Fundamental similarities between general classes in mmorpgs?

[Ishida52134]

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.

[MentaL]

[Robert]

The only similarities between a rogue and a warrior is that they are both melee. That's pretty much where the similarities end, one relies upon strength and the other on dexterity. Think of a warrior as being a knight in medieval times, whereas a rogue is more of a martial artist of toward. One is entirely brute force, the other is entirely stealth and speed, compete polar opposites tbh.

Neither have anything to do with engineering however, I have no idea where you have gotten that idea from. Personally as an Engineer, I hate melee classes. It is more a choice of taste than anything. I prefer healing classes, it doesn't make me want to become a doctor or a priest or something, lol.

So, no, your entire hypothesis makes no sense.

[Negata]

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?

In the games that they are similar, yes.

2) Do they both primarily deal physical damage as opposed to magical damage?

It seems that you're posing this more as a statement rather than genuine question.

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

Nope, not necessarily. It may be a good hint, though. Well, is that what you like about them? It sounds like you already answered your own question again.

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?

Nope, it doesn't work like that. Could be the case here but it's not what laws of logic imply at all.

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?

It depends on your perspective. Someone else could be looking at those classes and judging them by their role in the society. If you see applied mechanics as their unifying factor then it is, to you.

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?

Find a book and read. Google search. But what are you looking for, anyway? You may find sources that present rogues very differently from what you've fallen in love with. Will you still accept it as a learning experience about the class? What is Warrior and Rogue to you, anyway? They are fictional roles and made-up characters by whoever has found it fit to name a piece of their imagination (or plagiarism) as one or the other. I really don't understand your fascination to them in the claimed general case but if it's about a few specific Warrior/Rogues then sure.

So, no, your entire hypothesis makes no sense.

Well it does, if you summarize the post like this: "I like warrior and melee classes and I also like mechanics. I am a person who likes mechanics and my preference of classes speaks to the world who I am and what I like. I have also found a thing that connects my likes."

[Laz-low]

Moved to Gaming Hotspot. OW isn't for MMO discussion but this is a good thread, so moved to Gaming

[Ishida52134]

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?

I mean if you like two things that are completely different except for one single trait. Why wouldn't that imply that you like that single trait? Applied mechanics/physical adeptness is the only thing the two share right?

In the games that they are similar, yes.

It seems that you're posing this more as a statement rather than genuine question.
Nope, not necessarily. It may be a good hint, though. Well, is that what you like about them? It sounds like you already answered your own question again.
Nope, it doesn't work like that. Could be the case here but it's not what laws of logic imply at all.

It depends on your perspective. Someone else could be looking at those classes and judging them by their role in the society. If you see applied mechanics as their unifying factor then it is, to you.

Find a book and read. Google search. But what are you looking for, anyway? You may find sources that present rogues very differently from what you've fallen in love with. Will you still accept it as a learning experience about the class? What is Warrior and Rogue to you, anyway? They are fictional roles and made-up characters by whoever has found it fit to name a piece of their imagination (or plagiarism) as one or the other. I really don't understand your fascination to them in the claimed general case but if it's about a few specific Warrior/Rogues then sure.

Well it does, if you summarize the post like this: "I like warrior and melee classes and I also like mechanics. I am a person who likes mechanics and my preference of classes speaks to the world who I am and what I like. I have also found a thing that connects my likes."

well to your perspective, what could you possibly find that unites rogues and warriors? And I also include rangers as well so it's not just melee.

[Negata]

You may like it or not and I guess you do, but there's no logical implication. An example: I like beer and I like cars. Does it imply the most important thing for me about them is glass on the exterior? No, it's an irrelevant coincidence. But why ramble on about it when you already have the conclusion set.

This feels like a rather pointless conversation at the moment. You state that this is about the generic types of warriors and rogues, but apparently you have a specific game or two on mind. Then maybe this should be about those games alone if that's even what you wanted to talk about in the first place. Your post confuses me.

well to your perspective, what could you possibly find that unites rogues and warriors? And I also include rangers as well so it's not just melee.

It's not my perspective and I don't even have one on this topic. I really don't care. Just to give an example one could fall in love with the thought of the underdog of the society rising above the wealthy and those with a respected family name as a hero if the world is one where classes such as the cleric naturally have a status from their position and the mage from mystery and fear.

By the way, in many games the rogue is a ranged class and the ranger may be melee. Take Baldur's Gate and the ranger has some clerical powers as well iirc and every class happily wields both ranged and melee and the warrior feels more akin to the cleric than the rogue. In some games the rogue/thief applies practical magic to accomplish feats like lockpicking... My point is, I fail to see the generic warrior+rogue you speak of.

[Ishida52134]

You may like it or not and I guess you do, but there's no logical implication. An example: I like beer and I like cars. Does it imply the most important thing for me about them is glass on the exterior? No, it's an irrelevant coincidence. But why ramble on about it when you already have the conclusion set.

This feels like a rather pointless conversation at the moment. You state that this is about the generic types of warriors and rogues, but apparently you have a specific game or two on mind. Then maybe this should be about those games alone if that's even what you wanted to talk about in the first place. Your post confuses me.

It's not my perspective and I don't even have one on this topic. I really don't care. Just to give an example one could fall in love with the thought of the underdog of the society rising above the wealthy and those with a respected family name as a hero if the world is one where classes such as the cleric naturally have a status from their position and the mage from mystery and fear.

By the way, in many games the rogue is a ranged class and the ranger may be melee. Take Baldur's Gate and the ranger has some clerical powers as well iirc and every class happily wields both ranged and melee and the warrior feels more akin to the cleric than the rogue. In some games the rogue/thief applies practical magic to accomplish feats like lockpicking... My point is, I fail to see the generic warrior+rogue you speak of.

what are you talking about. I said I do include rangers as a rogue I don't care if it's ranged or melee. Yeah but the rogue/thief wouldn't use magic as their primary form of combat. I am speaking of generic warrior/rogue archetypes.

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?

[Negata]

So did you have a real question somewhere?

[Ishida52134]

Just one question... would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage? Then I would know if I really like physical damage or not....
And is there anything rogue/warrior that isn't related to applied mechanics/physical damage besides mages?

[Robert]

So basically what you are saying is you prefer non-fiction archetypes in your fantastic setting. I would think it suggests you have an under-active imagination. Any other classes requires you to play a role which would be impossible for you to actually fulfil.

What about a Medic? Engineer? Steam-punk? Technomage? Alchemist? Where do you draw the line between science and scifi?


PS, talking about actual mechanics in an mmo setting refers to how the class plays. For instance the mechanics of a mage would be mana, and any other resource they use. A rogues are generally stealth, stun and combo points.


You would probably really like LotRO, every class on there is designed to be possible (maybe not runemasters but whatever) as Wizards, and magic, are well outside the possibilities for mortal races/lesser beings. Plus captains are awesome, that's what I played when I was on it!

[Ishida52134]

So basically what you are saying is you prefer non-fiction archetypes in your fantastic setting. I would think it suggests you have an under-active imagination. Any other classes requires you to play a role which would be impossible for you to actually fulfil.

What about a Medic? Engineer? Steam-punk? Technomage? Alchemist? Where do you draw the line between science and scifi?


PS, talking about actual mechanics in an mmo setting refers to how the class plays. For instance the mechanics of a mage would be mana, and any other resource they use. A rogues are generally stealth, stun and combo points.


You would probably really like LotRO, every class on there is designed to be possible (maybe not runemasters but whatever) as Wizards, and magic, are well outside the possibilities for mortal races/lesser beings. Plus captains are awesome, that's what I played when I was on it!

How does physical damage imply non-fiction? I like playing engineers but primarily rogue and warrior classes. How does a rogue leaping up 5 stories and somehow killing an entire room of guards seem realistic to you?
My main question is: Do all rogue and warrior classes primarily deal physical damage? Is physical damage/physical adeptness a primary unifying trait? Are there any cases where rogues and warriors don't primarily deal physical damage?
And also, would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage?

[Robert]

How does physical damage imply non-fiction? I like playing engineers but primarily rogue and warrior classes. How does a rogue leaping up 5 stories and somehow killing an entire room of guards seem realistic to you?
My main question is: Do all rogue and warrior classes primarily deal physical damage? Is physical damage/physical adeptness a primary unifying trait? Are there any cases where rogues and warriors don't primarily deal physical damage?
And also, would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage?

Because physical damage is non-fiction. You could pick up a sword, dagger, bow, gun, etc right now and cause damage to someone.

A rogue jumping heights is either parkour set in a fantasy world, or due to magic items giving them the agility/strength/whatever to do things they couldn't on their own.

Yes, they deal physical damage, and unifying trait. However they are still very different classes with totally different ideals behind them so I disagree they should be thought of as the same. It's like calling a mage, warlock and necro the same because they use magic, but they use it in vastly different ways.

There are many cases of the rogue and warrior archetypes not only dealing physical damage. A Bard for instance is a rogue, who specialises in affecting the morale of characters and npcs around them. A martial artist/ninja is a mix between the two, but normally uses a resource such as Chi. Then you have Paladins, who use holy energy to help them.

[Ishida52134]

Because physical damage is non-fiction. You could pick up a sword, dagger, bow, gun, etc right now and cause damage to someone.

A rogue jumping heights is either parkour set in a fantasy world, or due to magic items giving them the agility/strength/whatever to do things they couldn't on their own.

Yes, they deal physical damage, and unifying trait. However they are still very different classes with totally different ideals behind them so I disagree they should be thought of as the same. It's like calling a mage, warlock and necro the same because they use magic, but they use it in vastly different ways.

There are many cases of the rogue and warrior archetypes not only dealing physical damage. A Bard for instance is a rogue, who specialises in affecting the morale of characters and npcs around them. A martial artist/ninja is a mix between the two, but normally uses a resource such as Chi. Then you have Paladins, who use holy energy to help them.

No not really.. Almost every kind of physical damage used in video games is non-realistic in some way or another. You can also pick up a plasma gun and start shooting people in video games but that's unrealistic at this moment as well.

I never tried to think of rogues and warriors as the same.. Like I said before, I consider rangers as a subclass of rogues so it's not only limited to melee.. 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?

Well would rogues and warriors ever use magic as their primary form of damage? I consider paladins more as hybrids between clerics and warriors.

So, would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage? This is my main question at this point.....

[Robert]

No not really.. Almost every kind of physical damage used in video games is non-realistic in some way or another. You can also pick up a plasma gun and start shooting people in video games but that's unrealistic at this moment as well.

I never tried to think of rogues and warriors as the same.. Like I said before, I consider rangers as a subclass of rogues so it's not only limited to melee.. 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?

Well would rogues and warriors ever use magic as their primary form of damage? I consider paladins more as hybrids between clerics and warriors.

So, would a sniper wielding a futuristic energy weapon not fit in the physical damage? This is my main question at this point.....

Plasma rifles, and Ion and rail ones, are generally theoretically possible but just out of range of current science. Sort of like space ships in some scifi, they are possible just not made yet. I guess it's the difference between sci-fi and other non-fiction, sci-fi has some basis in science. Like Steampunk is a genre of scifi, most of it is totally possible, just impractical/inefficient.

Rogues are melee, rangers are a subclass of thief, like the bard and monk.

Most mmos however think of it like this:

Melee support (Heavy armour, normally tank) - Knight, Lancer
Melee damage - Rogue
Range damage - Mage, Warlock, Necro
Range support (Healer) - Cleric

Essentially the holy trinity in mmos, that the vast majority use for their grouping system.

Then you hybrid them so,

Knight + Thief = Warrior (slow melee dps), Barbarian (fast melee dps with heavy armour)
Knight + Mage = Battle-mage/Warmage (magic with heavy armour), Psyblade (melee with magic), Inquisitor
Knight + Cleric = Paladin, Divine Knight
Thief + Mage = Ranger/hunter (ranged dps), Witchhunter
Thief + Cleric = Monk, Bard
Mage + Cleric = Druid, Shaman, Mystic

And then there are loads more using different mechanics, but can normally be put into a mix of armour types and melee/range. Some games sadly mix stuff together within one class, such as WoW letting Wars do the same dps as Rogues with the right spec. This is done to try to homogenise the classes, trying to give everyone similar survivability and damage when they are doing the same role even with different armour/weapon types.

So yeah, the underlying trait for Wars and Rogues is melee dps, they aren't the archetype themselves, just a class within it. Rangers are a hybrid of two archetypes.

A futuristic sniper using an energy weapon would depend on the source of the power behind the weapon tbh. But really if it was in a game it would normally be given it's own damage type. I doubt it would be physical damage really, it would probably be a type of elemental attack. Sort of like in borderlands 2 with their damage types. A rail gun might be physical I suppose, but a Plasma gun would be elemental, possibly fire due to it being what happens when you heat something beyond a gas, though I'd just call it Plasma. An Ion weapon would again be elemental, probably electricity, but again I'd just class it as an Ion weapon. Sure they are all technically matter, and therefore a physical object, but they display different properties, just like demonic energy is classed different to holy, or fire, electricity, water, air, etc magic.

[Ishida52134]

Plasma rifles, and Ion and rail ones, are generally theoretically possible but just out of range of current science. Sort of like space ships in some scifi, they are possible just not made yet. I guess it's the difference between sci-fi and other non-fiction, sci-fi has some basis in science. Like Steampunk is a genre of scifi, most of it is totally possible, just impractical/inefficient.

Rogues are melee, rangers are a subclass of thief, like the bard and monk.

Most mmos however think of it like this:

Melee support (Heavy armour, normally tank) - Knight, Lancer
Melee damage - Rogue
Range damage - Mage, Warlock, Necro
Range support (Healer) - Cleric

Essentially the holy trinity in mmos, that the vast majority use for their grouping system.

Then you hybrid them so,

Knight + Thief = Warrior (slow melee dps), Barbarian (fast melee dps with heavy armour)
Knight + Mage = Battle-mage/Warmage (magic with heavy armour), Psyblade (melee with magic), Inquisitor
Knight + Cleric = Paladin, Divine Knight
Thief + Mage = Ranger/hunter (ranged dps), Witchhunter
Thief + Cleric = Monk, Bard
Mage + Cleric = Druid, Shaman, Mystic

And then there are loads more using different mechanics, but can normally be put into a mix of armour types and melee/range. Some games sadly mix stuff together within one class, such as WoW letting Wars do the same dps as Rogues with the right spec. This is done to try to homogenise the classes, trying to give everyone similar survivability and damage when they are doing the same role even with different armour/weapon types.

So yeah, the underlying trait for Wars and Rogues is melee dps, they aren't the archetype themselves, just a class within it. Rangers are a hybrid of two archetypes.

A futuristic sniper using an energy weapon would depend on the source of the power behind the weapon tbh. But really if it was in a game it would normally be given it's own damage type. I doubt it would be physical damage really, it would probably be a type of elemental attack. Sort of like in borderlands 2 with their damage types. A rail gun might be physical I suppose, but a Plasma gun would be elemental, possibly fire due to it being what happens when you heat something beyond a gas, though I'd just call it Plasma. An Ion weapon would again be elemental, probably electricity, but again I'd just class it as an Ion weapon. Sure they are all technically matter, and therefore a physical object, but they display different properties, just like demonic energy is classed different to holy, or fire, electricity, water, air, etc magic.

thanks. But I just according to my interests, I wouldn't just label it as melee dps. I don't really think of rangers as a hybrid between mages and rogues since they don't really use magic at all or very rarely.

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?

[Robert]

thanks. But I just according to my interests, I wouldn't just label it as melee dps. I don't really think of rangers as a hybrid between mages and rogues since they don't really use magic at all or very rarely.

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?

You can label it whatever you want, the rest of the world is going to label them as melee classes. Rangers are a hybrid of range dps and melee dps, in that they only do ranged damage (from the ranged damage type, ie mage) and have a medium armour type (from the melee damage type, ie thief).

The thing they have in common is melee damage. The armour classes of them is different, a Warrior is a lot more tanky, whereas the Rogue is a lot more squishy, but these days tend to have other survival mechanics (namely stealth).

Understanding real world mechanics will give you no benefit. It's like saying a boxer would be good at fighting games. The game mechanics and real world mechanics are completely different. You don't need to be a mechanic to play GTA. Or a Rocket Engineer to play a sci-fi space game. The skill sets are completely different. You could argue being an architect or city planner could help in a city builder game, but then the scoring system of the game probably isn't as complex as the real world, so even that would be rather limited.

In this sci-fi setting, what would a warrior be using? Or a mage? Frankly a sniper using an energy weapon would be more like a mage than a traditional hunter. The choice of ammo, and weapon, is more akin to a mage choosing fire or ice magic than a hunter choosing an arrow type. A sniper uses light armour (they swap armour for range) and are range damage, that fits in the mage category. Learning about quantum mechanics wouldn't help you in this situation either, it has nothing to do with using the weapon. But hell, if you are clever enough to do a degree on Quantum Mechanics, go for it! Of the limited about I had to do for me electronics degree, it's damn hard stuff, but really interesting.

If by Rogue and Warrior you mean melee dps and melee support, yes there are loads of examples. They are hybrids with the ranged archetypes. So Psyblade, Inquisitor, Paladin, Divine/Death Knight, Hunter, Witchhunter, Monk, Bard, and some Druid forms.

You should say you like Melee classes, and hunters. Because that is how classes are defined, by their archetypes.

[Ishida52134]

You can label it whatever you want, the rest of the world is going to label them as melee classes. Rangers are a hybrid of range dps and melee dps, in that they only do ranged damage (from the ranged damage type, ie mage) and have a medium armour type (from the melee damage type, ie thief).

The thing they have in common is melee damage. The armour classes of them is different, a Warrior is a lot more tanky, whereas the Rogue is a lot more squishy, but these days tend to have other survival mechanics (namely stealth).

Understanding real world mechanics will give you no benefit. It's like saying a boxer would be good at fighting games. The game mechanics and real world mechanics are completely different. You don't need to be a mechanic to play GTA. Or a Rocket Engineer to play a sci-fi space game. The skill sets are completely different. You could argue being an architect or city planner could help in a city builder game, but then the scoring system of the game probably isn't as complex as the real world, so even that would be rather limited.

In this sci-fi setting, what would a warrior be using? Or a mage? Frankly a sniper using an energy weapon would be more like a mage than a traditional hunter. The choice of ammo, and weapon, is more akin to a mage choosing fire or ice magic than a hunter choosing an arrow type. A sniper uses light armour (they swap armour for range) and are range damage, that fits in the mage category. Learning about quantum mechanics wouldn't help you in this situation either, it has nothing to do with using the weapon. But hell, if you are clever enough to do a degree on Quantum Mechanics, go for it! Of the limited about I had to do for me electronics degree, it's damn hard stuff, but really interesting.

If by Rogue and Warrior you mean melee dps and melee support, yes there are loads of examples. They are hybrids with the ranged archetypes. So Psyblade, Inquisitor, Paladin, Divine/Death Knight, Hunter, Witchhunter, Monk, Bard, and some Druid forms.

You should say you like Melee classes, and hunters. Because that is how classes are defined, by their archetypes.

Mages are ranged magic dps. It's retarded to compare mages to simply ranged dps. Because ranger archetypes like legolas have nothing to do with wizards and mages. It's definitely not melee it's physical damage. I'd just include rangers in the list of my likes along with warriors and rogues then to exclude melee....

So a sniper wielding an energy weapon would have nothing to do with applied mechanics right? Even though typical warriors rogues do? Energy weapons have more to do with quantum mechanics right?

How are hybrids with ranged archetypes have anything to do with not being related to applied mechanics. Applied mechanics covers ranged damage as long as it's physical.

And as for rogues and warriors. Are there any rogues and warrior type examples that aren't related to applied mechanics at all? And by rogues and warriors I mean physical damage not melee.. 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?

[Negata]

This will never end, will it? Ishida you have some weird fixation on whatever you're trying to say here and as long as you keep holding onto it so tightly no matter what you ask and what answers are given you will not learn anything new. As it is, it appears to be more of a debate than "a couple of quick questions".

Excellent categorizing and break-downs there, Rob! I'd accept any of your posts as the definitive answer to the OP's questions right away. But there's probably only one correct answer here...

[Ishida52134]

well I agree with everything just that mage does not imply ranged dps. Mages is magic damage not simply ranged dps.
Just a few last questions:
1) I mean, snipers with energy weapons isn't really physical damage right? You can't describe it in terms of classical physics?

2) 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.

3) Would saying that I like physical adeptness be better than saying I like rogues and warriors and rangers?

4) So to learn more about rogues and warriors I should just play them more and read articles?

5) 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?

6) 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?

7)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?

8) 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?

9) 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?



Primarily the thing I'm trying to ask 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?

[Ishida52134]

any ideas?

[Robert]

any ideas?

You have no idea what you are talking about, and seem to refuse to read my posts to help you understand.

I don't know how simpler to explain it than there are 4 class archetypes. If you can't grasp that concept, everything else will be lost on you.


Everything in a fantasy setting is physical. Magic is a physical attack, because it does physical damage (unless it is a mental attack). You can't just classify only melee and hunter attacks as physical, if an attack does damage it has physically affected the target. If I start a fire in your house, it will physically kill you, right? Exactly the same for a mages fireballs.

Stop getting hung up on the word physical. Also magic usage is an applied mechanic of your characters world, just as electricity is in ours.

[Ishida52134]

I mean like the definition of physical here: Physical damage - Guild Wars Wiki (GWW)

And plus, applied mechanics is only the study of motion of physical bodies. It doesn't include thermodynamics or electricity and such:
Applied mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do understand what you're talking about lol.

I just want to know would it be better to say I like rogues and warriors or to say I like applied mechanics/physical adeptness?

And how else can I expand my likes beyond video games if I don't try to find a common similarity between rogues and warriors which are the two things I like?

[Robert]

I mean like the definition of physical here: Physical damage - Guild Wars Wiki (GWW)

And plus, applied mechanics is only the study of motion of physical bodies. It doesn't include thermodynamics or electricity and such:
Applied mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do understand what you're talking about lol.

I just want to know would it be better to say I like rogues and warriors or to say I like applied mechanics/physical adeptness?

And how else can I expand my likes beyond video games if I don't try to find a common similarity between rogues and warriors which are the two things I like?

I would have to disagree with ArenaNets classification then frankly, a ball of ice thrown at an enemy would deal just as much damage as a ball of stone, or whatever other hard material you want to throw at something. They have tried to generalise elements to make game balancing easier. If you take out hunters from that list, they rest are all melee.

Did you actually read the wiki link you posted?

Within the theoretical sciences, applied mechanics is useful in formulating new ideas and theories, discovering and interpreting phenomena, and developing experimental and computational tools. In the application of the natural sciences, mechanics was said to be complemented by thermodynamics by physical chemists Gilbert N. Lewis and Merle Randall, the study of heat and more generally energy, and electromechanics, the study of electricity and magnetism.[1]

Mechanics is complimented by energy, you can't really separate the two. If you have two objects moving together, energy is created. Iirc it's one of the laws of nature that was derived from E=MC^2, but frankly I'm just an engineer, not a theoretical physicist! Every object in the universe has a slight gravitational pull on every other object. It's just tiny small for what we'd use it for.

Therefore in my mind, if magic were real, it would be another form of energy. One that can be manipulated by consciousness of the magic user to change it's energy into other forms of energy (and by extension matter too). Magic to gravitation would give you levitation for instance. Magic to electromagnetic (which is responsible fiction, tension and and other body forces) would give you any telekinetic types of magic, as well as technomages and probably most fantasy engineers, and also heating and cooling magics sure as fire balls. Magic to the nuclear forces I believe would give you the ability to create matter, using E=MC^2, essentially the opposite of a nuclear bomb.

So yeah, if magic were another force in a fantasy universe, it would be fundamental to all physics, as well as all mechanical engineering tbh.

Again, you don't understand if you are still calling them rogues and warriors. Those are classes, not archetypes. They are classes from two different archetypes. Like I said, you like all melee (I'm presuming, you haven't mentioned any melee you don't like) and Hunters (which is a hybrid of melee dps (the pet) and range dps).

If you like non-fictional weapons, I'd say have a look into LARPing, or just medieval history in general. Warriors and Rogues don't exist in our universe, just in the fantasy ones where magic exists. A warrior and rogue mean as much in this world as being a mage would, ie you'd be put into mental health clinic. Calling stuff applied mechanics also makes you sound like a complete idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. Real world mechanics has nothing to do with fantasy mechanics. It's as bad as talking about perpetual motion machines which are physically impossible. Personally I disagree with people using the term applied mechanics because it sounds like there is something called theoretical mechanics. Theoretical Physics and Applied Physics is what they should be called, mechanics is just a left over term tbh.

[Ishida52134]

I would have to disagree with ArenaNets classification then frankly, a ball of ice thrown at an enemy would deal just as much damage as a ball of stone, or whatever other hard material you want to throw at something. They have tried to generalise elements to make game balancing easier. If you take out hunters from that list, they rest are all melee.

Did you actually read the wiki link you posted?



Mechanics is complimented by energy, you can't really separate the two. If you have two objects moving together, energy is created. Iirc it's one of the laws of nature that was derived from E=MC^2, but frankly I'm just an engineer, not a theoretical physicist! Every object in the universe has a slight gravitational pull on every other object. It's just tiny small for what we'd use it for.

Therefore in my mind, if magic were real, it would be another form of energy. One that can be manipulated by consciousness of the magic user to change it's energy into other forms of energy (and by extension matter too). Magic to gravitation would give you levitation for instance. Magic to electromagnetic (which is responsible fiction, tension and and other body forces) would give you any telekinetic types of magic, as well as technomages and probably most fantasy engineers, and also heating and cooling magics sure as fire balls. Magic to the nuclear forces I believe would give you the ability to create matter, using E=MC^2, essentially the opposite of a nuclear bomb.

So yeah, if magic were another force in a fantasy universe, it would be fundamental to all physics, as well as all mechanical engineering tbh.

Again, you don't understand if you are still calling them rogues and warriors. Those are classes, not archetypes. They are classes from two different archetypes. Like I said, you like all melee (I'm presuming, you haven't mentioned any melee you don't like) and Hunters (which is a hybrid of melee dps (the pet) and range dps).

If you like non-fictional weapons, I'd say have a look into LARPing, or just medieval history in general. Warriors and Rogues don't exist in our universe, just in the fantasy ones where magic exists. A warrior and rogue mean as much in this world as being a mage would, ie you'd be put into mental health clinic. Calling stuff applied mechanics also makes you sound like a complete idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. Real world mechanics has nothing to do with fantasy mechanics. It's as bad as talking about perpetual motion machines which are physically impossible. Personally I disagree with people using the term applied mechanics because it sounds like there is something called theoretical mechanics. Theoretical Physics and Applied Physics is what they should be called, mechanics is just a left over term tbh.

thanks. Well I like all kinds of ranged dps as long as it's not a mage. I don't really care if it's a non-fictional weapon, like if we were to stretch rogues and warriors to other genres, I'm fine with snipers wielding energy weapons. Would that be an example of me not only liking applied mechanics? That's more quantum mechanics right?

So I can't utilize my likes in video games to real life?

Another reason I'm asking this is because I actually do like physics, but I'm trying to find a secondary major. I'm currently majoring in engineering physics and I thought this kind of thing would indicate what kind of major I should choose. I was deciding between mechanical engineering and electrical/computer engineering. I was deciding between pursuing further study engineering mechanics/mechanical engineering or computer hardware engineering.

[Robert]

thanks. Well I like all kinds of ranged dps as long as it's not a mage. I don't really care if it's a non-fictional weapon, like if we were to stretch rogues and warriors to other genres, I'm fine with snipers wielding energy weapons. Would that be an example of me not only liking applied mechanics? That's more quantum mechanics right?

So I can't utilize my likes in video games to real life?

Another reason I'm asking this is because I actually do like physics, but I'm trying to find a secondary major. I'm currently majoring in engineering physics and I thought this kind of thing would indicate what kind of major I should choose. I was deciding between mechanical engineering and electrical/computer engineering. I was deciding between pursuing further study engineering mechanics/mechanical engineering or computer hardware engineering.

In a fantasy setting, a mage is pretty much exactly the same as a hunter except one uses their mind and the other uses a bow. Though really the mage should be far more powerful (ie why LotR only had like 5 of them) but for balancing purposes have been nerfed into oblivion.

An energy weapon inside that futuristic setting is exactly the same as a hunter, and mage, in a fantasy setting. You need to think of it from within the universe it is set, they are all ranged DPS and so are the same archetype.

Applied mechanics doesn't exist. As I said in my last post if you had read the thing. It is applied physics if anything, and everything within that setting would be applied physics including magic. Quantum mechanics is essentially theoretical physics as the majority of it is theoretical.

No, you can't base your real life decisions on what classes you like in a fantasy setting. It would be like deciding you want to be a mage.

If you want actual advice, I would suggest going with mechanic engineering, and electrical engineering as secondary. Computer is far too limiting imo, a good general engineering degree with open far more doors than simply computer engineering. Don't base your future on a game, base it on what you type of job you want in the future. From what I have been told be engineer recruiters manufacturing engineers are the highest paid, at least in England. Perhaps go talk to a careers advisor? They are happy to help I find, and will give you far better advice than basing it around mmorpg classes.