How do "Advanced Techniques" or "Game Physics" affect casual players?

[Vkrm]

Or, the competitive players could stick to friends lists filled with others like themselves instead of ruining the play sessions of players that are still not up to their own level by completely decimating and discouraging every casual that appears.
Just a thought, since obliterating any sort of casual play seems to be the direction a certain faction of the competitive base seems to be leaning in anyways.

If anything this is a great argument for more robust match making, not for restricting smash4 to casual play only. Also it seems to me that you're out of touch with the actual competitive scene. Like, in what way are we attempting to obliterate casual play? Even if that was a worthwhile goal I would have no idea how to go about it.

 

[smashbrolink]

If anything this is a great argument for more robust match making, not for restricting smash4 to casual play only. Also it seems to me that you're out of touch with the actual competitive scene. Like, in what way are we attempting to obliterate casual play? Even if that was a worthwhile goal I would have no idea how to go about it.

Most of the competitive scene isn't.
But there's a nice, sizeable faction that I think we BOTH know, that would eagerly walk into public, casual matches, and troll the newbies by blowing them away with advanced techs.
Just for the ****s and giggles.
Forced segregation via mandatory skill-based match-making is not a better choice since it just shrinks the amount of players at any one time. We'd have a case of a tiny portion of super good players in one side and a billion casuals in the other, and at some point if a Casual went up the rankings high enough to just barely make entry into the competitive side, they'd immediately be knocked back down the rankings by the elite.
They'd be bouncing around in transition between the two sides with no clear segment of the smash population to play with.

Forced segregation isn't the solution here, so I say no to forced match-making.
Better that techs that give too high an advantage are removed and a new competitive scene is formed that takes advantage of the middle-ground nature of this new game.

 

[Vkrm]

I don't think you're making a strong case for why separating based only on what type of experience they want to have is a bad thing. There aren't many casuals who want to maintain a positive record on their playercard. They concepts of victory and defeat are secondary to the, "I can make Mario fight sonic" aspect smash delivers for them.

 

[Chauzu]

How does the effects of wave dashing or L - cancelling OR any other gameplay enhancing techniques change the way casual players play the game?

I see what you did there.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

We'd have a case of a tiny portion of super good players in one side and a billion casuals in the other, and at some point if a Casual went up the rankings high enough to just barely make entry into the competitive side, they'd immediately be knocked back down the rankings by the elite.
They'd be bouncing around in transition between the two sides with no clear segment of the smash population to play with.

What the hell are you even talking about? Are you aware of how skill-based matchmaking works?

I'm betting on "no" if you think that it works by having a "competitive" group and a "casual" group and having opponents randomly selected from whatever group you're placed in.

 

[smashbrolink]

I don't think you're making a strong case for why separating based only on what type of experience they want to have is a bad thing. There aren't many casuals who want to maintain a positive record on their playercard. They concepts of victory and defeat are secondary to the, "I can make Mario fight sonic" aspect smash delivers for them.

Let me simplify that for you, then; overly-competitive players would be a deterrent to casual players if they started joining in casual matches and decimating everyone left and right, and segregating the player base via forced match making wouldn't help issues.
If tech removal solves that problem without slowing down the game or reintroducing stupid little things like tripping, then that's the best solution as far as I'm concerned.
You're also over-simplifying the way that casual fans view the game; they don't play it just to do Mario vs Sonic; they play to have fun.
Tell me, what's so fun about an elite player suddenly popping up in a public match filled with casuals, and obliterating everyone with techs they haven't even heard of, let alone used?
If you don' t think that would discourage some of them from continuing to play after a while of that same thing happening whenever they hop online, then I've got bad news for you.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

Let me simplify that for you, then; overly-competitive players would be a deterrent to casual players if they started joining in casual matches and decimating everyone left and right, and segregating the player base via forced match making wouldn't help issues.

BUT IT WOULD

 

[smashbrolink]

BUT IT WOULD

Then I take it that you're more than willing to segregate the player base into two halves just like we've done for the past two games, lowering the amount of viable opponents in the competitive area by either raising the bar too high for admittance to the vast majority, or by lowering it too much and making everyone casual.
Congratulations on being all for segregation, but I disagree with this ideal.
I don't want to see people segregated into the casuals who hate the elitists for being better than them and the elitists who look down on whoever isn't at their level.
That bull**** has gone on too long, and further segregation would not help the matter get resolved.

 

[Mr.C]

"Casual", more like "pseudo-competitor".

Casuals couldn't care less about advanced techniques; advanced techniques do not effect them. The problem lies within the pseudo-competitors who want watered-down game play due to them being incapable of playing games that actually take skill and dedication to play efficiently. Casuals play random FFA's with their other casual friends. Pseudo-competitors want to play with highly-skilled players without having large skill discrepancies that do not make them feel bad about themselves. Hence, why they always vehemently support lowering skill-gaps within game play. It's just a simple, emotional and egotistical problem newer generations of gamers suffer from. They watch or look at videos of professional gamers and want to be them, they just want to take the easy road to achieve similar results.

 

[smashbrolink]

"Casual", more like "pseudo-competitor".

Casuals couldn't care less about advanced techniques; advanced techniques do not effect them.

I've already explained how this is most certainly NOT the case.

It affects their enjoyment of the game every single time that an elite jumps into a non-elite match and uses it to obliterate everything as if they were no more than practice NPC's.
Leaving a person feeling powerless and having to abandon match after match whenever an elite appears is NOT how you keep new players around.
Don't try to redefine casuals to suit your argument.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

Then I take it that you're more than willing to segregate the player base into two halves

no, I'm not

you literally do not understand how ranked matchmaking works

it does not divide people into two halves (pro and casual) and randomly select from a pool of players

that is not how it works

you keep saying "segregation" like it's the '30s and casuals have to use different restrooms than better players

it's not separated like that

see here:

We'd have a case of a tiny portion of super good players in one side and a billion casuals in the other, and at some point if a Casual went up the rankings high enough to just barely make entry into the competitive side, they'd immediately be knocked back down the rankings by the elite.
They'd be bouncing around in transition between the two sides with no clear segment of the smash population to play with.

this would just flat out not happen

your conception of how this would work is inherently flawed

you literally do not understand how ranked matchmaking works, you're arguing against a sentiment that doesn't even exist because this would simply not happen

 

[Mr.C]

I've already explained how this is most certainly NOT the case.

It affects their enjoyment of the game every single time that an elite jumps into a non-elite match and uses it to obliterate everything as if they were no more than practice NPC's.
Leaving a person feeling powerless and having to abandon match after match whenever an elite appears is NOT how you keep new players around.

That's why 99.9% of competitive online video games have skill-level or ELO brackets based on win/loss ratios. Bad players play with other bad players, good players play with other good players. Lion King, circle of life, etc.

 

[smashbrolink]

no, I'm not

you literally do not understand how ranked matchmaking works

it does not divide people into two halves (pro and casual) and randomly select from a pool of players

that is not how it works

you keep saying "segregation" like it's the '30s and casuals have to use different restrooms than better players

it's not separated like that

see here:




this would just flat out not happen

your conception of how this would work is inherently flawed

you literally do not understand how ranked matchmaking works, you're arguing against a sentiment that doesn't even exist because this would simply not happen

So you're saying its literally an impossibility that they'd design a rank system that removes points and demotes you based on defeats? Or that pushes you into higher ranks with every little victory even if your skill never really rises, until you're stuck being matched solely against people that match your rank and not your actual skill level?

Because the last time I checked, both of those are possible, and since Nintendo has little experience in designing match-making systems for a competitive fighter, it's even LIKELY that they'd do those things, or something even worse.

Do you know what happened in Melee tournaments I have personally sponsored and ran in communities out where I live?
I've SEEN elites jump into my tournament with a bunch of casuals and blow them away with little effort due to AT's.
I've experienced the disappointment of having to divide up and match players to people within their own skill set instead of letting players just play together and have fun regardless of their skill level.
The entire point of "ranking" players is segregation in and of itself, in any case. That's not what Smash 4 is designed to be about, and that's not a bad thing.

 

[smashbrolink]

That's why 99.9% of competitive online video games have skill-level or ELO brackets based on win/loss ratios. Bad players play with other bad players, good players play with other good players. Lion King, circle of life, etc.

As I explained above; Nintendo has little if any experience in setting up that kind of thing for their own fighting game.
The risk that they'd mess it up is higher than them putting it out right, and you've got to keep in mind that no matter how technical Melee made things, Brawl is, intrinsically, much less technical than normal fighters.
The same type of skill-based ranking wouldn't quite fit here.
Segregation isn't the answer here in any case.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

until you're stuck being matched solely against people that match your rank and not your actual skill level?

how the **** would this happen if your hidden rank changes with your skill level

I'm confused.

Do you know what happened in Melee tournaments I have personally sponsored and ran in communities out where I live?
I've SEEN elites jump into my tournament with a bunch of casuals and blow them away with little effort due to AT's.
I've experienced the disappointment of having to divide up and match players to people within their own skill set instead of letting players just play together and have fun regardless of their skill level.

So you're suggesting that because people who are good at the game are better than people who are not good at the game, the game should be purposefully designed so that the skill level is irrelevant and either party has a chance to win?

That's a load of crap. If someone is better at a game than another person they should win in an even match. Especially in a tournament setting. If you're concerned about casuals getting their butts kicked too hard then don't host a tournament where the point is to win, host a casual Smash get-together, and if someone is way too good then turn on handicap. That's why it's there, so people of different skill levels can play with each other.

The entire point of "ranking" players is segregation in and of itself, in any case. That's not what Smash 4 is designed to be about, and that's not a bad thing.

The ranking does not need to be visible, it's only so that people can enjoy themselves while playing people of a similar skill level. I fail to see at all how this is segregation. At all.

 

[Mr.C]

Do you know what happened in Melee tournaments I have personally sponsored and ran in communities out where I live?
I've SEEN elites jump into my tournament with a bunch of casuals and blow them away with little effort due to AT's.

No, you've seen elites jump into tournaments and destroy casuals because they're superior players. No different than Michael Jordan playing with your average basketball player. It has nothing to do with advanced techniques, the person who takes the game more seriously (mastering gameplay intricacies to perform efficiently) is just simply better.

Segregation isn't the answer here in any case.

Segregation is the answer. I don't want to play against terrible players, terrible players that have no intention of getting better don't want to have their feeling hurt by playing me. Similarly, I don't want to associate myself with uneducated ghetto-thugs, so I'm going to continue not interacting with people that fall within the category. Segregation is an important aspect of social stability. It's also an important aspect in online competitive game balance.

 

[Vkrm]

But it wouldn't be segregation. It would be Nintendo giving players the tools they need to customize their experience. Casuals play FFAs with items and people looking for a challenge will be able to find one.

 

[smashbrolink]

No, you've seen elites jump into tournaments and destroy casuals because they're superior players. No different than Michael Jordan playing with your average basketball player. It has nothing to do with advanced techniques, the person who takes the game more seriously (mastering gameplay intricacies to perform efficiently) is just simply better.



Segregation is the answer. I don't want to play against terrible players, terrible players that have no intention on getting better don't want to have their feeling hurt by playing me. Similarly, I don't want to associate myself with uneducated ghetto-thugs, so I'm going to continue not interacting with people that fall within the category. Segregation is an important aspect of social stability. It's also an important aspect in online competitive game balance.

In 90% of those cases, it was ONLY AT'S that were separating the two in terms of skill gap, so no, I was seeing a bunch of AT-competent players destroy and drive away anyone that was not capable of doing the exact same thing.

If you don't want to play with "terrible players", then just stick to friends list matches, since you appear to want segregation no matter what.
Invisible or not, segregation via ranking systems isn't going to help the issue; it's only going to divide us again.
There's nothing "socially stable" about dividing the Smash community once again.
That's just going to result in another round of "No items, Fox Only, Final Destination"- esque shenanigans that our community simply does. not. need.

 

[smashbrolink]

So you're suggesting that because people who are good at the game are better than people who are not good at the game, the game should be purposefully designed so that the skill level is irrelevant and either party has a chance to win?

The ranking does not need to be visible, it's only so that people can enjoy themselves while playing people of a similar skill level. I fail to see at all how this is segregation. At all.

#1, no, that's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting that the gap between the higher ranks and the lower ranks shouldn't be a bar set so high that anyone above that bar basically treats anyone half-way below it like nothing more than lvl 2 CPU punching bags.
Skill should still make a difference and grant an advantage, but not so much of one that the AT's combined basically become auto-win actions for anyone that uses them vs someone who's struggling with performing them.

#2 Hiding the rank doesn't take away its effects, so the result goes unchanged in any case.
Making it less visible doesn't change anything in any significant fashion; with too many AT's, the difference between the two ranks would still be clear as day whether you had a label to slap onto them or not.

If segregation is a desire, friends lists are already there.
Competitive players don't need anything more than that.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

#1, no, that's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting that the gap between the higher ranks and the lower ranks shouldn't be a bar set so high that anyone above that bar basically treats anyone half-way below it like nothing more than lvl 2 CPU punching bags.
Skill should still make a difference and grant an advantage, but not so much of one that the AT's combined basically become auto-win actions for anyone that uses them vs someone who's struggling with performing them.

#2 Hiding the rank doesn't take away its effects, so the result goes unchanged in any case.
Making it less visible doesn't change anything in any significant fashion; with too many AT's, the difference between the two ranks would still be clear as day whether you had a label to slap onto them or not.

1. So you're for lowering the skill ceiling. I'm pretty sure every competitive player can agree this is a bad thing.
2. Literally all it does is pair you up against higher-skilled players.

Let me put it like this. I still don't think you get what I'm saying.

A: Why do you want to only face people worse than you 99% of the time?
B: Why do you want casuals to get obliterated by you whenever you play?

 

[smashbrolink]

1. So you're for lowering the skill ceiling. I'm pretty sure every competitive player can agree this is a bad thing.
2. Literally all it does is pair you up against higher-skilled players.

Let me put it like this. I still don't think you get what I'm saying.

A: Why do you want to only face people worse than you 99% of the time?
B: Why do you want casuals to get obliterated by you whenever you play?

1: I'm for evening out the grand canyon sized gulf that a lot of AT's forcefully wedged into Melee's system, not for lowering the skill ceiling to the point where it's not competitive at all, which is the statement you seem to be trying to shove into my mouth.

2: And if the difference between highly skilled players and players that have a decent modicum of skill, but aren't QUITE at that level of elitism yet, is literally a huge leap, then being forcefully shoved into higher ranks after being used to people of your own skill level for so long, due to an auto-raising rank system based off of wins and losses, would only throw players who were not super competitive into a lions den, where they'd be continually slaughtered unless they were given the choice of going back to the lower ranks.

It would only take a lucky streak of wins against entirely new players to increase that score well beyond the point where it actually reflects their own skill level.

And if you enable THAT option of going back to the non-competitive side of the ranks, that gives leeway for the less savory members of the competitive community to go down into the lower ranks and start trolling the newbie players.
Auto-Ranking for this game doesn't work well.

Highly technical AT's would be the catalyst for forming that gulf, in Smash's case, hence it's better that the worse offenders of that group of AT's were taken out in favor of something more balanced.

As for A and B....
A: Why would you want to leave a wide gulf between player bases, especially if there's the possibility of elites being willingly able to skip between the two different sides of the gulf of ranks?
B: The same question you posed; Why do you want casuals to get obliterated by you whenever you play? Is winning so important that you'd support people who would jump into public matches and do that despite their level of skill?
Because that's what leaving the most advanced AT's in and segregating the population without strict restrictions on which side of the rankings you can play against would leave the game open to.

 

[Zubyyyy]

#stupidargument
#Saksgonnamakethefungameoveracompetitivegame
#fungames=money
#competitivegameswithnorankingsystemselljustaswell
#CallOfDuty

 

[SKM_NeoN]

"We don't keep score in this game, or allow the kids to throw the ball too hard. That could hurt someone's feelings. Everyone is a winner! Everybody line up for your gold stars! Even little Timmy who sat in the dirt and ate bugs all day!"

 

[smashbrolink]

"We don't keep score in this game, or allow the kids to throw the ball too hard. That could hurt someone's feelings. Everyone is a winner! Everybody line up for your gold stars! Even little Timmy who sat in the dirt and ate bugs all day!"

Misrepresentation of the casual base isn't going to score you any points.

 

[Kamiko]

I don't really get how this ranking system debate even relates to the topic. smashbrolink seems to be contradicting himself though.

Are you... saying it's okay for an unskilled player to be randomly matched up against a top player? Because that's what will happen without a matchmaking system.

 

[HeroMystic]

Forced segregation isn't the solution here, so I say no to forced match-making.

You've been using this word a lot lately. You -do- know what segregation means right?

If we're talking about SCII, I'd point out that certain changes, particularly the ability to auto-rally workers to begin mining after production, caused massive controversy among the competitive Starcraft community during the transition from BW to Starcraft II. Other features which proved controversial included "smart" casting, in which players no longer had to manually cast spells from every individual caster to avoid wasting them in group casts, and a much larger unit selection total which made maneuvering armies much easier for weaker players. Many hardcore BW players might well view SCII as the "Brawl" of Starcraft due to the game's automation of repetitive, APM-intensive tasks as well as a marked increase in ease of controlling units. Despite this controversy, SCII has come to be viewed as a benchmark for competitive games, it seems. Food for thought.

I remember all of this, but I don't think it was all that massive. Then again, I was on the BattleNet forums for some time before I migrated to TL.net, so I might've missed the bulk of the ****storm.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

A ranking system could work honestly. Although I dislike this representation of casuals as a bunch of drooling, brainless, lazy morons who play for derps. Some of us play to have fun, some of us play because winning is the only thing that matters and some of us just want to have some intensely close matches with those of our calibur.

 

[smashbrolink]

A ranking system could work honestly. Although I dislike this representation of casuals as a bunch of drooling, brainless, lazy morons who play for derps. Some of us play to have fun, some of us play because winning is the only thing that matters and some of us just want to have some intensely close matches with those of our calibur.

Thank you for putting it that way. That's pretty damned close to why I play, though I also add that I do it for the sake of personal improvement.
Never solely for winning, though. It's the journey and not the end that matters to me.

I don't really get how this ranking system debate even relates to the topic. smashbrolink seems to be contradicting himself though.

Are you... saying it's okay for an unskilled player to be randomly matched up against a top player? Because that's what will happen without a matchmaking system.

No, I'm not saying that.

In fact, HeroMystic pretty much nailed what my point would be as far as ranked matches:

As I was reading the argument about ranked matchmaking, I thought about my recent practice with Persona 4 Arena. I've rarely went online because I'm essentially in a dead area, which means connections are usually out of my region. The day I did decide to get online and played online ranked, I was a person with 0 points, and they also ranked me with a person with 0 points.

Obviously, I wrecked him. Actually, it was beyond getting wrecked, it was like I was still in training mode. He couldn't land any hits on me, and I combo'd him to oblivion and got two perfects in a row. The match didn't even last 5 minutes. I was talking to my BFF on Skype and I openly said "Man, I hope I didn't break this guy's spirit." This was said jokingly, but honestly I was serious, because I know how it's like to get completely demolished in games you don't fully understand the mechanics behind because you're not interested in becoming competitive.

So really, no, adding ranked matches doesn't magically solve the issue, because the game still has to place you first, which means you have to start from the bottom.

Essentially, Rank in Smash wouldn't always be a good indicator of a person's skill even though it's not a system that selects opponents at random between different ranks, and being forcibly matched up against people either faaaar above or below your skill level, thanks to auto-ranking not necessarily reflecting your skill level, would be a bad thing, especially if AT's present a gulf that a less skilled player might accidentally cross before his level of actual ability is high enough to withstand it, due to a lucky streak against a bunch of less skilled opponents boosting his win-loss ratio beyond the gap and into the lions den of elite players.

And, no, it wouldn't result in said randomness, because in that scenario, without match-making, a top player, I would think, would likely take the logical choice of going to a community formed almost entirely of others like him. What reason would they have to go into public if it's going to be filled with mostly non-pros, aside from the purpose of easy victories and/or trolling others?
None.
But that scenario only applies if specific AT's remain as a barrier that separates the two sides too far to successfully intermingle.
Without that barrier, skilled players would still be able to play in public and find challenging opponents, and it's likely that there would be a whole lot more of them.

 

[Kamiko]

Thank you for putting it that way. That's pretty damned close to why I play, though I also add that I do it for the sake of personal improvement.
Never solely for winning, though. It's the journey and not the end that matters to me.

I think this type of playstyle is a category of its own, rather than what people commonly think of as casual or competitive. Some people just want a good fight.

 

[smashbrolink]

You've been using this word a lot lately. You -do- know what segregation means right?

It refers to setting apart or separating things or people based on certain criteria.
There's different types of segregation out there in the world, like Residential Segregation and Racial Segregation, but in this case, I don't think there's an accurate type of segregation already predefined for this particular instance.
Hence, I'm considering this a form of Skill-Based Community Segregation.

Though I guess if you wanted to stretch the term into the digital communities field and treat it as if it were similar to real-life communities, with casuals and elites being the two different halves of the people living in said community, then Social Segregation would kind of fit.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I think this type of playstyle is a category of its own, rather than what people commonly think of as casual or competitive. Some people just want a good fight.

Exactly! That's my whole reason for playing Smash. I enjoyed Melee and Brawl equally because I was always fighting people who were on even turf with me and so our matches were always close and epic. I was never crushed (save for rare occasions) and I never crushed my friends (again, save for rare moments.) So I guess you could consider me casual, but I play not just for fun, but for a damned good fight.

 

[smashbrolink]

Exactly! That's my whole reason for playing Smash. I enjoyed Melee and Brawl equally because I was always fighting people who were on even turf with me and so our matches were always close and epic. I was never crushed (save for rare occasions) and I never crushed my friends (again, save for rare moments.) So I guess you could consider me casual, but I play not just for fun, but for a damned good fight.

Game Set!
This game's winner is...
Ogre_Deity_Link


You pretty much nailed it.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Misrepresentation of the casual base isn't going to score you any points.

I'm not trying to represent casuals at all. Just people like you who think new players, who don't take the time to do some research and practice, should be able to play and compete with elite players that dedicate the majority of their free time to improving their knowledge and skill.

 

[smashbrolink]

I'm not trying to represent casuals at all. Just people like you who think new players, who don't take the time to do some research and practice, should be able to play and compete with elite players that dedicate the majority of their free time to improving their knowledge and skill.

Misrepresenting MY views is even worse.
For the sake of avoiding a viral argument, however, I'm going to agree to disagree and let this drop before it gets worse.
Neither of us needs this, I'm sure.

 

[TheTuninator]

Pretty much every video game that's even semi-competitive "segregates" players by skill level, and it works perfectly fine.

 

[VA3TO]

Since when was THAT a thing to all gamers?
The majority play games to have fun, not to be competitive and get better and better for the sake of shallow bragging rights and internet ego-inflation.
Making a more accessible experience is the better path for the game, that's all there is to it. If techs hold that back by allowing skilled players to blow away everyone that steps into a casual public lobby with no effort, discouraging them from playing by making the game feel like a pros-only experience, then it's better that some of those advanced techs disappear.

Encouraging players to get better isn't a bad thing, but shoe-horning them into it by setting the skill bar of matches too high for them to feel encouraged is not the way to do it.

Thankfully, there's the likelihood that they'll be able to use patches to adjust the game after release, so we may not have to worry about them overdoing things with the fixes and removals and whatnot.

In the meantime, if the small faction of competitive-to-the-point-of-rude players[not the same as the rest of the competitive community] want to do a clear amount of segregation so badly by getting rid of any form of casual helping by the devs, then that small faction already has friends list battles as a ready-made solution for their desire to play against nothing but skilled players in a casual-free environment.

But when you play a game over and over you are inherently getting better at the game as you progress. Who said anything about bragging rights?

 

[VA3TO]

Double post

 

[PlayerXIII]

Or, the competitive players could stick to friends lists filled with others like themselves instead of ruining the play sessions of players that are still not up to their own level by completely decimating and discouraging every casual that appears.
Just a thought, since obliterating any sort of casual play seems to be the direction a certain faction of the competitive base seems to be leaning in anyways.

I just had to immediatly answer this without reading the whole damn thread. I have always been casual in all smashes but will work towards being competitive in SSB4. What do you suppose people will do when their friend lists are empty because people are offline? Play against the CPU? If the function to play online without friend list exists then it should be used by both casuals and competitive players alike. Saying competitive players shouldn't use it and stay with their friends list because it ruins the casual fun sounds a bit self-entitled to me. Let's say I manage to master a whole lot of things (like I did in PSASBR) by only browsing the internet, practice and playing one or two good persons on the other side of the world (read: rarely catch 'em on) to the point I can wreck most casuals? Should I no longer be entitled to going into online play and stick to my pretty much empty friend list that only has people on the other side of the world?

 

[HeroMystic]

It refers to setting apart or separating things or people based on certain criteria.
There's different types of segregation out there in the world, like Residential Segregation and Racial Segregation, but in this case, I don't think there's an accurate type of segregation already predefined for this particular instance.
Hence, I'm considering this a form of Skill-Based Community Segregation.

Though I guess if you wanted to stretch the term into the digital communities field and treat it as if it were similar to real-life communities, with casuals and elites being the two different halves of the people living in said community, then Social Segregation would kind of fit.

Segregation doesn't just mean separation, but also enforcing it as well. As in, if you're a casual player, and I'm a competitive player, we should never interact with each other because you'd be like a disease to me and/or vise versa. So if a casual ever wanted to be a competitive player, that casual would never be able to jump ship.

And I don't think anywhere here is actually disgusted with casual players either. At least, I hope not. I just think people dislike Sakurai's directions with the Smash series since he's not into the competitive community.

 

[smashbrolink]

But when you play a game over and over you are inherently getting better at the game as you progress. Who said anything about bragging rights?

That depends on the person; not everyone inherently sees a steady increase in their abilities. Everyone has different potential.

As for bragging rights, I think we both know that that's been a major motivator for a very large part of the competitive scene for years. It's no secret.