations of cheating can be pinned onto the players, one example that arose last year is notable however it is very much the exception. In comparison to the debate surrounding diving for example, a discussion that is constantly discussed with within sports such as football or basketball, similarly contentious acts that challenge notions of fair play are absent from e-sports. Any issues surrounding fair play that do exist, for example with the ‘fountain hook’, are pinned entirely onto the developers. The technological properties of an e-sports context allow no room for doubt or subjectivity with regards to in-game actions and as a result any contentious issues are a problem with the system (by extension the developers) rather than the players.
Bibliography
Banks, J. and Humphreys, S. ‘The Labour of User Co-Creators: Emergent Social Network Markets?’, in Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, pp 401 – 418, Issue 14, October 2008.
Bruns, A. (2006) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond, New York: Peter Lang.
Consalvo, M. (2009) Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames, London: MIT Press.
Cook, D. (2013) ‘A single game as a lifelong hobby’, Lost Garden, July 20th, 2013.
Herz, J. C. (1997) Joystick Nation: How Videogames Ate Our Quarters, Won Our Hearts, and Rewired Our Minds, New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Huizinga, J. (1949) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, London: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, London: New York University Press.
Kerr, A. (2011) ’Player Production and Innovation in Online Games: Time for New Rules?’, in Crawford, G., Gosling, K, V., And Light B. (2011) Online Gaming in Context: The Social and Cultural Significance of Online Games, New York: Routledge.
Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, London: Penguin Books.
Lévy, P. (1997) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace, Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Taylor, T, L. (2006) Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Gaming Culture, Cambridge: MIT Press.
JJarr 