Competition Vs. Friendship

Well competion in general really bugs me and I know that's my own personal problem BUT, I know that there is a certain point wher other things are more important, and I want to know from you the community where you stand.

The situation is :

You are playing a sport or video game or anything that involves two or more teams where the objective is to win/have fun. You are picked as a team captain, you know that your friends do not practice as much as you do, therefore if you picked them you would probably lose. But they are your friends. Do you go with a more skilled player or just a random person who MIGHT be skilled over your friends?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If the goal is to have fun with your friends, then have some fucking fun with your friends. If you do not pick your friends, you're a dick and do not understand what the exercise is.

But, if the goal is to win, then it's acceptable to pick skilled folks.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Uhm, if the point is to have fun, why would you choose to play with complete randoms? If you choose your friends, work together as a team and have fun, it'd make winning that much more rewarding. If you lose, well (hopefully) you had a fun game. I couldn't imagine not picking your friends even if winning was the objective.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What, can you not have any fun competing against your friends too? I find that I have more fun in evenly matched contests than I do in getting completely dominated. Back when I was still in college, me and a few of my buddies would go over to a church gymnasium one night a week and play basketball with some other fellas and we are more casual players, so we weren't the most skilled {or serious} players there. So we'd usually end up splitting the teams pretty evenly in terms of skill level, so the games would play out about even and we'd have a lot of fun in the process. Plus it's really fun raining threes down in your buddy's face. I honestly don't think we would have had as much fun if it were myself and my three buddies playing against four guys who took it much more seriously and who were better players.

Choosing another player ahead of your friend should not be considered a slight against your friend.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I would probably use a method of randomness to pick my team's mates. I would find the adaptation period to other players and the cohesion of the team unit far more exciting than playing with people I have played before - ie. my buddies.

But that's not really what it's about. If I was feeling perky, I'd probably pick my buddies and try our damnest to win. I find that losing to someone of roughly equal skill to be very awesome.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by russ

What, can you not have any fun competing against your friends too?

Good point. I guess I got the "last picked in ___" vibe going. :bobofrowny:

How ya doing, buddy?

I think it would be the most fun if you split the teams up half and half like russ was saying. Then you can have fun playing with some friends and playing against others. And, in the process, you might get to be friendlier with the other random guys on your team.

FELIPE NO

Ok, no to toss another wrench into the gears. How do you determine skill level amongs the people you are playing with? If you don't know that much from the beginning then you have to do something in order to figure that out.

If that something is to have a mini one on one tourny to see who stands where then that might take some time, and you only have few hours together before everyone has to go home.

Most amazing jew boots

I find that I have more fun playing against friends than playing on the same team. It also depends on the type of game. But I've never had to choose teams based on friendship either. Usually, everyone would join a team in order to balance skill.

Jam it back in, in the dark.