Discussion of competition

how is this not competition? you see something that you can improve. you improve it -> TO COMPETE WITH IT.

finally you acknowledge that your pitting competition against cooperation as mutually exclusive is bogus. only, you're still claiming it isn't. you're basically saying that all sports are unhealthy and should be done away with and that any form of economy or barter should be abolished. most if not all of what you've described involves competition.

-edit- oof - sorry shad, you're right. will refrain from this topic.

 

Alright, Shad, but just one more post.

Heres "Define compete" in google:

1. Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

Especially this part:
"...defeating or establishing superiority over others..."

To improve something you're dissatified with or see potential in is not competing.

 

if this needs to be moved to misc, feel free. anyway, if you're reading this and confused, read this thread and you'll understand. got sick of off topic.

your drive to improve is a strive to win something by establishing superiority over others who have done the same. almost word for word from your provided definition. improving someone else's work is establishing superiority. it is competing. that is the text book definition of competition.

 

I find that absurd.

So lets say I'm sitting on a wooden chair that is horribly uncomfy.
Annoyed by this, I get motivated and I move my ass to get myself a big, cozy couch.
So at this point I'm supposed to say "HAHA TAKE THAT YOU CHAIR, I WIN"...?

...really?

I don't see your logic here man. I don't care about being superior, I just want to make my life better. Whats that got to do with competition?

 

you care about creating a chair that is superior to the chair created by your predecessor. you think chairs make themselves?

 

Dude, the motivation is focused on making your life better by having a better chair, not focused on making sure the older chair sucks.
What competition is about, is making sure the other side sucks or looses so you get enjoyment from that. These two things don't connect at all.

 

Alright, my choice of words in my previous post may have been overly harsh, but my point is still there. Lets look at that quote you pulled up again.

It doesn't say what exactly is competing. The core of how does competition exactly works.

In soccer and KAG, when you join in, your personal goal is to improve yourself and others by testing each others abilities and learning from them. Thats not competition. Competition is about someone winning... and someone loosing. Thats what the "define compete" definition brings up in google and the dictionary.

In a competitive design, you can utilize it as a platform for self improvement and helping others, sure.
But the thing is, a competitive platform pits you constantly into situations where you're set on a path to become superior to another. This constant friction-based environment runs the risk of changing the way you think and behave, the more serious you get into the competing side of it.

That said, it is possible to keep it within safe limits, by not allowing yourself to degrade to those levels, but that also means you'll never go over a certain threshold of competency, which requires more serious competitiveness to achieve. So basically, you'll get better and better with the strategy you described, but there is a limit to how good you can become unless you're willing to cross the line and get serious about it.

And when you do, thats when the shit hits the fan. Eventually.

 

How about all we do is lie on the ground and never play another computer game or enter real life? That way there is no competition or co operation.

 

Wait, what did I say to make you think that?
And besides that, cooperative gameplay does not have these issues, so why do you mention that there?

Yeah, technically thats correct, but a competetive design will eventually turn you competetive sooner or later, unless you willing to stay mediocre forever.

As for emulation, you may be onto something here, the more I think about it.
Instead of relying for another person to loose, you strive to reach his level and when you do, you look for another person above you and repeat again. Hmm. This may be an idea worth researching...

 

Because when you do, you're pretty much saying ok to the idea of "I enjoy to watch others loose". That becomes your focus.

 

In Reactorcore's head, competition leads to neo-nazism.

 

Ok, it can be that if you want, but the meaning didn't change.

What is winning?

What does it take for you to win? What conditions must be met?

 

Well you can always help me with my 'rather large' co op/single player/multiplayer game mode; far from competitive; if you want (although I won't be paying for it- unless itS programming.

 

We'll see, I've got big plans too and I want to see what I can do alone at first. Later on we can join forces somehow if it seems like a good idea.