You really are stuck in a loop arent you.

so basically if I like snipers with scifi energy weapons then that means I don't like applied mechanics right? since that's more like quantum mechanics? That's all im asking....

The main thing I've been asking previously is: if I like everything about rogues nad everything about warriors and everything about rangers then why wouldn't that mean I like the common similarity which is physical adeptness? Doesn't physical damage imply applied mechanics which means I like that?
But are there any rogues/warriors/rangers that don't primarily do anything related to physical/applied mechanics?

Quote from: Ishida52134;611359But are there any rogues/warriors/rangers that don't primarily do anything related to physical/applied mechanics?

Yes, like you said, snipers using energy weapons.
...
Do you still like those?
 
It kind of seems like you're asking us message board weirdos why you feel this way about something - feelings being subjective we can't help with that.
 
Or perhaps you just like doing damage to things, instead of healing or crafting. However, I don't know why you wouldn't like wizards as well as rogues and warriors then. (shrug).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;611372Yes, like you said, snipers using energy weapons.
...
Do you still like those?
 
It kind of seems like you're asking us message board weirdos why you feel this way about something - feelings being subjective we can't help with that.
 
Or perhaps you just like doing damage to things, instead of healing or crafting. However, I don't know why you wouldn't like wizards as well as rogues and warriors then. (shrug).

so you agree that snipers with energy weapons don't fit in that category of applied mechanics? Are there any other examples?

Like with rogues and warriors. Since I like them what else can I possibly do except try to find a common similarity?

Should I say I like rogues and warriors or say I like physical adeptness?

any ideas?

I also like rogues and warriors, but not because of what I consider to be their similarities.  Consider the possibility that you actually dislike the common similarity between the two - whether that's applied mechanics or whatever - and that you actually like both classes because the differences between them make up for this unpleasant common similarity.

Is it possible to generalize what I like as one thing? So far, the only thing that I see hunters, rogues, and warriors all share is the fact that they are physically proficient/physically trained? Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger archetypes that aren't physically proficient?

I largely question the connection.  I mean, in WoW and in GW2, the Rogue and Thief classes both rely heavily not only on physical prowess but on the use of some form of shadow magics - to augment very powerful abilities in the case of WoW, and as a baseline part of the class in GW2.  The WoW Hunter has "Arcane Shot" as a baseline ability, inflicting outright magic damage.  I think the only class you're going to find in MMOs that is purely physical in that regard is the Warrior.  The others are more of a grab-bag.

Quote from: This Guy;612992I largely question the connection.  I mean, in WoW and in GW2, the Rogue and Thief classes both rely heavily not only on physical prowess but on the use of some form of shadow magics - to augment very powerful abilities in the case of WoW, and as a baseline part of the class in GW2.  The WoW Hunter has "Arcane Shot" as a baseline ability, inflicting outright magic damage.  I think the only class you're going to find in MMOs that is purely physical in that regard is the Warrior.  The others are more of a grab-bag.

but they're all physically trained to some degree right?
So there's no clear similarity between warriors rogues and rangers?

Quote from: Ishida52134;612997but they're all physically trained to some degree right?
So there's no clear similarity between warriors rogues and rangers?

"To some degree."  Pretty much all of the common classes in MMOs are trained "to some degree."  I mean, unless there's a stamina meter for caster classes that makes them stop to catch a breath every five minutes of running or so, then there's a baseline level of physical ability that's assumed in every class.

What you mean is whether or not they're physically trained in the manner in which they deal damage, and in that case, no, there's not.  Iterations of all of those classes often have abilities that cause them to deal damage in non-physical ways, and those can often be primary forms of damage.  Just using WoW as a guideline, a good portion of rogue damage - a majority or minority depending on spec - comes from poisons, and it doesn't really matter how physically adept the wielder is when it comes to using those.  The damage coming from hunters is based on the type of arrow, and many of those arrows inflict non-physical damage.  The warrior is the only purely physical class of the three, and with the new Avatar ability I question even that.

Instead of looking at the "flavor" of the classes, look at how they're played, which, depending on the game and the build, can be wildly different.  For my part, I don't enjoy warriors in WoW because I dislike the slow build and management of Rage, but I prefer rogues because I enjoy the fast ramp-up time of their energy meter and the rapid accumulation of combo points to represent the exploitation of weaknesses in the opponent.  On the other hand, I don't like the Thief in GW2 because their fighting style is based around physically darting in and out of combat through the use of quick teleportation abilities and ranged attacks, and so I'm experimenting with the Warrior, in the hopes that I can get stuck in and stay there.

This is the thing.  You are talking flavor, but each game's idea of how to represent that flavor differs too much to say that it's just the flavor that could be appealing to you.  Unless you are an absolute flavorwonk and will play any one of those classes in any game that offers them without fail, there must be at least one iteration of warrior, rogue, or ranger, that you didn't enjoy playing.  Figure out which one that is, and why, and you'll get a better sense of your preferences than just whether you only prefer physical to magic.

thanks. Just a few last questions:

1) What are the fundamental similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers?

2) Are there actually any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness/traits/attributes the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.

3) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?

4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?

Is there a definitive way to classify something as a ranger/rogue/warrior in a variety of genres?