"Mechanical" vs. "Ideological"

[David Wilson]

Following off-topic discussion in this thread: http://eusforum.com/index.php/topic,4510.0.html

I decided to create a poll to get an idea of where eUS citizens fall in the "Mechanical" to "Ideological" spectrum.

In short, the "Mechanicals" base their decisions around the mechanics of the game and try to use these constraints to their advantage in an effort to establish the eUS as the nation with the strongest military, economy, and population in order to exert its influence on the rest of the eWorld (or some variant thereof).

The "Ideologicals", on the other hand, base their decisions on moral ideals influenced by RL, understanding that the game mechanics are intended to emulate RL demands but also recognizing that an eSociety (much like RL society) is dynamic, emotional, and ought to recognize the value of both an individual human life and the "greater good".

If anyone would like to expound on these definitions or make their case for one or the other please do so below.

[bayne420]

only senators should vote?

[David Wilson]

no, this is open to all citizens

[raven305bal]

I dont know about congress, but i think i would be more of a theoretical. I dont go all out on it, i know we are just playn a game. but on some issues and stuff i pull rl morals to make desicions

[Gertrude Groan]

Would 'ideological' be a better word than 'theoretical'?

[David Wilson]

Would 'ideological' be a better word than 'theoretical'?

Yes - I agree - Changed.

[bayne420]

Udon running this though ive decided with somewhat of both.

Now this means to me that respect to others is there, even though i will use every trick up my sleeve to get the win.

Same like what these PTO's are about. However i do not know what is the ties between allies in other nations, and the need to make enemies at home.

Perhaps a hierachy of seniors to noobs makes it all clear. I just hope that these Admins are not preventing the challenge of expansion if it is true then War will only for defence, not offence.

Starve the enemies through preventing goods to be purchased unless we help them as in provide them relief.

[Gertrude Groan]

The ideological approach seems to offer the greatest challenge, and I suspect that a purely mechanical approach will have little chance of success if it ignores non-mechanical aspects. You aren't playing with chess pieces, though I often get the impression that some of the contributors to this forum think they are.

[David Wilson]

The ideological approach seems to offer the greatest challenge, and I suspect that a purely mechanical approach will have little chance of success if it ignores non-mechanical aspects. You aren't playing with chess pieces, though I often get the impression that some of the contributors to this forum think they are.

QFT

Likewise the Ideological approach will get nowhere without understanding and working within the parameters of the game mechanics.

[Equality 7-2521]

Game Mechanism

The saddest thing is that we will always lose this game, at least for now, because the pawns (Gertrude Groan, et. al.) like to think they aren't playing a game.  They'd rather not fight than help the side they're supposedly affiliated with in-game.  While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.  So, it is like, we put the strategy together and have controllers capable of winning the match, but then suddenly we're limited by the number of pieces we can use, and these pawns just sit there waiting to be destroyed.  Unfortunately, the plans would work much better if all our pieces were willing to be a part of the plan.

[David Wilson]

Game Mechanism

The saddest thing is that we will always lose this game, at least for now, because the pawns (Gertrude Groan, et. al.) like to think they aren't playing a game.  They'd rather not fight than help the side they're supposedly affiliated with in-game.  While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.  So, it is like, we put the strategy together and have controllers capable of winning the match, but then suddenly we're limited by the number of pieces we can use, and these pawns just sit there waiting to be destroyed.  Unfortunately, the plans would work much better if all our pieces were willing to be a part of the plan.

This sounds logical enough unless there is disagreement or misunderstanding on exactly what that "plan" is. What do you mean by

While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.

? Are you referring to marines?

[George Barker]

"Ideology," in a game, is based almost entirely on the mechanics, with a slight input from personal style.  That's it, folks.  Every game has a governing set of principles that all skilled players must adhere to, or they lose.  You can't play a game of, say, chess, and decide your "ideology" prefers knights to queens, make decisions based on that ideology, and expect to win.  And most people play games to win.  

Actually, I think this is about something different.  It's about game players vs non-game players (and role playing games aren't "games" in the traditional sense, as they aren't competitive, and there are no metrics).  Any game player is going to dismiss this whole "debate" as silly, because it is.  

[One Eye]

The ideological approach seems to offer the greatest challenge, and I suspect that a purely mechanical approach will have little chance of success if it ignores non-mechanical aspects. You aren't playing with chess pieces, though I often get the impression that some of the contributors to this forum think they are.

I know there is a social side that's quite important.  It's like playing chess, but each piece is controlled by somebody else and you have to convince them what to do.  Or more like, we all get together and figure out what to do.  That's doable.  But when a group of people refuse to advance knights because it's mean to the horses, we're at a severe disadvantage.  That's exactly what it's like when people bring RL biases to the game.

While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.

? Are you referring to marines?

I thought he was coming out of the closet.

[Equality 7-2521]

Game Mechanism

The saddest thing is that we will always lose this game, at least for now, because the pawns (Gertrude Groan, et. al.) like to think they aren't playing a game.  They'd rather not fight than help the side they're supposedly affiliated with in-game.  While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.  So, it is like, we put the strategy together and have controllers capable of winning the match, but then suddenly we're limited by the number of pieces we can use, and these pawns just sit there waiting to be destroyed.  Unfortunately, the plans would work much better if all our pieces were willing to be a part of the plan.

This sounds logical enough unless there is disagreement or misunderstanding on exactly what that "plan" is. What do you mean by

While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.

? Are you referring to marines?

I suppose I am sort of refering to myself a little bit.  I'm younger than many other players, but I have beat them to Field Marshal and can do a helluva lot of damage for my age.  That is one version of "the other side" certainly.  But, I'd also say this includes anyone who has found a way to help us win despite their weak strength (something they can't change) by adding value elsewhere.  Counter-PTO votes is a major way that people can help early on, essentially as soon as they are old enough to vote.  Following simple orders of where and when to fight, where and when to move, when to buy what products, etc., is recognizing that there is a plan, even if you didn't make it.  You have to follow before you can lead.  You have to be willing to do something yourself before you can rightfully ask others to do it.  If you only bitch and complain from the beginning and find yourself in a leadership position eventually, don't be surprised if no one follows you.  Don't be surprised that when you have just a few hours to attack or defend, you're being asked "why?" instead of seeing action.  By the time you fully explain yourself, the window of opportunity has passed.

I look around and I see a lot of Pawns trying to become Kings.  That's fine, I suppose, as me and the rest of the winners will fight to the other side to become Queens, or Rooks or Knights or whatever the situation calls for.  It will probably call for Queens though.

[bayne420]

@one eye

Game Mechanism

The saddest thing is that we will always lose this game, at least for now, because the pawns (Gertrude Groan, et. al.) like to think they aren't playing a game.  They'd rather not fight than help the side they're supposedly affiliated with in-game.  While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.  So, it is like, we put the strategy together and have controllers capable of winning the match, but then suddenly we're limited by the number of pieces we can use, and these pawns just sit there waiting to be destroyed.  Unfortunately, the plans would work much better if all our pieces were willing to be a part of the plan.

While other pawns are smart enough to get to the other side and become queens.

Stop twisting our words already

First snipe in forums!

[Equality 7-2521]

"Ideology," in a game, is based almost entirely on the mechanics, with a slight input from personal style.  That's it, folks.  Every game has a governing set of principles that all skilled players must adhere to, or they lose.  You can't play a game of, say, chess, and decide your "ideology" prefers knights to queens, make decisions based on that ideology, and expect to win.  And most people play games to win.  

Actually, I think this is about something different.  It's about game players vs non-game players (and role playing games aren't "games" in the traditional sense, as they aren't competitive, and there are no metrics).  Any game player is going to dismiss this whole "debate" as silly, because it is.  

Totally agreed.  But, I wouldn't call the thread silly, as it helps us, once again, call out those who are not just Pawns, but useless Pawns at that who refuse to join "our fight" not realizing there is one and only one fight, whether they like it or not.

[Publius]

Ideology has to come from mechanics, otherwise you're a scrub.

[Equality 7-2521]

Ideology has to come from mechanics, otherwise you're a scrub.

LMAO

PUBLIUS FOR PRESIDENT!  HE IS NOT A SCRUB!

[David Wilson]

I'm not sure how this whole thing turned into a massive Chess analogy - it doesn't translate at all. Since when is chess a MMORPG?

[Equality 7-2521]

I'm not sure how this whole thing turned into a massive Chess analogy - it doesn't translate at all. Since when is chess a MMORPG?

The pawn said we weren't playing chess.  I decided to run with it.

[Troy Roberts]

Ideology has to come from mechanics, otherwise you're a scrub.

QFT....

Ideology has to come from mechanics, otherwise you're a scrub.

Twice

[David Wilson]

I would suggest that understanding game mechanics leads to "ideation" not "ideology". "Ideology" changes the way we look at the game mechanics. Look em up if you're unclear on the definitions.

[George Barker]

I'm not sure how this whole thing turned into a massive Chess analogy - it doesn't translate at all. Since when is chess a MMORPG?

It does translate, and that's the point.  Chess has a set of rules, and skilled players learn how to use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players don't.  The same is true of every game.  This game has a set of rules.  Skilled players try to learn and use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players talk about "ideology," and drag the skilled players down with them.

Actually, I thought of a better analogy: a giant three legged race, where some "runners" try to sit down during the race because they don't like all this competition stuff.

[David Wilson]

I'm not sure how this whole thing turned into a massive Chess analogy - it doesn't translate at all. Since when is chess a MMORPG?

It does translate, and that's the point.  Chess has a set of rules, and skilled players learn how to use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players don't.  The same is true of every game.  This game has a set of rules.  Skilled players try to learn and use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players talk about "ideology," and drag the skilled players down with them.

Actually, I thought of a better analogy: a giant three legged race, where some "runners" try to sit down during the race because they don't like all this competition stuff.

In chess and a three-legged race there is a clear objective of forcing the opponent into a "checkmate" or crossing the finish line first. eRep has no such stated objective. If there is such an objective stated in the rules somewhere - I'd love to see it.

[Chocolate McSkittles]

I just started, so i dont really know. I guess i came in here strongly thinking i would go with Ideological beliefs, but realizing that it just isnt viable to treat eRepublik like RL i suppose ive begun to sway towards mechanical (or a middle ground i guess).

eRepublik =/= RL, so i guess im realizing it would be silly to use the same rules for both.

[Troy Roberts]

I'm not sure how this whole thing turned into a massive Chess analogy - it doesn't translate at all. Since when is chess a MMORPG?

It does translate, and that's the point.  Chess has a set of rules, and skilled players learn how to use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players don't.  The same is true of every game.  This game has a set of rules.  Skilled players try to learn and use those rules to their advantage.  Weaker players talk about "ideology," and drag the skilled players down with them.

Actually, I thought of a better analogy: a giant three legged race, where some "runners" try to sit down during the race because they don't like all this competition stuff.

In chess and a three-legged race there is a clear objective of forcing the opponent into a "checkmate" or crossing the finish line first. eRep has no such stated objective. If there is such an objective stated in the rules somewhere - I'd love to see it.

Be the most Asskicking country on the face of the damn earth

[George Barker]

The clear objective here is to belong to the most powerful country in the world, control every region.  

  

[David Wilson]

The clear objective here is to belong to the most powerful country in the world, control every region.  

  

Perhaps that is your objective - but it doesn't have to be mine. And I would add, as an objective- I find that selfish, egotistical, and overly-simplistic.

[George Barker]

In other words, you prefer to sit down and be drug to the finish line. 

[David Wilson]

In other words, you prefer to sit down and be drug to the finish line. 

On the contrary, my plan is to trip you, run back and grab my friends and drag them along with me (and you) across the "finish line" together. If you wanted to dominate the world why not move to a country with a stronger military? I think that would make achieving your objective a little easier.