You are just bringing up some weird, very philosophical explanation of what is smart and what not.
You missed this part:
If the stone "wants" to stay intact, then yeah the stone is smarter. Now that would just be a silly assumption, since the stone is not a thinking being, but it shows that your example is not equal to mine and thus fails to invalidate it.
Well, then let's assume a professor and a sparrow jump out of a destroyed plane, who will survive? Both DO want to survive, so the sparrow is smarter because... he was born as a sparrow?
The professor would actually try to avoid the fist fight against the hooligan, and by simply having the try to do so he would prove to be the smarter one (as remaining unscratched after a fist fight that didn't even happen is more likely than remaining unscratched after any other possible fist fight with whatever chances for everybody).
Doing what's smart is doing what's most beneficial (over a certain period of time), and what's most beneficial for preparing for a fistfight where you want to get out unscathed is definitively not studying math.
Isn't it most beneficial to NOT run into a bunch of enemies, as you say you do, but to stick to your teammates? How many enemies can a good player kill when being outnumbered, and how many can he kill when being supported?
But please, don't hook yourself up on any further philosophical discussion about the word "stupid". People have different intelligence, and in general higher intelligence is always better than lesser. Period. There is nothing to discuss about.
Out of thin air hmm? (I'm pretty confident cav have the best K:D)
I was speaking of infantry. Although, to be honest, I think on most maps a good two handed infantryman is leading the scoreboard... but that's only my personal impression.
I don't understand a single thing of what you are trying to say here.
I said many people are too stupid to think about tactics, you said they perhaps only want to have fun and relax, and then I said that having fun and relaxing doesn't exclude thinking about using tactics. If I attack three times and fail every time, I don't even need to think about changing my behaviour, I do this by default, it's not tiresome or anything else. If I cross open fields and I am constantly "afraid" of missiles or cavalry, I instinctively get the idea that crossing that field (at that moment) could be a bad idea, so I won't repeat it. I don't say I am super smart, but I really worry about people who don't understand such things within the blink of an eye. It's not like I would want people to watch the map from above in spectator mode and to think hard about the most beneficial maneuvers. The things I am talking about are on the level of "If you are walking, and a cliff is approaching you, stop walking." Whoever is not capable or too lazy (which means it would be an effort for him) to think that far is nothing else than a lemming. And NOT smart.
Doing what the Jackass guys do is in most cases "stupid" yes, but considering that they've made millions from it by broadcasting, is it really stupid? I'd say it's genius.
You can play this game with whatever situation comes into your mind. Basically you are saying: "there is not THE stupidity, it always depends on the situation", and I can't really disagree on that (although I think all Johnny Knoxville and the other retards deserve are doubled health insurance contributions and not shitloads of money
), I think you will also agree to me that there IS stupidity concerning certain situations and possible behaviour. And I say one of those cases is: cRPG battle, charging alone against a bunch of enemies.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that "intelligence and education" = being smart, and I strongly disagree with that. Doing what's smart is doing what's most beneficial (over a certain period of time), and what's most beneficial for preparing for a fistfight where you want to get out unscathed is definitively not studying math.
Problem is: the professor did not prepare for the fist fight, as he didn't know he will get into one. That's what I said before, being smart has nothing to do how "suitable" you are to get over certain, special situations. The example you created has nothing to do with being smart, it's a fist fight. It's not like the hooligan decided to NOT go to the university to study maths but rather hang out with those semi-skinheads. And it's not like the professor knew he would get into this fist fight and still thought he would do better with maths.
If you want to compare them, the only way to do so is to give them the same task and then let them accomplish it their way. This way you can find out who is the smarter one.
But if you think that being smart is equal to "If you have the upper hand in a situation you have been the smarter one" I remember you to my example with the sparrow and the professor. If this is being smart, then what is having luck?
Yes, but this is once again assuming that the main objective is winning. You've still not disapproved my claim that it is not or defended your claim that it is.
[...]
Same thing here. Since when is "performance" in a battle the final goal of playing c-rpg?
- old cRPG: getting rewards for each player killed. New cRPG: getting rewards for winning rounds.
- it's always a team vs. a team. Otherwise it could have been created just deathmatch free for all. The one with the best k/d wins.
- winning means you (or your team) killed more enemies, killing more enemies doesn't (neccesarily) mean you'll win.
- Upkeep is independant of your K/D-ratio
If you want to debate this with me, on whatever level, please do. But THINK before you post. Unsupported slander is not going to convince anyone of your standpoint.
You just slandered me to not be thinking before posting.
I hope this time my answer is meeting your high standards, and I would appreciate very much if you wouldn't make fun of my lingual mistakes, as English is not my mother language, it's German, which is one of the most difficult languages on earth. Just to inform you. All I have is what I learned at school, I never was even travelling through an English speaking country, let alone having spoken more than a few words to someone with English as mother language.
Poll