As requested by Reaver: Do we owe anything to the other player? - #20 by Reaver-6716
1 Like
Preface
First it necessary to set the scope of the discussion within the context of Gaming. (else will free spiral to endless discussion)
Examples out of gaming can be use for referencing and/or showcasing, but should not be derailed from the discussion to Gaming.
Agree and use a commonly accepted definition of certain terms, e.g. Competition - the activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.
Off topic discussion should only be allow between the agreed party but kept short and minimal to avoid derail
Competition by itself is just a test. The product of the competition is largely determined by how the settings are set.
IF the setting is for one to succeed, than the other must fail, the product is more directed in a singular objective direction. There can be case of negative by-products such as distrust, resentment or such.
IF the setting is a test between 2 or more parties to see who can perform better, then the product can have a lot of positive connections. (Team+individual sales target example) Positive connections can see encouragement, collaborations, and such.
Petronas Twin Towers Example
In the building of the Petronas Twin Towers (Malaysia), each tower was build by 2 competing construction consortium. For simplicity I will use Korean team vs Japan team. Had the setting be to see the other builder fail, the tower will never came to realization and be pose as a hazard. However, the 2 competitors are set in an environment of co-dependency where the success of one encourages the other.
One may have wonder if both teams were to work together in the initial phase would have drive even better results. Posts incident, we may never know, but I would assume this consideration would have been assess due to the size and cost of the project. In addition, both Teams will have differences in language, work ethic and culture, etc. Bridging those gaps maybe counter productive in that building context. (cross ref to space project example)
Lastly, I believe there is a rivalry between both team that propels a driving force to excel over the other. This aspect I believe greatly contribute to the early completion of the construction ahead of schedule.
As we relate back to Gaming, we can see competition set in similar settings.
If we want to find the best player of Country X, is a male only setting ideal? Thus is that setting correct?
As in the Petronas Tower example, can such setting be implemented within the Gaming Competition? (e,g, in HS BG?)
As such Competition can be beneficial (or bad) dependent on the setting.
Where are the free cards?
Makes sense. I will relate everything back to gaming in the end.
Ah, very good. I will try to keep that in mind.
As I said earlier I would call those positive things “cooperation” in complete contrast to “competition”. Basically what you say is good about “competition” is what I would call “cooperation” to begin with.
I have to be honest: I’m not quite sure what you mean with that there. Maybe you want to talk a bit more about the details.
Overall probably yes. At least there would then be no “corrupting factors” like withholding information for the potential benefit of one group. Generally speaking the sharing of information is what drives progress. And what about the stress the competitive setting might be causing. You might not be able to fully concentrate on doing your best bacause you’re too worried to fail. Also it’s a waste of resources since two teams are working towards the same thing.
For those reasons I don’t think it’s justified to say competition is a great means for progress. Especially since there are projects that worked excellently in a cooperative fashion. I don’t know much details but there is for one the ISS (International Space Station) and also the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). Imagine like the last one in a “competitive fashion”. Dozens of teams building dozens of LHC-like structures wasting many resources and withholding relevant information just to “win”. Take out a bit of cooperation from science and progress stifles, take out all and there will be almost no progress left.
Well, our economic system itself very heavily incentivices competition and is basically build upon it. You generally see true cooperation only in like “friendly settings” where “social capital” matters and everything is not so much connected to “the market” than most things are today. It’s possible to do things differently though. But when you’re like “thrown out there” (“into the market”) you don’t have much of a choice most of the time. If you can’t make money you’ll die (or at least your survival is seriously threatened). Therefore people naturally conform and adhere to the current “competitive setting”. People are also constantly told it’s such a great thing and that helping people is nice but since you can’t expect in this world much kindness you “have to compete”. Which of course is only the case because of the underlying established structure. (Competitive market model) I think there’s a name for this dilemma: Catch 22.
Well, maybe yes. But why are they even pitted against each other? That is the real question. If you’re forced to work with someone and (for whatever reasons) you don’t get along it would make sense to part ways and thus “compete”. But what is the precondition here? Can’t they work on different projects?
I also want to mention again that I’m not condemning competition completely. I just think that if it is possible it should be avoided because of it’s destructive nature. And yes, out of destruction can come new things and inspiration and whatnot. But what if it would be you that needs to get “destroyed”? That is always what you need to keep in mind when it comes to competition between humans.
That reminds me of maybe a great example if you are familiar with it. Do you know Undertale? What happens at the end of the Genocide route is what I feel like too much competition would do. Or rather what it already does in a way…
To that I just mention again like stress, fear, anger, revenge, etc. Maybe it was great as a “end justifies the means” thing. But if you look at it in a broader picture you might see that there are many potential very bad side effects which you certainly wouldn’t have with cooperation. And if I had to choose between waiting 100 days until a project is finished but people are “screwed over” and feel neglected/abused etc. and 1,000 days but they are treated in a respectful way you bet I would rather wait 1,000 days.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here either… Maybe you really want to go a bit more into the details of your example.
In gaming like with HS the problem should be relatively obvious: Only one person can win. Winning feels awesome. Losing feels terrible. And in my opinion losing feels (or at least is perceived) worse than winning feels good.
Now you might wonder how I play HS then. The answer is quite simple. I try to keep things fair and do not like a “tryhard” look for like decks with more then 50% winrate. At best you would have always a 50% winrate in all matches. I still play “for the win” but rather as a “direction” for the game to unfold into not the ultimate goal. “The journey is it’s own reward” I play always just try to do my best with what I got. And sometimes I even feel bad for the other if they didn’t really had a chance. As I said it should be at best 50% winrate all across the board.
Alternatively of course there could be more restructering of the game towards things like the Lich King raid which you mentioned. In my opinion that one was rather a failure though because there was no real interaction between the players (as it would be crucial in a raid). It was basically just a solo adventure.
Speaking of which I generally still enjoy solo adventure more because of all the “competition” elsewhere. And no, I don’t consider it much of a “competition” against the AI. At least I don’t have a problem with it because it’s just the AI.
It’s like in Tennis you have to make some other real person fail but there is this other similar thing (I don’t know the name of) where you just play it against a wall or so. As long as the game doesn’t require other real people feel bad for one party “winning” I don’t have a problem with it. But in most games… This is what I don’t like about “competition”; what is inherently destructive and generally really, really bad.
I will break it down into chunks as lengthy passages are a turn-off to most readers.
As per Preface, let gets things right 1st.
Let draw distinction here.
Competition is very specific that requires 2 party to pit strength against each other to determine who is stronger.
Co-operation is also specific that requires 2 party to work with each other and there is no need to proof which party is stronger.
The reason I want to draw distinction is to be as clear as possible. Because the 2 terms have such different context, it will be confusing/misleading if used wrongly.
I do understand your preference and will not hold you against it. (Feel free to use your expression)
However, do note and relate the differences as we use both terms.
1 Like
I agree, but it still is both basically. You have on one hand competition and on the other cooperation.
Like with your example (team+individual sales target example) a group effort in like one department is competition towards the other departments but cooperation within said department. In my opinion competition is the bad part and cooperation the good one.
It feels to me you have some strong sentiments on certain subjects where discussion can spiral out of control if not handled properly. However, It will also feel incomplete if I avoided them in total.
(It feels more like a topic of Benefits of Cooperation over Competition. Which in that case, the discussion direction will totally be different.)
But since we are on topic of Why competition is bad, let’s remember the Preface and summarize, thereafter concentrate on Gaming related discussion.
As I went thru the articles you attached, I would 1st send my appreciation and also some caution as a few articles are quite overly focal on 1 side of the coin and weak on the other side in presentation. (e.g. bad side of competition but disregard good side of competition)
As per former discussion, things can be very complicated. There will be examples of negative BUT there will be examples of positives as well.
Also remember the settings of a competition which I shall explain in more details later.
This I disagree. As I want to draw the distinction.
But as per former, feel free to use your expression
I will clarify on (team+individual sales target example):
A team of 10 individuals are competing for the best saleperson title with 1 reward. (a setting of only 1 can succeed) An additional reward can be added to the same team of 10 individuals with a group target reward. (a setting of the group success)
By adding correct reward, the setting of competition is shifted from a singular objective direction into a multiple objective direction. 10 individuals are still competing vs each other, but it removes a big % of the negatives associations of a singular objective. Individuals can gain rewards base on codependency, as sabotage will harm the reward to all 10 individuals. (Co-op within Competition)
Well, maybe I should have called it that then… Interesting.
Not really in my opinion. There seem to be pretty much the same positives with both competition and with cooperation but with competition you also run the risk of negative retroaction. Maybe less than presented and people can always adjust to things. But generally speaking it would be objectively better if we could make cooperation work instead of the need to have competition.
I really see competition as exclusively destructive. And while I acknowledge that this is not always bad and looking at nature sometimes even necessary it would be better for people if we could avoid that. Or would you like to die for the common good if it’s avoidable?
Again, I’m not saying we have to make it work. I’m just saying that objectively competition is inherently destructive and therefore can lead to all sorts of problems which otherwise could’ve been avoided.
Well, I guess I can’t see it any other way. You said
and if you have two teams competing against each other you can also see cooperation within those teams. Or do you mean with “party” litterally multiple people. In which case I disagree with that definition since obviously cooperation also happens between individuals.
It does feel that this IS the message you rather be discussing.
As such the choice of our words and phrasing can have very deep impact on how discussions develop.
But to keep to topic, I will try to focus back to topic and gaming discussion, and will not be able to reply to many aspects you mention.
Party refer to one person or more.
Oh, I guess I got that wrong…
Well, yes that would make it less bad. Just like (as I mentioned that comparison earlier) if you mix alcohol with non-alcoholic beverages you get a less strong “poison”. I still think competition can be extremely harmful. Just like alcohol is. But yeah, if we don’t overdo it, maybe it’ll be fine. But why risk it? I don’t drink alcohol because I don’t want to poison myself. Why risk it with competition? Well, I can answer myself: Because that’s how we set it up. All I’m saying is that change towards more cooperation would be much better if doable. Just like it would be better if people wouldn’t take as many drugs even if those drugs are generally not that harmful if handled properly.
I will answer to your queries on your 1st reply:
In the Petronas example, it is a mega construction project where 2 Towers are build almost simultaneously. Dev engage 2 different construction consortium for each tower. Technically, they are pit against each other. As competitors, the failure of either tower would doom the whole project.
Had competition be not beneficial, then it makes no sense to engage 2 different consortium. The Dev correctly deploy the correct setting to leverage on the competitive nature between both groups to achieve an objective.
As we look into bigger projects, a mixture of different personalities, culture, language is unavoidable. Due to the expertise each individual have, personal differences need a form of mitigation.
Ironically to mine initial message, now I contradict myself?
The bigger the team, the harder it is to manage. Thus, to handle mega projects, it may make sense to split groups into smaller teams. In the process, many processes may have gone “reinventing the wheel” among both groups, but like wise working together could also mean “too many cooks spoils the broth”.
Dev need to take all considerations above before work as these decision can be very costly and non productive.
Precisely. (How we set it up)
Cooperation may not be the best solution in all cases. First the context must be clear.
Back to the discussion on gaming, again I will use example to show how competition in gaming need not be bad.
MARIO KART
A competitive racing game by default by enjoyed by many. Had we remove the competitive element, how would the game be envisioned?
As such, again the setting is important.
HS Battlegrounds
We ultimately want that 1st placing. Yet, there are numerous calls to extend multi-players option beyond 2 friends. Again each are competing with each other in a more cohesive environment.
Okay, I can see now. That sort of inter-dependency certainly would decrease potential bad side effects. And to be honest it doesn’t sound much of a competition. They just need to do their work. Or did one group got more pay etc. I guess so. Which would then still be problematic because it of course will feel bad then to miss out on that. I mean generally everyone is doing their best and then… you “lose”. That what sucks so much about competition. But I can agree that there are less bad competitions like this one.
Yeah, it certainly was beneficial. But maybe the same could be done in a complete cooperative fashion? That’s the question. I think it would be better generally.
Yeah, the typical “when two people quarrel, a third rejoices”. You can do it this way of course. But as I said maybe it could be done better through cooperative efforts. And I think there would be no real bad side effects to that. If it’s possible cooperation seems far better than competition.
That is indeed a good point. But at least the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t need to pit people against each other so they do great things. So if they think it’s better to split into multiple teams that’s fine. It only becomes problematic when they desperately look “who is the best” to the point where maybe even the inital goal becomes secondary to “winning”. I know that sounds ridiculous but that is sometimes the consequence.
The important thing in my opinion would be to allow the free sharing of information and not “degrading” people. I mean they did their best but still lost. That just feels terrible. With compensation it’s less bad but at best you wouldn’t have competition… if it’s possible.
It might appear to be “harmless” but it really is not.
If people don’t take it so serious (like how I play HS) then it’s not that bad. But only to the extent where competition is partly removed.
Maybe it depends on the person and it certainly isn’t as bad other other competitions but generally speaking as I said winning feels good but losing very bad. In my opinion losing sucks more than people enjoy to win. So overall it’s a net-negative if you so want. But even if not negative feelings might cause problems which could be avoided by not making the game so competitive.
Of course when it comes to like “how should the game be” I’m rather indifferent. People can make whatever games they want. I’m just pointing out that competition has many bad side effects and should be avoided if possible. There are also other people who don’t drink alcohol because of the bad health effects it can have and you still see that getting sold. I don’t have a problem with that. Just like I wouldn’t care if someone sells elephant poo. I just wouldn’t buy it.
To be specific, the terrible feeling of lose is due to the way HS game plays are designed.
In earlier times, I encourage players that they should take encouragement from losses if they have played well, with a weaker deck vs top tier decks.
Today, it has become much harder to encourage them as alot of decision elements has been eliminated. Weaker decks finds a hard time in the meta due to the powerlevel of current top tier decks.
Looking deeper, HS players had always like the competitive format more thus the most played format. The introduction of BG (again a competitive format) took over the ladder experience at launch. If we look at both formats, both competitive, why we see a more significant response/reception between both formats?
Maybe that exaggerages the problem. But I think it generally can be said that winning feels less better than losing feels more bad. That applies to any game or competition.
Realistically, the Dev would have consider it but chosen ‘Competition’. The ‘Co-op’ poses a big management headache in terms of co-ordination, communication, etc.
In such scale of a project, co-op may not mean less resources and wastage, but opposite.
No. it is not as described. If both party quarrels in the project, the Dev need to step in to mitigate issues which means more management responsibilities.
The selection of 2 independent consortium probably assure the Dev that they can self-manage with the Dev to mitigate when necessary.
I believe I have presented enough of my perspective on the topic. Do find peace and value from it if any.
Thank you for the invite.
1 Like