A c-130 isn't a jet. I say c-130 because mages have the area of effect speels, or high damage spells and whatnot while AC-130's have a variety of weapons loaded.
but so can rogues do area of effect damage and high damage attacks. the only difference is that they do physical damage instead.
So tell me, what's the difference between you saying "I played a game where rogues can do AOE damage" and me saying "I played a game where mages shoot rockets and use flamethrowers"? As soon as I mentioned that many mages in LoL use nonmagical technology, you dismissed it by simply saying that you don't like their definitions of the classes. Am I allowed to say that Rogues do not deal AOE damage based on the fact that I don't like whatever game you got that idea from? Rogues in D&D, EQ, FF, M:tG, etc. almost never deal damage to multiple opponents. Even if you give me several examples of games where they do, I can just say "well then I don't agree with how that game classifies stuff."
Originally posted by PyroMan52134
However, it's not even possible to separate the typical rogue and mage classes then sine they both play the same role, squishy dps. If you're not gonna go with aesthetics such as stealth and speed and daggers and bows and arrows, there's no way to separate rogues and mages.
As I said initially, specific qualities of classes are tied to the game system that they exist in. You claim that rogues and mages fulfill such similar roles that you need aesthetics to tell them apart. I would have a very hard time thinking of even a single game where the roles of rogue and mage were so similar that you couldn't tell their descriptions apart if you removed the giveaway details like robes and sneak attacks. In fact, there are not so many games where rogues and mages are big-time damage dealers in the first place. DPS is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Teferi from M:tG, or Yuffie from FF7, or Loki from Thor/Avengers.
Originally posted by PyroMan52134
and the definitions of warrior and rogues are static and constant throughout the genre.
This is verifiably wrong. If class definitions were constant from game to game throughout the fantasy genre, you wouldn't have dozens of these threads where you ask us about class definitions. We would all agree on what defines a warrior, a rogue, a mage. Every time you come here and ask "Can a warrior mainly use a bow or would that make them an archer?", do you ever get a straight answer? The people who reply are always vague and always disagree with you and with each other. There's no consensus because the definitions are not constant and cannot be constant because different games express the classes in different ways (sometimes very different).
In this very thread, the first reply said that snipers are equivalent to mages, and you followed up by saying that snipers were actually equivalent to archers. If definitions were as static and constant as you say, there would be a truly correct answer and we would all agree on it. You don't see people debating "Is Sonic Boom a projectile attack?" or "Is a Goliath an anti-air unit?" because those terms have true definitions so those questions have correct answers. This thread itself is evidence that there are no clear and obvious definitions for classes.
So given the rise of class-based shooter mmo's such as team fortress, valkyria chronicles, star wars battlefront 3, borderlands 2, battlefield 3, etc.., I've been wondering about how such classes correspond to the classes in class-based fantasy mmorpgs. Given the basic classes, rogues, warriors, healers/clerics, and mages, how do they correspond to the classes in shooter mmorpgs?
Mostly? Relatively unevolved since AD&D. The roles were set it place that long ago, and certain things that are RPG standard features (rogues/thieves/etc must be stealthy and do more damage from surprise/the rear, for instance) were already in place.
It'd be curious to take apart mmorpg every-game-does-it assumptions and 'standards' to find out from whence, exactly, they first evolved.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Classes establish strengths, weaknesses, and available skills.
tanky vs squishy
weak or resistant to various types of attacks
ranged vs close combat
high and low DPS output
emphasis on combat, support, and/or healing
attack mechanism... guns, magic, melee weps, bows
damage prevention (if any) via armor, magic, stealth, crowd control or evasion
I think there are similarities between shooter classes and fantasy RPG classes, but only because the goals are much the same. In both they diversify character capabilities to promote grouping and provide a means of customization so players can roll characters in a given desired role.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
A c-130 isn't a jet. I say c-130 because mages have the area of effect speels, or high damage spells and whatnot while AC-130's have a variety of weapons loaded.
but so can rogues do area of effect damage and high damage attacks. the only difference is that they do physical damage instead.
So tell me, what's the difference between you saying "I played a game where rogues can do AOE damage" and me saying "I played a game where mages shoot rockets and use flamethrowers"? As soon as I mentioned that many mages in LoL use nonmagical technology, you dismissed it by simply saying that you don't like their definitions of the classes. Am I allowed to say that Rogues do not deal AOE damage based on the fact that I don't like whatever game you got that idea from? Rogues in D&D, EQ, FF, M:tG, etc. almost never deal damage to multiple opponents. Even if you give me several examples of games where they do, I can just say "well then I don't agree with how that game classifies stuff."
Originally posted by PyroMan52134
However, it's not even possible to separate the typical rogue and mage classes then sine they both play the same role, squishy dps. If you're not gonna go with aesthetics such as stealth and speed and daggers and bows and arrows, there's no way to separate rogues and mages.
As I said initially, specific qualities of classes are tied to the game system that they exist in. You claim that rogues and mages fulfill such similar roles that you need aesthetics to tell them apart. I would have a very hard time thinking of even a single game where the roles of rogue and mage were so similar that you couldn't tell their descriptions apart if you removed the giveaway details like robes and sneak attacks. In fact, there are not so many games where rogues and mages are big-time damage dealers in the first place. DPS is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Teferi from M:tG, or Yuffie from FF7, or Loki from Thor/Avengers.
Originally posted by PyroMan52134
and the definitions of warrior and rogues are static and constant throughout the genre.
This is verifiably wrong. If class definitions were constant from game to game throughout the fantasy genre, you wouldn't have dozens of these threads where you ask us about class definitions. We would all agree on what defines a warrior, a rogue, a mage. Every time you come here and ask "Can a warrior mainly use a bow or would that make them an archer?", do you ever get a straight answer? The people who reply are always vague and always disagree with you and with each other. There's no consensus because the definitions are not constant and cannot be constant because different games express the classes in different ways (sometimes very different).
In this very thread, the first reply said that snipers are equivalent to mages, and you followed up by saying that snipers were actually equivalent to archers. If definitions were as static and constant as you say, there would be a truly correct answer and we would all agree on it. You don't see people debating "Is Sonic Boom a projectile attack?" or "Is a Goliath an anti-air unit?" because those terms have true definitions so those questions have correct answers. This thread itself is evidence that there are no clear and obvious definitions for classes.
you don't read. I never dismissed that mages can't use nonmagical technology attacks. I actually played that game for some time so I know what you're talking about. I specifically stated that I agree that heimerdinger and ziggs should be considered mages because they can't be anything else. They create their own weapons and technology contrary to rogues who do not necessarily know enough to create their own weapon. However, they know enough to utilize a wide variety of gadgets efficiently.
In addition, league of legends has a completely different style of classification. Mages are generally ap carries who deal a lot of damage but are squishy. However, they do share similarities with general rpgs. Tanks are those who attract enemies and fighters are tanks that are better at fighting. Rather than classifying assassin as a class, they just use their definition as a role which would include mages that can be assassins as well.
Therefore, while classes might not be exactly the same, the essence of the class in general would be the same. Sure, maybe warriors don't use bows and arrows in one game, but they use it in guild wars 2. But the definition of the class will still remain the same. You won't see mages being classified as warriors. The definition of a rogue will also remain the same. While in one game you might see them throwing a bomb as AoE damage (btw, thieves can use shortbows which do aoe attacks in guild wars 2, http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief), they might not be using any aoe attacks in another game. However, they are still the little troublemakers and don't straight out confront enemies in a battle. Different game just have different ways to express the subtlety and mischevious nature of a rogue. We all agree that rogues share the above characteristics and there is no doubt about that. What comes into doubt is how exactly each game expresses such a nature.
In addition, many qualities often remain the same. For example, for the rogue, their skills and stats generally reflect that they deal higher critical damage, often have stuns to incapacitate the enemy, and are fast or have abilities to run away easily. While one game may incorporate stuns to incapacitate teh enemy, another game might not have it at all and just give the rogue an ability to become invisible and run away. However, their goals are the same, to express the nature of the rogue class.
And if we're talking about the holy trinity here, I can see no other role for the rogue to be in. They can't be tank, they may be support sometimes as an assassin taking out key enemies, but they fit more in the dps role. There are a few differences such as the rogue goes for other ways of attacking the enemy and maybe mages more often do have aoe attacks, even though, like I have proven, rogues have aoe attacks as well in some games. However, they both generally play the dps role , and the most clear difference that one can point out is that rogues deal physical damage while mages do magical damage.
And so, it can be proven that classes in fantasy rpgs may have some correlation with those in class-based shooters.
honestly, what I think classifies mages is purely because they deal magical damage. Basically they can play any role they want with magic. They can have some defensive spell to be a tank, use healing spells to be a cleric, use all their elemental spells to play a dps role. Just look at all the skills they have in skyrim.
well is it reasonable to like specific classes rather than roles?
For example, is it reasonable to like archers but not mages even though they both play the dps role?
After 20+ threads of you getting "There is no Universal Theory of Classes" responses, I'd have thought you'd have realized by now that every game is distinct and players will like or dislike based on each game's specific implementation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
well is it reasonable to like specific classes rather than roles?
For example, is it reasonable to like archers but not mages even though they both play the dps role?
After 20+ threads of you getting "There is no Universal Theory of Classes" responses, I'd have thought you'd have realized by now that every game is distinct and players will like or dislike based on each game's specific implementation.
But I'm pretty sure that the general concept of rogues and warriors remain the same throughout the genre?
That being said just a few final questions:
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
But I'm pretty sure that the general concept of rogues and warriors remain the same throughout the genre?
You're not pretty sure the general concept holds throughout the genre or you wouldn't have created 20+ threads worrying about all that places where it's not true.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But I'm pretty sure that the general concept of rogues and warriors remain the same throughout the genre?
You're not pretty sure the general concept holds throughout the genre or you wouldn't have created 20+ threads worrying about all that places where it's not true.
so DOES the general concept of the classes remain constant. IS the only that changes the way that developers perceive to express the concept in different ways
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters? 2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes? 3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics? thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters? 2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes? 3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics? thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
The comparison is almost apples and oranges. I think you're seeing small similarties between the genre classes and assuming there is a counterpart for each. I don't believe you can make that comparison because the combat is generally different and in my opinion combat is what determines the class mechanics and roles. Like I said, there are similar roles between the genres such as healers but I don't think there is always an equivalent class between the two in question.
#TeamVainlash Why did Marceline's dad eat her fries? I mean...cause she bought them and they were hers...
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters? 2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes? 3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics? thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
The comparison is almost apples and oranges. I think you're seeing small similarties between the genre classes and assuming there is a counterpart for each. I don't believe you can make that comparison because the combat is generally different and in my opinion combat is what determines the class mechanics and roles. Like I said, there are similar roles between the genres such as healers but I don't think there is always an equivalent class between the two in question.
but aren't there like similar roles?
For example the rogue class and the spy/recon/sniper
and the warrior class and the assault/machine gun class
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters? 2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes? 3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics? thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
The comparison is almost apples and oranges. I think you're seeing small similarties between the genre classes and assuming there is a counterpart for each. I don't believe you can make that comparison because the combat is generally different and in my opinion combat is what determines the class mechanics and roles. Like I said, there are similar roles between the genres such as healers but I don't think there is always an equivalent class between the two in question.
but aren't there like similar roles?
For example the rogue class and the spy/recon/sniper
and the warrior class and the assault/machine gun class
No matter how many times you ask it, the answer remains the same. It's all opinion because both the aesthetics and mechanics vary too much between games, and also because there is no strong general concept of the fantasy classes. Classes arise from the mechanics of the game they exist in. Even within MMORPGs alone, mechanics vary far too much to find definitions for fantasy classes that everyone can agree on.
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters? 2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes? 3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics? thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
The comparison is almost apples and oranges. I think you're seeing small similarties between the genre classes and assuming there is a counterpart for each. I don't believe you can make that comparison because the combat is generally different and in my opinion combat is what determines the class mechanics and roles. Like I said, there are similar roles between the genres such as healers but I don't think there is always an equivalent class between the two in question.
but aren't there like similar roles?
For example the rogue class and the spy/recon/sniper
and the warrior class and the assault/machine gun class
No matter how many times you ask it, the answer remains the same. It's all opinion because both the aesthetics and mechanics vary too much between games, and also because there is no strong general concept of the fantasy classes. Classes arise from the mechanics of the game they exist in. Even within MMORPGs alone, mechanics vary far too much to find definitions for fantasy classes that everyone can agree on.
there are general concepts for classes in the fantasy rpgs as I've stated before in that long post if you even bothered to read it.
The general concept is based on the feel of the class rather than the mechanics. If you want to understand the concept of a class, you have to forego the mechanics and think about the class itself.
For example, no matter where you go, in fantasy rpgs, warriors will be the tanks or the fighters with armor and swords.
Rogues will be the stealthy, tricky ones, who don't fight upfront.
Games just have different methods of expressing the concepts and demonstrating the feel of the class. For example, while a game like guild wars 2 would allow warriors to use bows and arrows with large aoe damage to generate the feel of the warrior as a weapon master and a big bruiser. However, another game might just let the warrior be a rather agile swordsman but they have the same goal to express the warrior feel in a specific way.
You're never going to see a mage called a warrior because that's too confusing for rpg players.
there are general concepts for classes in the fantasy rpgs as I've stated before in that long post if you even bothered to read it.
The general concept is based on the feel of the class rather than the mechanics. If you want to understand the concept of a class, you have to forego the mechanics and think about the class itself.
Explain to me how the "feel" of a class isn't purely opinion. There's no way to explicitly spell out the "feel" as a concrete definition. You just tried to describe the general concept of warriors and rogues, and all you did was name things that are tied to the mechanics of the game. Stealth, tankiness, class-specific equipment... these are all dependant upon the game system's rules. You can't be stealthy unless the mechanics/rules allow you to hide, you can't be tanky unless the mechanics/rules allow you to take more hits before dying, and so on.
there are general concepts for classes in the fantasy rpgs as I've stated before in that long post if you even bothered to read it.
The general concept is based on the feel of the class rather than the mechanics. If you want to understand the concept of a class, you have to forego the mechanics and think about the class itself.
Explain to me how the "feel" of a class isn't purely opinion. There's no way to explicitly spell out the "feel" as a concrete definition. You just tried to describe the general concept of warriors and rogues, and all you did was name things that are tied to the mechanics of the game. Stealth, tankiness, class-specific equipment... these are all dependant upon the game system's rules. You can't be stealthy unless the mechanics/rules allow you to hide, you can't be tanky unless the mechanics/rules allow you to take more hits before dying, and so on.
Your problem is that you keep tying in game mechanics with an archetype. But a lot of it isn't about the game mechanics but about the feel of the class. Rogues, as an archetype, are generally dexterous. You think of them as dodging, climbing, picking pockets, picking locks, and usually being masters of finesse. You don't think of them as being big, club wielding guys, nor doy ou think of them as carrying around a giant pack on their backs. A ninja, clearly a thief archetype, can throw a smoke grenade and blind people. Then vanish into the shadows. If you ignore game mechanics, and you just look at the feel of the class, you'll see things such as how engineers can never be thieves. They use flamethrowers and turrets. You can't be sneaking around with a thief going around with a flamethrower. There's a different feel between classes. Stop looking at game mechanics to define arhcetypes. Game mechanics are necessary to make games work, but the most important thing is how a class feels that makes it a rogue.
Rogues, as an archetype, are generally dexterous. You think of them as dodging, climbing, picking pockets, picking locks, and usually being masters of finesse. You don't think of them as being big, club wielding guys, nor doy ou think of them as carrying around a giant pack on their backs. A ninja, clearly a thief archetype, can throw a smoke grenade and blind people. Then vanish into the shadows. If you ignore game mechanics, and you just look at the feel of the class, you'll see things such as how engineers can never be thieves.
Rogues are dexterous... in games where you have a Dexterity score. Rogues can dodge... in games where attacks can be dodged. Rogues can pick locks... in games where there are locked doors that can be picked.
All of these things you listed are things that I recognize as being generally associated with Rogues. But the reason I recognize that is because I have played games which had both an explicit Rogue or Thief class and mechanics that allowed your character to do those things. And the same must be true for you. You got this idea of what a Rogue can do based on games where Rogues could do some or all of these things.
But try putting an old school D&D player and a WoW player in a room and see if they can agree on what a Rogue is. They have almost nothing in common. In one game, they gain experience faster than other classes, detect traps, pickpocket, read any language, hide in shadows, climb walls, and deal extra damage against unaware humanoids when attacking from behind. In the other, they have a fast attack speed and high crit chance, wield two one-handed weapons, stun with their attacks, run quickly, use Energy and Combo Points to power their attacks, and can disappear in broad daylight. There is hardly any overlap between the two. Neither person would say that the other game's class has the feel of a Rogue.
Back when it was the only RPG, D&D's definition of Rogue was correct. If someone said "oh, well Rogues are like this", you could look it up in a rulebook and call them right or wrong. But there's no correct answer anymore because new games have reinvented the Rogue class over and over, taking away some aspects and adding others. There is now only a very general idea, not an explicit definition. Even if you became familiar with every game that ever had a Rogue class—a virtual impossibility—you still would not have the authority to say whether Rogues can use flamethrowers or not.
In fact, there's a clever little bit of irony. Up until the WoW era or so, I'd say that bonus damage from behind was the signature Rogue ability. Aside from the Spy's dagger, isn't the Backburner flamethrower the only weapon in TF2 that deals extra damage when attacking from behind?
Rogues, as an archetype, are generally dexterous. You think of them as dodging, climbing, picking pockets, picking locks, and usually being masters of finesse. You don't think of them as being big, club wielding guys, nor doy ou think of them as carrying around a giant pack on their backs. A ninja, clearly a thief archetype, can throw a smoke grenade and blind people. Then vanish into the shadows. If you ignore game mechanics, and you just look at the feel of the class, you'll see things such as how engineers can never be thieves.
Rogues are dexterous... in games where you have a Dexterity score. Rogues can dodge... in games where attacks can be dodged. Rogues can pick locks... in games where there are locked doors that can be picked.
All of these things you listed are things that I recognize as being generally associated with Rogues. But the reason I recognize that is because I have played games which had both an explicit Rogue or Thief class and mechanics that allowed your character to do those things. And the same must be true for you. You got this idea of what a Rogue can do based on games where Rogues could do some or all of these things.
But try putting an old school D&D player and a WoW player in a room and see if they can agree on what a Rogue is. They have almost nothing in common. In one game, they gain experience faster than other classes, detect traps, pickpocket, read any language, hide in shadows, climb walls, and deal extra damage against unaware humanoids when attacking from behind. In the other, they have a fast attack speed and high crit chance, wield two one-handed weapons, stun with their attacks, run quickly, use Energy and Combo Points to power their attacks, and can disappear in broad daylight. There is hardly any overlap between the two. Neither person would say that the other game's class has the feel of a Rogue.
Back when it was the only RPG, D&D's definition of Rogue was correct. If someone said "oh, well Rogues are like this", you could look it up in a rulebook and call them right or wrong. But there's no correct answer anymore because new games have reinvented the Rogue class over and over, taking away some aspects and adding others. There is now only a very general idea, not an explicit definition. Even if you became familiar with every game that ever had a Rogue class—a virtual impossibility—you still would not have the authority to say whether Rogues can use flamethrowers or not.
In fact, there's a clever little bit of irony. Up until the WoW era or so, I'd say that bonus damage from behind was the signature Rogue ability. Aside from the Spy's dagger, isn't the Backburner flamethrower the only weapon in TF2 that deals extra damage when attacking from behind?
it's the same thing. the underlying concept is that rogues are dexterous, stealthy, physical fighters that don't fight fair. All those games you're talking about just use various mechanics to express the SAME CONCEPT in different ways. Instead of demonstrating that rogues are stealthy and use underhanded tactics to win by adding critical damage, another game just uses stuns to demonstrate the exact same fact. therefore, the underlying concept is the same.....
if they weren't the same, they wouldn't be teh same name. again, you would never see a mage being called a rogue because that would confuse rpg players. Rpg players are used to the idea of a rogue and a warrior.
and thus, they can be related to classes in class-based shooters or other genres.
I think you're just looking at the specifics, at how rogues in each and every game fight and their combat style. However, what I'm trying to say is that the unifying factor is the underlying concept behind the idea of the rogue, exactly how the developers built their combat style.
so what do you think about the ranged nuke AoE aspect of mages? It seems that rogues can play that role too.
in addition, would ironman be more of a warrior, rogue, or a mage, because while he is all tech/cybernetic stuff, he is agile an he does have armor which woud fulfill warrior and orgue aspects. Plus, he can actaully fight in combat while mages can't.
Comments
well is it reasonable to like specific classes rather than roles?
For example, is it reasonable to like archers but not mages even though they both play the dps role?
So tell me, what's the difference between you saying "I played a game where rogues can do AOE damage" and me saying "I played a game where mages shoot rockets and use flamethrowers"? As soon as I mentioned that many mages in LoL use nonmagical technology, you dismissed it by simply saying that you don't like their definitions of the classes. Am I allowed to say that Rogues do not deal AOE damage based on the fact that I don't like whatever game you got that idea from? Rogues in D&D, EQ, FF, M:tG, etc. almost never deal damage to multiple opponents. Even if you give me several examples of games where they do, I can just say "well then I don't agree with how that game classifies stuff."
As I said initially, specific qualities of classes are tied to the game system that they exist in. You claim that rogues and mages fulfill such similar roles that you need aesthetics to tell them apart. I would have a very hard time thinking of even a single game where the roles of rogue and mage were so similar that you couldn't tell their descriptions apart if you removed the giveaway details like robes and sneak attacks. In fact, there are not so many games where rogues and mages are big-time damage dealers in the first place. DPS is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Teferi from M:tG, or Yuffie from FF7, or Loki from Thor/Avengers.
This is verifiably wrong. If class definitions were constant from game to game throughout the fantasy genre, you wouldn't have dozens of these threads where you ask us about class definitions. We would all agree on what defines a warrior, a rogue, a mage. Every time you come here and ask "Can a warrior mainly use a bow or would that make them an archer?", do you ever get a straight answer? The people who reply are always vague and always disagree with you and with each other. There's no consensus because the definitions are not constant and cannot be constant because different games express the classes in different ways (sometimes very different).
In this very thread, the first reply said that snipers are equivalent to mages, and you followed up by saying that snipers were actually equivalent to archers. If definitions were as static and constant as you say, there would be a truly correct answer and we would all agree on it. You don't see people debating "Is Sonic Boom a projectile attack?" or "Is a Goliath an anti-air unit?" because those terms have true definitions so those questions have correct answers. This thread itself is evidence that there are no clear and obvious definitions for classes.
Mostly? Relatively unevolved since AD&D. The roles were set it place that long ago, and certain things that are RPG standard features (rogues/thieves/etc must be stealthy and do more damage from surprise/the rear, for instance) were already in place.
It'd be curious to take apart mmorpg every-game-does-it assumptions and 'standards' to find out from whence, exactly, they first evolved.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Classes establish strengths, weaknesses, and available skills.
I think there are similarities between shooter classes and fantasy RPG classes, but only because the goals are much the same. In both they diversify character capabilities to promote grouping and provide a means of customization so players can roll characters in a given desired role.
you don't read. I never dismissed that mages can't use nonmagical technology attacks. I actually played that game for some time so I know what you're talking about. I specifically stated that I agree that heimerdinger and ziggs should be considered mages because they can't be anything else. They create their own weapons and technology contrary to rogues who do not necessarily know enough to create their own weapon. However, they know enough to utilize a wide variety of gadgets efficiently.
In addition, league of legends has a completely different style of classification. Mages are generally ap carries who deal a lot of damage but are squishy. However, they do share similarities with general rpgs. Tanks are those who attract enemies and fighters are tanks that are better at fighting. Rather than classifying assassin as a class, they just use their definition as a role which would include mages that can be assassins as well.
Therefore, while classes might not be exactly the same, the essence of the class in general would be the same. Sure, maybe warriors don't use bows and arrows in one game, but they use it in guild wars 2. But the definition of the class will still remain the same. You won't see mages being classified as warriors. The definition of a rogue will also remain the same. While in one game you might see them throwing a bomb as AoE damage (btw, thieves can use shortbows which do aoe attacks in guild wars 2, http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief), they might not be using any aoe attacks in another game. However, they are still the little troublemakers and don't straight out confront enemies in a battle. Different game just have different ways to express the subtlety and mischevious nature of a rogue. We all agree that rogues share the above characteristics and there is no doubt about that. What comes into doubt is how exactly each game expresses such a nature.
In addition, many qualities often remain the same. For example, for the rogue, their skills and stats generally reflect that they deal higher critical damage, often have stuns to incapacitate the enemy, and are fast or have abilities to run away easily. While one game may incorporate stuns to incapacitate teh enemy, another game might not have it at all and just give the rogue an ability to become invisible and run away. However, their goals are the same, to express the nature of the rogue class.
And if we're talking about the holy trinity here, I can see no other role for the rogue to be in. They can't be tank, they may be support sometimes as an assassin taking out key enemies, but they fit more in the dps role. There are a few differences such as the rogue goes for other ways of attacking the enemy and maybe mages more often do have aoe attacks, even though, like I have proven, rogues have aoe attacks as well in some games. However, they both generally play the dps role , and the most clear difference that one can point out is that rogues deal physical damage while mages do magical damage.
And so, it can be proven that classes in fantasy rpgs may have some correlation with those in class-based shooters.
honestly, what I think classifies mages is purely because they deal magical damage. Basically they can play any role they want with magic. They can have some defensive spell to be a tank, use healing spells to be a cleric, use all their elemental spells to play a dps role. Just look at all the skills they have in skyrim.
any ideas
is there a way to relate classes to other genres
After 20+ threads of you getting "There is no Universal Theory of Classes" responses, I'd have thought you'd have realized by now that every game is distinct and players will like or dislike based on each game's specific implementation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But I'm pretty sure that the general concept of rogues and warriors remain the same throughout the genre?
That being said just a few final questions:
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
thanks
You're not pretty sure the general concept holds throughout the genre or you wouldn't have created 20+ threads worrying about all that places where it's not true.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
so DOES the general concept of the classes remain constant. IS the only that changes the way that developers perceive to express the concept in different ways
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
thanks
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
thanks
1) Say that you like the rogue and warrior classes. Since there's the general concept of it, can one relate this to other classes in other class-based shooters?
2) How would this relate, and what would we have to look at to relate the classes?
3) Are the base classes of mmorpgs rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics?
thanks
In short, all I'm trying to figure out is how classes in fantasy rpgs can relate to classes in class-based shooters or in any other genre.
The comparison is almost apples and oranges. I think you're seeing small similarties between the genre classes and assuming there is a counterpart for each. I don't believe you can make that comparison because the combat is generally different and in my opinion combat is what determines the class mechanics and roles. Like I said, there are similar roles between the genres such as healers but I don't think there is always an equivalent class between the two in question.
#TeamVainlash
Why did Marceline's dad eat her fries? I mean...cause she bought them and they were hers...
but aren't there like similar roles?
For example the rogue class and the spy/recon/sniper
and the warrior class and the assault/machine gun class
No matter how many times you ask it, the answer remains the same. It's all opinion because both the aesthetics and mechanics vary too much between games, and also because there is no strong general concept of the fantasy classes. Classes arise from the mechanics of the game they exist in. Even within MMORPGs alone, mechanics vary far too much to find definitions for fantasy classes that everyone can agree on.
there are general concepts for classes in the fantasy rpgs as I've stated before in that long post if you even bothered to read it.
The general concept is based on the feel of the class rather than the mechanics. If you want to understand the concept of a class, you have to forego the mechanics and think about the class itself.
For example, no matter where you go, in fantasy rpgs, warriors will be the tanks or the fighters with armor and swords.
Rogues will be the stealthy, tricky ones, who don't fight upfront.
Games just have different methods of expressing the concepts and demonstrating the feel of the class. For example, while a game like guild wars 2 would allow warriors to use bows and arrows with large aoe damage to generate the feel of the warrior as a weapon master and a big bruiser. However, another game might just let the warrior be a rather agile swordsman but they have the same goal to express the warrior feel in a specific way.
You're never going to see a mage called a warrior because that's too confusing for rpg players.
Explain to me how the "feel" of a class isn't purely opinion. There's no way to explicitly spell out the "feel" as a concrete definition. You just tried to describe the general concept of warriors and rogues, and all you did was name things that are tied to the mechanics of the game. Stealth, tankiness, class-specific equipment... these are all dependant upon the game system's rules. You can't be stealthy unless the mechanics/rules allow you to hide, you can't be tanky unless the mechanics/rules allow you to take more hits before dying, and so on.
Your problem is that you keep tying in game mechanics with an archetype. But a lot of it isn't about the game mechanics but about the feel of the class. Rogues, as an archetype, are generally dexterous. You think of them as dodging, climbing, picking pockets, picking locks, and usually being masters of finesse. You don't think of them as being big, club wielding guys, nor doy ou think of them as carrying around a giant pack on their backs. A ninja, clearly a thief archetype, can throw a smoke grenade and blind people. Then vanish into the shadows. If you ignore game mechanics, and you just look at the feel of the class, you'll see things such as how engineers can never be thieves. They use flamethrowers and turrets. You can't be sneaking around with a thief going around with a flamethrower. There's a different feel between classes. Stop looking at game mechanics to define arhcetypes. Game mechanics are necessary to make games work, but the most important thing is how a class feels that makes it a rogue.
Rogues are dexterous... in games where you have a Dexterity score. Rogues can dodge... in games where attacks can be dodged. Rogues can pick locks... in games where there are locked doors that can be picked.
All of these things you listed are things that I recognize as being generally associated with Rogues. But the reason I recognize that is because I have played games which had both an explicit Rogue or Thief class and mechanics that allowed your character to do those things. And the same must be true for you. You got this idea of what a Rogue can do based on games where Rogues could do some or all of these things.
But try putting an old school D&D player and a WoW player in a room and see if they can agree on what a Rogue is. They have almost nothing in common. In one game, they gain experience faster than other classes, detect traps, pickpocket, read any language, hide in shadows, climb walls, and deal extra damage against unaware humanoids when attacking from behind. In the other, they have a fast attack speed and high crit chance, wield two one-handed weapons, stun with their attacks, run quickly, use Energy and Combo Points to power their attacks, and can disappear in broad daylight. There is hardly any overlap between the two. Neither person would say that the other game's class has the feel of a Rogue.
Back when it was the only RPG, D&D's definition of Rogue was correct. If someone said "oh, well Rogues are like this", you could look it up in a rulebook and call them right or wrong. But there's no correct answer anymore because new games have reinvented the Rogue class over and over, taking away some aspects and adding others. There is now only a very general idea, not an explicit definition. Even if you became familiar with every game that ever had a Rogue class—a virtual impossibility—you still would not have the authority to say whether Rogues can use flamethrowers or not.
In fact, there's a clever little bit of irony. Up until the WoW era or so, I'd say that bonus damage from behind was the signature Rogue ability. Aside from the Spy's dagger, isn't the Backburner flamethrower the only weapon in TF2 that deals extra damage when attacking from behind?
it's the same thing. the underlying concept is that rogues are dexterous, stealthy, physical fighters that don't fight fair. All those games you're talking about just use various mechanics to express the SAME CONCEPT in different ways. Instead of demonstrating that rogues are stealthy and use underhanded tactics to win by adding critical damage, another game just uses stuns to demonstrate the exact same fact. therefore, the underlying concept is the same.....
if they weren't the same, they wouldn't be teh same name. again, you would never see a mage being called a rogue because that would confuse rpg players. Rpg players are used to the idea of a rogue and a warrior.
and thus, they can be related to classes in class-based shooters or other genres.
I think you're just looking at the specifics, at how rogues in each and every game fight and their combat style. However, what I'm trying to say is that the unifying factor is the underlying concept behind the idea of the rogue, exactly how the developers built their combat style.
any ideas?
so what do you think about the ranged nuke AoE aspect of mages? It seems that rogues can play that role too.
in addition, would ironman be more of a warrior, rogue, or a mage, because while he is all tech/cybernetic stuff, he is agile an he does have armor which woud fulfill warrior and orgue aspects. Plus, he can actaully fight in combat while mages can't.