Basically, I like the rogue and warrior classes the most in rpgs among the general classes rogues warriors clerics and mages. I include rangers as a subclass of rogues btw.
Just a few quick questions:
1) Are there are any similarities that rogues and warrior classes generally share?
2) Do they both primarily deal physical damage as opposed to magical damage?
3) Would me liking rogue and warrior classes the most imply that I like applied mechanics? Like the study of motion of bodies in classical physics. Which includes solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, fracture, finite element analysis, etc. Meaning that if I like both rogues and warriors and if they share a specific similarity, then does that mean that I like that? Which in this case seems to be applied mechanics since they are both proficient in mechanics? After all, from the games I've played they're basically complete opposites other than mostly doing physical damage
4) If we just use logic. Say you like everything about one thing. And say you like everything in another thing. Yet those two things are completely opposite except for one single attribute that they share in common. Wouldn't that imply that you like that single attribute?
Take for example a set of elements. You like every single element in that set and every element in another set. And those two sets only share one element in common. Wouldn't it make sense to say that you like that one element the most?
5) I just want to know if one likes rogues and warriors then does that imply applied mechanics?
since the only similarity they share is physical attributes/traits, why wouldn't applied mechanics be their unifying factor?
6) And just one final thing, how else would you learn more about rogues and warriors besides finding a constant similarity like applied mechanics and learning more about that?
thanks.
This doesn't make any sense, and even if it did MMORPGs are computer games so I think you may have the wrong forum.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610846Basically, I like the rogue and warrior classes the most in rpgs among the general classes rogues warriors clerics and mages. I include rangers as a subclass of rogues btw.
Welcome to theRPGsite! Our main focus in the Roleplaying Games Main Forum is traditional, pen-and-paper, tabletop roleplaying games, but PC games get plenty of attention over at the Other Games forum. I'm sure a mod will be along shortly to relocate this thread.
Now I'll try to tackle your questions, but bear in mind that I have very little experience with MMOs and a lot with tabletop RPGs, and doubtless my answers will doubtlessly reflect that; especially since your questions seem a bit vague to me.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610846Just a few quick questions:
1) Are there are any similarities that rogues and warrior classes generally share?
Yeah, they mostly eschew magic and stab things to death (as you've mentioned yourself below).
Quote from: Ishida52134;6108462) Do they both primarily deal physical damage as opposed to magical damage?
They do, but I'm not sure where you're getting at here.
Quote from: Ishida52134;6108463) Would me liking rogue and warrior classes the most imply that I like applied mechanics? Like the study of motion of bodies in classical physics. Which includes solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, fracture, finite element analysis, etc. Meaning that if I like both rogues and warriors and if they share a specific similarity, then does that mean that I like that? Which in this case seems to be applied mechanics since they are both proficient in mechanics? After all, from the games I've played they're basically complete opposites other than mostly doing physical damage
Nope, that's silly. You may like Physics and you may enjoy playing warriors and rogues, but one does not follow the other. That'd be like saying cleric players are all religious people, or that mage players are into the occult.
Quote from: Ishida52134;6108464) If we just use logic. Say you like everything about one thing. And say you like everything in another thing. Yet those two things are completely opposite except for one single attribute that they share in common. Wouldn't that imply that you like that single attribute?
Take for example a set of elements. You like every single element in that set and every element in another set. And those two sets only share one element in common. Wouldn't it make sense to say that you like that one element the most?
Mathematically, yes, but again, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Quote from: Ishida52134;6108465) I just want to know if one likes rogues and warriors then does that imply applied mechanics?
since the only similarity they share is physical attributes/traits, why wouldn't applied mechanics be their unifying factor?
Nope, because playing a character in a game and studying Physics have zilch to do with each other.
Quote from: Ishida52134;6108466) And just one final thing, how else would you learn more about rogues and warriors besides finding a constant similarity like applied mechanics and learning more about that?
thanks.
By playing D&D (the game that introduced these archetypes to fantasy gaming) and the classic fantasy literature that inspired it; I suggest you start with Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, and Fritz Leiber's tales of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser in the city of Lankhmar, probably the most archetypal models for these character classes.
Hope that helps.
thanks. But I mean if that logic follows, then why wouldn't that mean I like applied mechanics? After all, in the same way as I stated in that scenario, rogues and warriors basically are complete opposites besides the fact that they deal physical damage. Btw, I stated that I include rangers as rogues so it's not only limited to stabbing things and melee. In addition, applied mechanics is the only thing they share right? Why wouldn't I like that singular trait then?
Could you clarify your question for me? I'm having trouble following.
What are you arguing or suggesting?
Does "applied physics" mean the emulation of stuff like jumping and running and so on with the games' programming?
:confused:
Quote from: Opaopajr;610911Could you clarify your question for me? I'm having trouble following.
What are you arguing or suggesting?
I'm trying to suggest that liking rogues/rangers/warrior classes means you like applied mechanics. Because those classes are basically opposites and have nothing to do with each other besides the fact that they all deal physical damage. Since that's the only similarity between all the things I like why doesn't it mean I like that similarity the most?
Quote from: Ishida52134;610917I'm trying to suggest that liking rogues/rangers/warrior classes means you like applied mechanics. Because those classes are basically opposites and have nothing to do with each other besides the fact that they all deal physical damage. Since that's the only similarity between all the things I like why doesn't it mean I like that similarity the most?
No that part doesn't follow logically.
There's a set of things you like: say A, D, F, K, N and Z.
Say rogues have ability set ABCDEFG and warriors GHIJKN
G is common to both but you actually would like the rogue set because of A and D and the warrior set due to N.
You can't figure that you like "applied mechanics" just because its the only commonality.
Offline for rest of day. Happy trolling :)
Yup, this is bizarre.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610899thanks. But I mean if that logic follows, then why wouldn't that mean I like applied mechanics? After all, in the same way as I stated in that scenario, rogues and warriors basically are complete opposites besides the fact that they deal physical damage. Btw, I stated that I include rangers as rogues so it's not only limited to stabbing things and melee. In addition, applied mechanics is the only thing they share right? Why wouldn't I like that singular trait then?
Because that variable isn't singular to those classes. All monsters and all characters are capable of dealing physical damage. So while it may be something those two classes share, its not a trait of either of those classes in particular. By your logic, you should like ALL classes, as they all use applied mechanics. even the magic users.
Quote from: TristramEvans;610921Because that variable isn't singular to those classes. All monsters and all characters are capable of dealing physical damage. So while it may be something those two classes share, its not a trait of either of those classes in particular. By your logic, you should like ALL classes, as they all use applied mechanics. even the magic users.
yeah but besides warriors and rogues/rangers I can't think of any classes that uses physical damage primarily that I don't like. Furthermore, since those other traits of rogues and warriors are completely different, for example, one has heavy armor the other uses light armor. One uses dagger/bow the other uses a greatsword.
Would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage?
Quote from: Ishida52134;610925yeah but besides warriors and rogues/rangers I can't think of any classes that uses physical damage primarily that I don't like. Furthermore, since those other traits of rogues and warriors are completely different, for example, one has heavy armor the other uses light armor. One uses dagger/bow the other uses a greatsword.
Would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage?
Have you considered that maybe you just don't like magic?
well I wouldn't want to play as a lawyer or a blacksmith/crafting class all day either.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610928well I wouldn't want to play as a lawyer or a blacksmith/crafting class all day either.
I had a lawyer character named Justin Case. He was pretty badass. Prima all in your Facie.
This seems to be about massive multi-player online RPGs, so moving it to Other Games.
Which mmorpg's are you thinking of with these ideas? not every mmorpg has thieves/rangers as light armour wearers for instance(most give them medium armour) and in guild Wars 2 for instance the mesmer class uses illusion based magics but the way it does so its via the swords, daggers an greatswords its uses for melee as much as via illusionary clones that it creates as a way to boost damage in combat and also mess with its opponants head(s) so how would that class fit your rather strange concept of mechanics?
Something tells me your reaching for a scientific answer to preference instead of just accepting you prefer melee dps classes in your online games over spell flingers or ranged dps classes(which in a fair few mmorpg's ranger is counted).
Oh and i agree with butcher go read some fantasy novels and play D&D tabletop for abit it'll help you get a better understanding on where the concepts and ideas your talking about really come from more than any scientific formula will.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610899thanks. But I mean if that logic follows, then why wouldn't that mean I like applied mechanics? After all, in the same way as I stated in that scenario, rogues and warriors basically are complete opposites besides the fact that they deal physical damage. Btw, I stated that I include rangers as rogues so it's not only limited to stabbing things and melee. In addition, applied mechanics is the only thing they share right? Why wouldn't I like that singular trait then?
What exactly do you mean by "applied mechanics"?
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;610936Which mmorpg's are you thinking of with these ideas? not every mmorpg has thieves/rangers as light armour wearers for instance(most give them medium armour) and in guild Wars 2 for instance the mesmer class uses illusion based magics but the way it does so its via the swords, daggers an greatswords its uses for melee as much as via illusionary clones that it creates as a way to boost damage in combat and also mess with its opponants head(s) so how would that class fit your rather strange concept of mechanics?
Something tells me your reaching for a scientific answer to preference instead of just accepting you prefer melee dps classes in your online games over spell flingers or ranged dps classes(which in a fair few mmorpg's ranger is counted).
Oh and i agree with butcher go read some fantasy novels and play D&D tabletop for abit it'll help you get a better understanding on where the concepts and ideas your talking about really come from more than any scientific formula will.
it doesn't matter whether they do it through swords or daggers.. it's still magic.... And I already said I INCLUDE RANGERS AS ROGUES so I already said I like both melee and ranged dps.... I just said physical damage nothing about melee....
And by applied mechanics read the first post.
Quote from: Ishida52134;610939And by applied mechanics read the first post.
From you first post, it seems you mean Applied Mechanics as in, the discipline of Physics.
And again, enjoying a PC game and enjoying Physics have zero, zilch, nada to do with each other. I'm quite sure that there are lots of people with similar tastes in PC gaming, who couldn't care less about Applied Mechanics.
This is as ridiculous as suggesting that, because you play a Fire or Frost Mage in WoW, you're interested in Thermodynamics. Or that you're into Zoology because you play a Feral Druid. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Which is to say, these interests may coexist in anyone, but they do not follow from each other.
People don't play Warriors and Rogues because they like Physics. They do it because they like to stab things on the computer.
Well first, like I said I include rangers as a subclass of rogues so I don't really care about melee or ranged damage. I'm trying to find traits that are common to both rogues and warriors. Since rogues and warriors have totally completely different ideals except for one unifying trait, and I like both classes, doesn't that mean that i don't care about all their other traits since they could be anything except for that one unifying trait?
So, would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy/plasma weapon not fit in the physical damage? This is my main question at this point.....
I don't really understand why that doesn't imply applied mechanics though. Rogues and warriors have completely different traits except for one unifying trait which is physical damage/physical adeptness right? All their other traits are almost opposites of each other, which means I don't really care about their other traits if I like everything about rogues and warriors? Doesn't that mean I like that one unifying trait which is physical damage?
yup you like stabbing stuff via melee in online games, nothing physic's based about that....as for your sniper question well surely if you class the ranger as a rogue class then snipers fall into the same category since they also deal ranged damage via physical projectiles?(your energy weapon snipers are just fancy pants mages though so dont class those filthy pretenders in the same catergory lol).
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;610999yup you like stabbing stuff via melee in online games, nothing physic's based about that....as for your sniper question well surely if you class the ranger as a rogue class then snipers fall into the same category since they also deal ranged damage via physical projectiles?(your energy weapon snipers are just fancy pants mages though so dont class those filthy pretenders in the same catergory lol).
well using futuristic weapons, would that be considered physical? Or using any elemental weapon like flamethrowers and such.
Like an engineer class.
Engineers use bombs and granades so yeah physical class(plus in gw2 they're lumped in with thief and ranger so you could call them a rogue class), also flames do physical harm(burns) so your lines are getting blurred abit now.
so that doesn't imply applied mechanics then?
Technically applied mechanics covers every type of direct damage done so even magic attacks that do elemental damage(earth magic or fire for instance) counts under that system which may be why people are having issues figuring out what your actually talkign about when you mention applied mechanics.
I really dont see what applied mechanics has to do with this and think its bluring the issue. It is a field of study. Liking something that falls under its unbrella no more makes you an applied physics enthusiast than liking roses and dandylions makes you a botany enthusiast. You like physical violence (possibly mundane, non-magical physical violence). To like applied mechanics your interest would need to go way beyond that and into the actual theories of applied mechanics.
Quote from: Ishida52134;611009so that doesn't imply applied mechanics then?
No more than preferring to play a Priest implies a knack for theology. Which is to say, not at all.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;611014Technically applied mechanics covers every type of direct damage done so even magic attacks that do elemental damage(earth magic or fire for instance) counts under that system which may be why people are having issues figuring out what your actually talkign about when you mention applied mechanics.
Well classical mechanics would only cover physical damage like stabbing, piercing, slashing, those types of damage. Burning would be more like fire damage.
So basically, it has nothing to do with applied mechanics? Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons which has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
How else would I learn more about rogues and warriors other than trying to seek a common similarity and trying to learn more about that though?
I mean, if I like everything about rogues and warriors and combine all those traits together, for example, the clothing trait would range across everything from light to heavy armor, weapons would range from everything from melee to ranged. The only constant similarity is physical damage isn't it?
Ishida, I am not really sure what you are asking here. Are you quetioning whether your interest in rogues and warriors means you should look more into applied mechanics? If so, i think most people are stuggling to understand what your end goal is here.
You keep saying you want to learn more about these to classes, and somehow you believe the pathway to knowledge about is the road of applied mechanics. What do you mean when you say learn more about them? More about howthey operate and fuction? You are probably better off studying martial arts, athletics and a bit of medicine in that case. I just don't see what applied mechanics is going to do for you here.
Quote from: Ishida52134;611065I mean, if I like everything about rogues and warriors and combine all those traits together, for example, the clothing trait would range across everything from light to heavy armor, weapons would range from everything from melee to ranged. The only constant similarity is physical damage isn't it?
For most people reasons for liking a class are probably more to do with game-play factors?
*complexity of the class
*strategies the class uses to get by: focus on tanking vs. damage-dealing vs. crowd control vs. needing to constantly watch everyone's health bar to keep them alive.
*difference in how easy it is to kill members of the class.
etc.
Maybe rogues/warriors do use 'applied mechanics' but how could that translate into 'enjoyment' on your part? It seems almost as unlikely as someone playing a fire wizard because they think thermodynamics is cool.
Why don't you give us more information on what parts of playing Rogue or Warrior you enjoy, or what parts of Healer or Wizard you don't enjoy. For all we know liking the 2 classes you do could just be because wizards are too squishy and healers need too much work. Or if you're sure that it is "applied mechanics" that gives you your enjoyment of the classes, I'm curious as to how that's possible.
lol well I like everything about rogues and warriors >.>
And as for learning about them I mean just how dev's make them how they operate and stuff. Do I just do that by reading articles and playing them more?
So basically, it has nothing to do with applied mechanics? Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons which has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
Quote from: Ishida52134;611080lol well I like everything about rogues and warriors >.>
And as for learning about them I mean just how dev's make them how they operate and stuff. Do I just do that by reading articles and playing them more?
So basically, it has nothing to do with applied mechanics? Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons which has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
I think I see where you are going it this. If you are talking about programming then it probably makes sense to learn a bit about physics and applied mechanics. I am not a big science guy, but guessing that stuff os important for modeling these things (however it would also be crucial to modeling a fireball spell----though you might want to throw in chemistry for good measure). I think in addtion, if you want to model fighting, you need to look at footage of actual combat, including stuff like MMA and boxing, to give yourself an idea of how combat works in practice. The problem you will encounter is as the type of combat becomes more lethal (swords, guns, etc) the harder it is going to be find reliable information outside military sources (a lot of the armed combat material you will find will be very theoretical). I am guessing for cideo game designers, footage is very important.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;611111I think I see where you are going it this. If you are talking about programming then it probably makes sense to learn a bit about physics and applied mechanics. I am not a big science guy, but guessing that stuff os important for modeling these things (however it would also be crucial to modeling a fireball spell----though you might want to throw in chemistry for good measure). I think in addtion, if you want to model fighting, you need to look at footage of actual combat, including stuff like MMA and boxing, to give yourself an idea of how combat works in practice. The problem you will encounter is as the type of combat becomes more lethal (swords, guns, etc) the harder it is going to be find reliable information outside military sources (a lot of the armed combat material you will find will be very theoretical). I am guessing for cideo game designers, footage is very important.
no I mean like just how devs make rogues and warriors. How they function in games. I would learn more by reading articles and playing them more right?
I mean, you don't need to know that much physics/applied mechanics for the software engineering part.
So basically, it has nothing to do with applied mechanics right?
Just one question -> Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons which has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
The how they make them part is probably something you should go ask a dev at a games convention or something(try emailing your mmorpg company of choice and asking them a few questions), as for why rogues and warriors exist in these games thats simple your usually gonna find a physical front line and a mid range melee/dps class in every type of mmoprg alongside your spellflingers and your "exotic" classes(each game tends to have a couple of unique classes that are similar to something from other games but that does things in a different way unique to that game like the mesmer in guild wars), they have frontline and mid range melee classes because not every player is interested in spellflinging and just wants to get by via hitting stuff till it dies and magey types tend not to wander the land in heavy plate, some like being sneaky aswell so they are your rogues, others like to both hit and shoot stuff and those are your rangers etc.
Would reading articles and playing more games help too?
Just one question -> Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons it has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
Reading about rangers, warriors and rogues in fiction yes, articles in magazines probably not.
As for your second question you seem stuck in a loop here so perhaps stop caring if physics covers something like that and maybe get on with gaming and reading fatasy/scifi novels instead.
Go miver games devs about physics stuff at a convention im sure they'll be more help than a forum of tabletop and videogame players in that field.
Quote from: Ishida52134;611166Would reading articles and playing more games help too?
I guess so. It still isnt clear what you are trying to understand exactly.
QuoteJust one question -> Like since rangers could be snipers with energy weapons it has nothing to do with classical mechanics right?
I dont think anyone understands what you mean by this question. At the veryleast, you ought to rephrase it.
I just want to understand like how rogues and warriors work in video games. Wouldn't understanding applied mechanics help me with that though? I mean after all if I like everything about rogues and everything about warriors, doesn't it make sense to say that I like what they have in common the most?
And about that question, what I mean is that in another setting like a scifi setting, rangers could be comparable to snipers with futuristic energy weapons right? But that would have nothing to do with applied mechanics and more with quantum mechanics right?
And as for rogues and warriors. Are there any rogues and warrior type examples that aren't related to applied mechanics at all? I mean so far, I can't think of any exceptions that don't use physical damage as their primary form of combat.
Would saying that I like physical damage be better than saying I like rogues and warriors?
Cant you just like them without needing a frickin degree in theoretical sciences?
Quote from: Ishida52134;611246I just want to understand like how rogues and warriors work in video games.
What do you mean by "work"? If you're not talking about programming, then what else besides "rangers have woodcraft skills and are generally good at ranged attacks" and "warriors use arms and armour" are you looking for? Its a description of a career the character is pursuing. Its kinda like asking how McDonalds employees and theatre attendants work.
just a few questions:
1) I just want to understand like how rogues and warriors work in video games. Wouldn't understanding applied mechanics help me with that though? I mean after all if I like everything about rogues and everything about warriors, doesn't it make sense to say that I like what they have in common the most?
2) By work I mean like how they function. Like what experienced rpgs players do? So if I like rogues and warriors what else could I possibly do since I can't really learn more about them? I mean isn't it all I can do is find a common similarity between them and analyze that such as physical damage?
3) And about that question, what I mean is that in another setting like a scifi setting, rangers could be comparable to snipers with futuristic energy weapons right? But that would have nothing to do with applied mechanics and more with quantum mechanics right?
4) And as for rogues and warriors. Are there any rogues and warrior type examples that aren't related to applied mechanics at all? I mean so far, I can't think of any exceptions that don't use physical damage as their primary form of combat. Is physical damage the same thing as applied mechanics?
Would saying that I like physical damage be better than saying I like rogues and warriors?
If your after hints about how experienced rpg players play those classes dump the applied mechanics stuff and just ask them for hints you'll get alot further.
well with the applied mechanics thing, I'm just trying to find out what I like given what I know I already like. If I say I like everything about rogues and everything about warrior classes. And I look at every aspect of each class and only find one single similarity between the two of them. Which means I would like the single similarity the most? In this case it's physical damage isn't it?
What do you think about those questions above btw? Those are basically my last questions.
Quote from: Ishida52134;611351well with the applied mechanics thing, I'm just trying to find out what I like given what I know I already like. If I say I like everything about rogues and everything about warrior classes. And I look at every aspect of each class and only find one single similarity between the two of them. Which means I would like the single similarity the most? In this case it's physical damage isn't it?
Again , no. You're leaving out a step of logic here. As already explained. I mean , what else do they have in common? Gravity. They're both mammals. Their both pseudo-medieval. They both eat meat. They both drink. They both accumulate and spend wealth. They both adventure. There's nothing to this "applied mechanics" thing.
QuoteWhat do you think about those questions above btw? Those are basically my last questions.
Are you using a translation program? Because the questions don't make a lot of sense in English to be honest.
Quote from: TristramEvans;611355Again , no. You're leaving out a step of logic here. As already explained. I mean , what else do they have in common? Gravity. They're both mammals. Their both pseudo-medieval. They both eat meat. They both drink. They both accumulate and spend wealth. They both adventure. There's nothing to this "applied mechanics" thing.
Are you using a translation program? Because the questions don't make a lot of sense in English to be honest.
So basically if I like snipers that use high energy weapons, that means I don't only like physical damage/applied mechanics right? Because scifi weapons don't really deal physical damage?
I mean physical damage is the only similarity in their combat right? Doesn't physical damage mean applied mechanics. As for the questions:
1) I just want to understand like how rogues and warriors work in video games. Wouldn't understanding applied mechanics help me with that though? I mean after all if I like everything about rogues and everything about warriors, doesn't it make sense to say that I like the thing that they share in common?
2)So if I like rogues and warriors what else could I possibly do since I can't really learn more about them? I mean all I can do is find a common similarity between them and analyze that such as physical damage?
3) In another setting like a scifi setting, rangers could be comparable to snipers with futuristic energy weapons right? But that would have nothing to do with applied mechanics and more with quantum mechanics right?
4) And as for rogues and warriors. Are there any rogues and warrior class examples that aren't related to applied mechanics at all? I mean so far, I can't think of any exceptions that don't use physical damage as their primary form of combat. Is physical damage the same thing as applied mechanics?
Would saying that I like physical damage make more sense than saying I like rogues and warriors?
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?