Game Mechanics, role-playing, and game-playing
Day 839, 10:21
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by system0101
DoD Orders | Briefing Room | Congress | State | Welcoming Committee | The SA | Militia Support | Army Times | EDEN News | Education | AGG | The FF | Lottery
http://erepmarket.com/counter/counter.php">
I've seen a lot of bad ink for Mechanists lately. They seem to be the punchline for a joke now. I hate to see it, cause some of our brightest minds fall into this category of players. I mean, the only punchline I can see is Congress--
Yeah yeah... Well anyways, I'm here to discuss why everyone dissing and pissing on Mechanists are fools. So what is a Mechanist? It's a catch-all phrase for a player who learns and understands the rules of the game, and tries to find optimal solutions to the problems they face.
Yeah, there are players who make fun of our Smart Guys. 2kewl4skewl, amirite?
r-e-a-d a b-o-OKAY!!
Most people of this mindframe wouldn't call themselves Mechanist, they'd just consider themselves knowledgeable players. Some players, myself included, see it almost as a badge of honor, that the tactics and strategy game have more sway in our continued successes than the social strategy side of the game. How much more is up for debate.
What some fail to keep in mind is that playing intelligently, and using game mechanics to your advantage requires no belief, no faith, no ideology. It is a science. Theories are tested, hypotheses are hypothesised, and barring any deus ex machina (or admin ex machina, amirite?), it's relatively straightforward to see what most of the optimal gameplay strategies would be. Everything else is Sociology.
So that's it, that's Game Mechanics. There are many theories, all at least partially useful. Keep in mind the definition of a [url=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory]theory[/url]. The important points are that a proper theory is based on observations, is testable, and is something anyone can question.
Get blinded by science, btchz.
I like role-players. I like people who could care less about mechanics. I like people who play this game to make friends, influence people, and play out a sociopolitical fantasy. It makes the game tick. It makes things ineresting. Turning this game into a pure science would not only be impossible, it would also be impossibly boring. Not to mention that a majority of social ideas and ideals would not be considered theories in the scientific sense, and require at least a little bit of belief or faith.
There is a lot of fun to be had in political parties, on the national forum and on IRC. There's a game to be played here, from what I've heard! :3 I know I'll be doing what I enjoy, tinkering with ideas and theories. So continue doing what you do, eRepublikanz, have a blast here, but remember the nerds like me are waiting on standby to debunk rampant misinformation.
Play Mr. Roboto! No, play Iron Man!!
I've seen a lot of bad ink for Mechanists lately. They seem to be the punchline for a joke now. I hate to see it, cause some of our brightest minds fall into this category of players. I mean, the only punchline I can see is Congress--
Yeah yeah... Well anyways, I'm here to discuss why everyone dissing and pissing on Mechanists are fools. So what is a Mechanist? It's a catch-all phrase for a player who learns and understands the rules of the game, and tries to find optimal solutions to the problems they face.
Yeah, there are players who make fun of our Smart Guys. 2kewl4skewl, amirite?
r-e-a-d a b-o-OKAY!!
Most people of this mindframe wouldn't call themselves Mechanist, they'd just consider themselves knowledgeable players. Some players, myself included, see it almost as a badge of honor, that the tactics and strategy game have more sway in our continued successes than the social strategy side of the game. How much more is up for debate.
What some fail to keep in mind is that playing intelligently, and using game mechanics to your advantage requires no belief, no faith, no ideology. It is a science. Theories are tested, hypotheses are hypothesised, and barring any deus ex machina (or admin ex machina, amirite?), it's relatively straightforward to see what most of the optimal gameplay strategies would be. Everything else is Sociology.
So that's it, that's Game Mechanics. There are many theories, all at least partially useful. Keep in mind the definition of a [url=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory]theory[/url]. The important points are that a proper theory is based on observations, is testable, and is something anyone can question.
Get blinded by science, btchz.
I like role-players. I like people who could care less about mechanics. I like people who play this game to make friends, influence people, and play out a sociopolitical fantasy. It makes the game tick. It makes things ineresting. Turning this game into a pure science would not only be impossible, it would also be impossibly boring. Not to mention that a majority of social ideas and ideals would not be considered theories in the scientific sense, and require at least a little bit of belief or faith.
There is a lot of fun to be had in political parties, on the national forum and on IRC. There's a game to be played here, from what I've heard! :3 I know I'll be doing what I enjoy, tinkering with ideas and theories. So continue doing what you do, eRepublikanz, have a blast here, but remember the nerds like me are waiting on standby to debunk rampant misinformation.
Play Mr. Roboto! No, play Iron Man!!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
sciencemaxxx
Voted and Suscribed. A great article!
QUACK!
It's poetry in motion
😁
lrn2meta or game the game
Agreed. We need both groups, mechanists and ways for people to have fun in this game.
V+S informative as usual
My complaint is the 'mechanical rules' which truly effect the game are limited to the political module (PolM). EVERYTHING that happens in eAmerica which truly matters is controlled by the President and Congress. All of this is fine if the PolM is expanded to allow for region level politics. Right down to city council.
system five makes another good article!
no, I don't know if he likes my nickname, but I'll use it 'til it sticks!
v2 will change all this. v2 will be a lot less "mechanical" and much more "political." As I have said throughout my paper, http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/v2-for-you-222623/1," target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/v2[..]23/1, v2 will allow players more choice, which it is beyond the "mechanics" of the game to predict. Mechanists might be able to understand the rules, but they won't be able to predict the actions of people.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/v2-for-you-222623/1" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/v2[..]623/1 -- for all those interested. I don't mean to spam.
On the contrary BJ, I bet it will be more mechanical in v2. The rock-paper-scissors analogy, the way that skill are split, and all that will mean even more testing and debate will take place.
And yes, you can predict the actions of large crowds to specific stimuli. Don't be so dull as to believe that eRep players are walking enigmas 😛
System,
I dont' doubt that there will be much more to analyze and test. That is fairly obvious. All I'm saying is that the motivations of each particular citizen will be more obscure. The ability to "test" the system will be made more difficult if just by the simple fact that one is required not to take for granted that the same person may choose one thing over another, simply for the fact that they choose to. I agree that external stimuli will have have a perceivable effect on those choices, but how those stimuli affect choices is something beyond the capabilities of a "mechanist," which, as I understand it, looks at the structure and rules of the game. In other words, how external stimuli affect a player's choice will occur in the mind of the player as he determines for himself what is best for him at that point in time. My question is simply this: if a mechanist cannot know what is best for a particular player as he sees fit, how can a mechanist know how external stimuli are going to affect choices?
SCIENCE IS FOR FGTS
>I dont' doubt that there will be much more to analyze and test. That is fairly obvious
No, that is not.
>All I'm saying is that the motivations of each particular citizen will be more obscure.
Get money, power, fame. In some order. Seems straightforward to me.
skipping thru the blablablah
>My question is simply this: if a mechanist cannot know what is best for a particular player as he sees fit, how can a mechanist know how external stimuli are going to affect choices?
A mechanist knows each individual will try to maximize their personal gain. A mechanist government understands this and tries to work with that idea. External stimuli in this case are a question of Psychology and Sociology.
You are making this far too hard. eRepublik is currently a group of formulas with a social structure on top. v2 will be a group of formulas with a social structure on top. Mechanists like me only care about discerning the optimal solutions to those formulae. The face of the game may change significantly, and yes many new things will be added. But it's still a numbers' game. And it can be solved.
inb4RP/thisisasocialstrategygameshitstor m
Benedict, the mechanist will look at v.2, and figure out what is the optimal strategy for being a citizen. (where to live, what job to take, what house to buy, etc) v.2 just adds more options. A mechanist will try to make himself the most efficient player possible.
I don't necessarily care if some other guy decides that he wants a house full of happiness, that lasts forever, but doesn't help his wellness at all - that's his choice. Our calculations are based on ourselves, and what we want. Then whenever someone asks, "what house is the best house for me?" We can tell them with concrete numbers, "well the most economical house for wellness is X, for happiness is Y, the best overall is Z"
Mechanists can't calculate the actions of every individual, because like you said it's impossible to know what someone else is thinking. However, using past actions, we can guess what people will do based on their motivations. On a large-scale, a government can determine the optimal tax scheme, budget, etc based on numbers and rules of the game, not what sounds like fun or would be cool.
But in the end, I am simply looking at what is the optimal playing strategy, so I can use it to make myself better than everyone else.
Ok, there was just a miscommunication I think on what the role of the "mechanist" is. I get it now.
I think it's important to note that players are going to have to make choices and that all choices will be for them what is the "optimal one." What is optimal depends on the circumstances (war/peace/resources) and the goal of the individual (politics, solider, worker)?
I understand that a mechanist can offer the most efficient solutions based on any given number of circumstances.
What I contest is that a mechanist will be able to standardize optimization of a player in v2.
A mechanist, in short, is descriptive, not prescriptive. The mechanist lays out all the consequences of a particular course of action but, especially in v2, can make no judgment as towards the rationality of each of those courses of action.
Nicely said, sys5.
Can we expect to see results of some genetic algorithms soon?
(Only partly joking... point is that even the best programmers cannot always rationally deduce the optimal solutions to complex problems.)
I love how the level 14 is arguing with system XD
Where did I leave my flux capacitor???
Retention > gold
Back to the Future!
yet again, excellent work sys.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_5.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_[..].jpg
That chick has science on her boobs. Your argument is irrelevent, BJ
http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_5.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_[..].jpg
That chick has science on her boobs. Your argument is irrelevent, BJ