Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[AuraMaudeGone]

Yeah, but you're making way too much out of it. It's braindead in many situations, but in those situations, you're still thinking about your other options, as there are no situations in which you press L after aerial to win. However, there still remains the few sequences that I mentioned in which l-canceling may seem like a good option, but relying on muscle memory and trying to l-cancel mindlessly can open you up to dangerous misinputs that could cost you an early stock. I'm of the opinion that any slight upper hand, however small or rare, that can be gained from cleverness or knowledge of the game and your opponent should stay in the game,as long as it doesn't dramatically harm gameplay in some concrete way. Now, if you consider the extra L press to be harming gameplay in a concrete way, then I understand your point of view, but I don't agree that pressing L is that much of a pain.

Wasn't trying to make a big deal of the mechanic itself really. Just do it. There's more that I process in my mind when jumping to aerial someone and to L-Cancel is not always a guarantee I'll gain advantage.

On the point of Aerials and Landing, you seem to ignore other defensive options and advantages, like Spot Dodging, Rolling, Wave Dashing away, or just Anti-Airing/Contesting the aerial with your own. As previously mentioned, movement options is what helps gives this game depth.

A point I made earlier in the thread and that's not all the variables that could occur. I don't blame L-Cancelling/Auto-Cancelling for this. It happens with or w/o it.

I agree with the other points though. Rebalancing aerials would be necessary to a degree.

 

[kinje]

Wasn't trying to make a big deal of the mechanic itself really. Just do it. There's more that I process in my mind when jumping to aerial someone and to L-Cancel is not always a guarantee I'll gain advantage.



A point I made earlier in the thread and that's not all the variables that could occur. I don't blame L-Cancelling/Auto-Cancelling for this. It happens with or w/o it.

I agree with the other points though. Rebalancing aerials would be necessary to a degree.

That's a good point, but the reason for that is that I was primarily discussing situations where many of the characters don't have a good answer to the aerial other than to powershield it and punish if they expect it to whiff or not get l-canceled. Many characters don't have good enough (and by good I mean having a reward:risk ratio that makes it comparable to their primary defensive options, which are usually shielding, spot dodging, and running away) anti-airs or aerials to ever want to challenge a number of the cast's aerials. Now, I'm probably a little hyper-sensitive to this fact because I main a character with a particularly bad set of options against a lot of characters in neutral, but this is the situation where l-canceling has the most relevant effect on gameplay.

Another thing I think you guys sometimes ignore is that risk/reward and depth of play isn't just determined by positioning, the frame data of your option, and the opponent's possible responses. Ease of execution plays a much larger role than many people realize, as there are plenty of amazing options that are rarely used because they are so easy to mess up and many sup-optimal options that are frequently picked because they are super easy to execute. It plays a large role in preventing potentially game-breaking options from being overused while still allowing those really good options to stay in the game and occasionally lend themselves to the brave and the skilled. Spacing and tech chasing also involves a lot of this.

 

[kinje]

Wasn't trying to make a big deal of the mechanic itself really. Just do it. There's more that I process in my mind when jumping to aerial someone and to L-Cancel is not always a guarantee I'll gain advantage.



A point I made earlier in the thread and that's not all the variables that could occur. I don't blame L-Cancelling/Auto-Cancelling for this. It happens with or w/o it.

I agree with the other points though. Rebalancing aerials would be necessary to a degree.

That's a good point, but the reason for that is that I was primarily discussing situations where many of the characters don't have a good answer to the aerial other than to powershield it and punish if they expect it to whiff or not get l-canceled. Many characters don't have good enough (and by good I mean having a reward:risk ratio that makes it comparable to their primary defensive options, which are usually shielding, spot dodging, and running away) anti-airs or aerials to ever want to challenge a number of the cast's aerials. Now, I'm probably a little hyper-sensitive to this fact because I main a character with a particularly bad set of options against a lot of characters in neutral, but this is the situation where l-canceling has the most relevant effect on gameplay.

Another thing I think you guys sometimes ignore is that risk/reward and depth of play isn't just determined by positioning, the frame data of your option, and the opponent's possible responses. Ease of execution plays a much larger role than many people realize, as there are plenty of amazing options that are rarely used because they are so easy to mess up and many sup-optimal options that are frequently picked because they are super easy to execute. It plays a large role in preventing potentially game-breaking options from being overused while still allowing those really good options to stay in the game and occasionally lend themselves to the brave and the skilled. Spacing and tech chasing also involves a lot of this.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

That's a good point, but the reason for that is that I was primarily discussing situations where many of the characters don't have a good answer to the aerial other than to powershield it and punish if they expect it to whiff or not get l-canceled. Many characters don't have good enough (and by good I mean having a reward:risk ratio that makes it comparable to their primary defensive options, which are usually shielding, spot dodging, and running away) anti-airs or aerials to ever want to challenge a number of the cast's aerials. Now, I'm probably a little hyper-sensitive to this fact because I main a character with a particularly bad set of options against a lot of characters in neutral, but this is the situation where l-canceling has the most relevant effect on gameplay.

Yea, that's natural. Every character is not going to have a straight answer to everything. Some will be weak to aerial pressure, some won't.

 

[kinje]

Yea, that's natural. Every character is not going to have a straight answer to everything. Some will be weak to aerial pressure, some won't.

I know, and I accept that fact, but it generally doesn't do anything positive for the meta when there are a number of moves with extremely narrow option trees associated with them.

 

[Narpas_sword]

MAYBE YOU CAN DEBATE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE REWARDS BUT NOT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ACTION ITSELF...
.

Of course we can debate the action itself. especially now that there is a tangible option to remove it.

Can you answer why it would be good if L cancelling existed on every move?
Double end lag of tilts, except if you press L before it's finished.
Double Landing lag of specials, except if you press L.

Or are your arguments another appeal to tradition?

I know, and I accept that fact, but it generally doesn't do anything positive for the meta when there are a number of moves with extremely narrow option trees associated with them.

That's not something MLC fixes, that's something MLC covers up, or fails to expose.
Once landing lag is a single value for each move, it's easier to then go and adjust those values to balance the move.

 

[masterpad]

Of course we can debate the action itself. especially now that there is a tangible option to remove it.

Can you answer why it would be good if L cancelling existed on every move?
Double end lag of tilts, except if you press L before it's finished.
Double Landing lag of specials, except if you press L.

Or are your arguments another appeal to tradition?



That's not something MLC fixes, that's something MLC covers up, or fails to expose.
Once landing lag is a single value for each move, it's easier to then go and adjust those values to balance the move.

I
didnt take traditions as arguments...i explained a mecanism, a system:SKILL=>REWARD By following your logic, i will answer you:
There are many fighting games where canceling mecanic exists on every moves,
if lcancel is introduced on Every moves in smash and a reward is associate to it, for exemple: easily linking/combining attacks: I WOULD NOT FIND IT AS A PROBLEM


Its an old, common, and appealing thing:
THE SKILL FOR REWARD SYSTEM,
1 - even pro sometimes miss their lcanceling. 2 - Lcancel allows (as a reward) to perform so many things , from quickly take a defense stance (when missing to hit with your airattack) to quickly go for a follow/combo (when succeding to hit with your airattack)
AND THIS IS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE LCANCEL EXISTENCE!


Just get in the lab my fellow smasher, i love you all!

To all smashboards administrators, i think on my humble opinion that this debate is negetive for the community. It is a vicious circle , ans it keeps coming back...
And since the PMDev provides an auto lcancel option. All people against lcancel can organize tournaments with autolcancel as a rule ans see if people like it. So we can get over it...
Why ont debating about something more fun for PM instead of arguing about a creation of Sakurai-god himself:

http://smashboards.com/threads/my-c...than-the-l-cancel-blink.395549/#post-18795639

 

[kinje]

That's not something MLC fixes, that's something MLC covers up, or fails to expose.
Once landing lag is a single value for each move, it's easier to then go and adjust those values to balance the move.

This is like criticizing a severe burn victim for covering their scars with imperfectly applied makeup when they can't afford plastic surgery.
Except you're claiming they just shouldn't wear make up because it makes it harder to see their scars and potentially wear a mask instead, since a mask doesn't require any application.

You say it doesn't fix it, but "covering it up" with l-canceling is probably the best fix the PMDT can do while satisfying those for whom the game is made.

And by that, I don't mean that the removal of l-canceling will piss people off because of "muh mei-lei", but because removing manual cancels entirely and nerfing offensive pressure options/strengthening defensive options to keep balance without adding some new mechanic to encourage smart, but aggressive(read unsafe) play (à la tension meter in Guilty gear or the way the increased damage output, chip damage and V-Gauge seem to work in SFV) would likely result in a stale, bait-and-punish-only neutral, which rewards patience and an unwillingness to take risks over all else, and causes matches to drone on in neutral.

 

[kinje]

Now, what'd be really interesting to discuss with you guys are possible alternatives to the standard manual l-canceling mechanic that could fit into the game without requiring significant alterations to any of the the core gameplay conventions we've come to expect from PM, while still maintaining roughly the same balance as we have now.

I know Kurri really likes the concept of roman cancels, and I believe there needs to at least be a cancel of some kind in order to keep the meta from going stale, but I don't know that they can be well implemented with the game's system being as it is, as they are balanced by their being meter-driven and the existence of burst.

 

[masterpad]

I also like roman cancel in GG. It requires skill but it also have a strategic value since it depletes a jauge that has many functions... Wish is not the case with the magnific,delighful and so cool Lcancel. That needs to not to be touch!

 

[Narpas_sword]

This is like criticizing a severe burn victim for covering their scars with imperfectly applied makeup when they can't afford plastic surgery.

Except, using your terrible analogy (why do people always try these) we DO have the plastic surgery available. (ie patch balances)

But if you take the analogy further, what what we have now is:

A burn Victim (poorly balanced moves)
Covered up by bandages (MLC covering the poorly balanced moves by adding in an artificial barrier, that ALL moves have, not just the problem ones)
The ability to remove the bandages to see what is underneath (ALC)
and Doctors not wanting to remove the bandages to assess which burns need more treatment. (Pro MLC saying that the moves are fine)

and that about wraps (excuse the pun) up another TERRIBLE analogy.

 

[kinje]

Except, using your terrible analogy (why do people always try these) we DO have the plastic surgery available. (ie patch balances)

But if you take the analogy further, what what we have now is:

A burn Victim (poorly balanced moves)
Covered up by bandages (MLC covering the poorly balanced moves by adding in an artificial barrier, that ALL moves have, not just the problem ones)
The ability to remove the bandages to see what is underneath (ALC)
and Doctors not wanting to remove the bandages to assess which burns need more treatment. (Pro MLC saying that the moves are fine)

and that about wraps (excuse the pun) up another TERRIBLE analogy.

Lol, that works just as well for my point if you actually read the other two paragraphs. The poorly balanced moves aren't poorly balanced as the metagame currently stands, or there would be a significantly larger number of characters with those "unbalanced moves" placing top 8 in majors if that were really the case. Instead, we see players who are good at outplaying their opponents in neutral with superior movement and mixups, and convert well off of confirms winning with a broad variety of characters.
The game is balanced taking into account the existence of manual l-cancels, and you're sitting here calling moves which only have an evaluable balance of any kind in the game in which they exist unbalanced based on a hypothetical metagame you've invented in your head in which auto-l-cancels are the standard.

The PMDT is alright at what they do, which is mod a game to create a rich, exciting, and fun competitive experience by taking elements from two different games and splicing in their own original ideas to make characters more unique and deep than they were in their games of origin. This is possible because it is a game made in large part by people who understand what their community wants, and as a result produces gameplay people like, but which is rarely theoretically perfect.
However, they are not the cosmetic surgeon the victim needs, because they think the victim looks fine with the bandages on (since, for some reason, in your analogy, the doctor is responsible for creating both the victim's face, burns and all, and applying the bandages, as the patient has needed to come back for several additional surgeries when the surgeon decided he didn't like something about the burnt, bandaged face he'd created in the last surgery), and wouldn't know what to do with their patient if the bandages were removed.

 

[kinje]

Just because last time they finished the operation, they gave people the choice to look at the burnt face they reshaped without any bandages doesn't mean that the unwrapped face is any prettier.

Also, man, kudos on the pun.

 

[Narpas_sword]

we see players who are good at outplaying their opponents in neutral with superior movement and mixups, and convert well off of confirms winning with a broad variety of characters..

I'll note that these things are all present without the mention of 'relying on their opponent to make a mistake L cancelling so they can punish'

Drop the burn/doctor thing, it's stupid. like any analogy for MLC.

I've made many posts, and i'm pretty sick of repeating myself tbh. if you want to know my thoughts on the matter, there are 13 pages with them.

 

[Bleck]

The game is balanced taking into account the existence of manual l-cancels

no it's not

 

[kinje]

I'll not that these things are all present without the mention of 'relying on their opponent to make a mistake L cancelling so they can punish'

Drop the burn/doctor thing, it's stupid. like any analogy for MLC.

I've made many posts, and i'm pretty sick of repeating myself tbh. if you want to know my thoughts on the matter, there are 13 pages with them.

I'll note that if you actually watch top 8 matches and keep an eye out for moments where a player is punished for missing an l-cancel after repeatedly throwing a safe aerial out on their opponent's shield and causing a temporary stalemate, you'll find many of them. However, they don't "rely" on a missed l-cancel, because good players rarely can be said to rely on anything outside of their own reaction speed, consistency, and awareness.

If you're sick of saying the same thing over and over, then stop repeating yourself without listening and considering other's opinions or the possibility that you don't fully grasp every nuanced aspect of this game's meta.

 

[kinje]

no it's not

Anything to back that up, bud?

 

[GP&B]

Anything to back that up, bud?

You're the one claiming it.

 

[kinje]

You're the one claiming it.

Yeah, and my support is tournament results and the fact that games in general, if they are consciously balanced at all, are balanced on a holistic level by taking everything that makes up the game into account, and this game has been refined based on community responses to each new installment and the Dev Team's personal touches.
So to imply that the PMDT looks at the game data, and says, "hey, let's spend days of our lives to rebalance this game assuming that no one uses that tech we spent hours of time putting into the game because a large part of our original and continued player base indicated an interest in its inclusion" is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.

 

[kinje]

I'm asking him to back himself up because my claims have all come with explanations, and he stated that one of my claims was false without addressing my support in any way.

 

[Bleck]

Anything to back that up, bud?

do you have any concrete examples of things that would be overpowered with auto-l-canceling on

 

[GP&B]

I sincerely doubt they take it heavily into consideration beyond "people do it 99% of the time". Landing lag is much more likely adjusted under the assumption that it's going to be halved. Otherwise, it'd be completely redundant. Doesn't really make a case for MLC though.


Also, stop double posting good grief. You can edit posts.

 

[JOE!]

If you want an example of the pmdt designing with L Cancel in mind, look at Charizard Nair from 3.0-3.5:

The landing lag was untouched, but lcancel lag was given an additional 2 frames.

To me, this mindset seems to be that lcanceling is to be the norm. Missing a cancel is the odd event imo, and punishing a missed one on reaction is often not reliable outside of like, hunches. I'd rather develop my game to counter l cancelled aerials since that happens 99% of the time and the punishment would work on a missed cancel as well

 

[CORY]

The landing lag was untouched, but lcancel lag was given an additional 2 frames.

what, that... that doesn't make sense. lcancel literally reduces landing lag by half, it's not a secondary set of animations to use on the trigger. that's really weird...

edit: checked the 3.5 patchnotes. it says landing lag was increased from 19-25, l cancel landing lag increased by 3 frames. joe, y u do dis?

 

[JOE!]

what, that... that doesn't make sense. lcancel literally reduces landing lag by half, it's not a secondary set of animations to use on the trigger. that's really weird...

edit: checked the 3.5 patchnotes. it says landing lag was increased from 19-25, l cancel landing lag increased by 3 frames. joe, y u do dis?

Because I'm in bed riddled with meds for mono.

Anyways, my 2nd point still stands: I am playing based on knowing my opponent will most likely land l cancel, not hoping they miss.

 

[kinje]

do you have any concrete examples of things that would be overpowered with auto-l-canceling on

My wireless is kind of spotty atm, so I'm gonna save time by saying read my previous posts.

I sincerely doubt they take it heavily into consideration beyond "people do it 99% of the time". Landing lag is much more likely adjusted under the assumption that it's going to be halved. Otherwise, it'd be completely redundant. Doesn't really make a case for MLC though.


Also, stop double posting good grief. You can edit posts.

The assumptions I would presume they're operating under when balancing moves' IASA and landing lag frames, as well as hitstun/shieldstun and knockback, is that certain characters' shffl'd aerials are safe enough on shield to allow offensive pressure with proper spacing and rewarding enough on hit when done successfully to merit the opponent's shielding, but not safe enough that they continue to be safe on shield upon a missed l-cancel, providing an actual gap in the pressure of such moves when the player throws the move out so many times that they miss it.
Also, to clarify further, when I said that it was balanced that way, I was referring not to the intent of the PMDT, (as regardless of intent, they can still mess things up) but simply to the results. Because of the extra input requirement l-canceling requires of players trying to successfully execute safe shield-pressure sequences like nairshine into repeated drillshine, the sequence, to use a favorite word of yours', is "artificially" limited by l-canceling where not limiting it at all (ALC) would result in frequent, unbroken offensive pressure with almost no risk to the player executing it, and completely limiting it would remove an offensive option which adds a significant amount of depth to the characters' respective sets.

And, Joe, you don't need to read a missed l-cancel. No offense, but if your reaction time is so slow that you don't think it's easy to punish a missed l-cancel, competitive fighting games probably aren't the place for you.

 

[kinje]

Because I'm in bed riddled with meds for mono.

Anyways, my 2nd point still stands: I am playing based on knowing my opponent will most likely land l cancel, not hoping they miss.

Mono johns.

 

[kinje]

Now, what'd be really interesting to discuss with you guys are possible alternatives to the standard manual l-canceling mechanic that could fit into the game without requiring significant alterations to any of the the core gameplay conventions we've come to expect from PM, while still maintaining roughly the same balance as we have now.

I know Kurri really likes the concept of roman cancels, and I believe there needs to at least be a cancel of some kind in order to keep the meta from going stale, but I don't know that they can be well implemented with the game's system being as it is, as they are balanced by their being meter-driven and the existence of burst.

So, apart from auto-l-canceling, which is really just ignoring the other issues with PM's production, what kind of mechanics do you guys think would work?

I'm sure some of you must have some interesting/new ideas to discuss.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Cutting Landing Lag in half, so that in 20XX we can complain about reducing it to Auto-Cancel lengths. :T

 

[CORY]

And, Joe, you don't need to read a missed l-cancel. No offense, but if your reaction time is so slow that you don't think it's easy to punish a missed l-cancel, competitive fighting games probably aren't the place for you.

Average human reaction time is 15 frames. This is a baseline for trained, nondecision based reactions. Then, it would need to factor in the oos option being used, for simplicity's sake, we'll say shieldgrab, so 7 frames. This is, at the very least, 22 frames of landing lag, but more realistically about 30 fres of landing lag to be able to register "hey, this move wasn't cancelled, better grab". And there aren't manyoves sitting at nside of realistically reactable landing lag, especially because that would start pushing many moves into not safe on shield, damage (and thus shieldstun)/dependent.

 

[OSCA MIKE]

Because of the extra input requirement l-canceling requires of players trying to successfully execute safe shield-pressure sequences like nairshine into repeated drillshine, the sequence, to use a favorite word of yours', is "artificially" limited by l-canceling where not limiting it at all (ALC) would result in frequent, unbroken offensive pressure with almost no risk to the player executing it, and completely limiting it would remove an offensive option which adds a significant amount of depth to the characters' respective sets.

if the removal of pressing a singular button causes fox to suddenly become untouchable and capable of impossible-to-break shield pressure, then fox as a character is flawed and needs to be redone, and should be given an actual limit to his offensive abilities instead of a quicktime event

also i somehow doubt that with l-cancelling taken away everyone will instantly be good with fox

 

[InfinityCollision]

Mono sucks.

Probably just saying things that have already been said but whatever, let's go:

So here's the thing about L-canceling: it's easy.

I know, I know, somebody mentioned players like Mango saying that it's hard earlier in the thread. They're wrong. There's no fail window for L-cancel inputs, nothing stopping you from inputting them back-to-back. In fact, PM will even treat light and hard press shield inputs as separate L-cancel inputs, meaning you can just stagger inputs on a single shoulder button if you're willing to sacrifice your tech window (note: grab inputs trigger the tech window in PM). Otherwise you could just double-tap light press, or stagger inputs on both shoulder buttons if you've left them default. With good timing this covers every aerial in the game, meaning that the only barrier between you and guaranteed landing lag reduction is building some trivial muscle memory.

The current L-cancel implementation thus represents a poor compromise in design that should be adjusted in one of two ways:

1) Removed entirely in favor of permanent landing lag reduction. No more unnecessary inputs, execution is simplified, we effectively keep doing what we're already doing but have to press less buttons to do it. Aerials are now as simple as possible, but no simpler.
2) Implement a fail window of ~15-20 frames. Missing an L-cancel is now an uncommon but plausible occurrence. It's highly unlikely that you'd punish a missed L-cancel on reaction given the timeframes involved, but you could attempt to set up a situation in which your opponent misses their cancel and read the punish opportunity. You're potentially the one getting punished if they get the cancel, mind. This takes things in the opposite direction, but lends some small credence to the idea of L-canceling adding strategy because you now have to make more meaningful decisions regarding input timing.

I'm in favor of the first option. Streamlined, more consistent/intuitive design and the removal of an artificial execution barrier. If this somehow presented a balance issue (which would actually suggest that said issues already exist), those can be adjusted in turn and would probably merit adjustment in any of the above scenarios.

Oh, and regarding punishes on reaction:

And, Joe, you don't need to read a missed l-cancel. No offense, but if your reaction time is so slow that you don't think it's easy to punish a missed l-cancel, competitive fighting games probably aren't the place for you.

You're assuming twitch reaction speeds in situations where decision-based reaction time is what's actually relevant. By the time you could distinguish between a missed L-cancel and a successful one, even with PM's flash on L-cancel, and mentally process that, your opponent is likely out of landing lag before you actually do anything to them. You probably should've already decided on your next action well before then too.

Give this a go. Compare your reaction time to the full landing lag of aerials most characters would potentially land with in relatively unsafe situations.

 

[Bleck]

My wireless is kind of spotty atm, so I'm gonna save time by saying read my previous posts.

I'm going to interpret that as "no, I don't"

 

[Stryker]

I'm going to interpret that as "no, I don't"

Interpret that as "I've already explained this if you took the time to actually read the thread."

 

[Bleck]

can you find in the thread for me where he had concrete examples of things that would be unbalanced with auto-l-canceling on

 

[kinje]

Shine pressure outside of Wolf's. Lucas. Knee-jab. Most characters with +2 or +3 anything on shield.

 

[kinje]

Average human reaction time is 15 frames. This is a baseline for trained, nondecision based reactions. Then, it would need to factor in the oos option being used, for simplicity's sake, we'll say shieldgrab, so 7 frames. This is, at the very least, 22 frames of landing lag, but more realistically about 30 fres of landing lag to be able to register "hey, this move wasn't cancelled, better grab". And there aren't manyoves sitting at nside of realistically reactable landing lag, especially because that would start pushing many moves into not safe on shield, damage (and thus shieldstun)/dependent.

That statistic both isn't accurate and is irrelevant to those who play high level competitive video games.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Shine pressure outside of Wolf's. Lucas. Knee-jab. Most characters with +2 or +3 anything on shield.

Since when is 0~3 advantage unbalanced? There aren't that many characters that can take advantage of that...

 

[Bleck]

Shine pressure outside of Wolf's. Lucas. Knee-jab. Most characters with +2 or +3 anything on shield.

so you're saying that having auto-l-canceling on would make these things overpowered because players could do them easily, even though it's been said multiple times in this thread and others that any notable player basically doesn't miss l-cancels anyway

so are you just saying that these characters are overpowered, or

 

[masterpad]

Please pmdevteam never ever touch/modify lcancel.no missing window frames , no zéro landing lag...
Please just let the lcancel be.

Smash is not another game, smash is smash.
Who are these people that nullifying the value of something Sakurai create?
PM is still in construction, what kind of knowledge/experience do they think they have to consider as definitive their position about lcancelin in the futur metagame?
PMDevTeam, you gave them auto-cancel option. Now they can build a community and organise tournament the way they think the game should be play, isn't it?
Why not doing that? Are they afraid to find theirselves alone? Why do they keep harassing the community with this debate? Trying to have PM made ONLY the way they like?apply their view to everyboby? There is autolcanecl option, please let the community breathe and pmdevteam handle other challenges.

Lcancel forever!