If some tournaments start enabling Auto L-Cancelling, how would you feel?

[Vigilante]

The problem is that there are many people who spent time learning it and appreciate L-canceling. The other side is just as stubborn. It's a matter of opinion here, but it adds technical depth by creating a pressure tool. I like it, many do. To be fair, I wouldn't mind the game having the option to auto-cancel, but as for tournaments, if we keep dividing play styles into two, Project M will perish. That, I do not want.

 

[Rawkobo]

Then why not do what I suggested and at least test it to see if there will be distinct results? Having the data to work with and then say, "Well, it made enough of a difference to not be a good idea," is substantially more acceptable than just refusing to humor testing it in the first place.

 

[Vigilante]

Because I know from experience.I currently have friends who only play 3.0, others who only play 2.5, and so forth. It's a dangerous path to cross. This is a grassroots game with needs every single bit of tournament attendance possible.

 

[Delta Chae]

Then why not do what I suggested and at least test it to see if there will be distinct results? Having the data to work with and then say, "Well, it made enough of a difference to not be a good idea," is substantially more acceptable than just refusing to humor testing it in the first place.

I understand where you're coming from but I also think you're missing Vigilante's point. Having some tournaments with Auto L-Cancel and others that don't would fracture the community even if it were only an experimental ruleset. The situation you are proposing is very similar to the Unity Ruleset debacle that killed Brawl's competitive community. Unless you get every single tournament to accept Auto L-Cancel as the competitive standard (Which is not going to happen) running a few tournaments as Auto L-Cancel and leaving the others with manual L-Cancel will only serve to fracture the community even more and if that happens then PM's community will wither and die as Brawl's did. Regardless of how you feel about L-Cancelling from a design perspective if the PM community is to survive then manual L-Cancel must remain the competitive norm for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bleck]

The problem is that there are many people who spent time learning it and appreciate L-canceling. The other side is just as stubborn.

no, see, there is no "other side" - there's people who think l-canceling is fine, and there's people who don't play project m

people are not being stubborn because they refuse to act based on your unrealistic expectations, and it's stupid and selfish to imply as much

 

[Delta Chae]

no, see, there is no "other side" - there's people who think l-canceling is fine, and there's people who don't play project m

people are not being stubborn because they refuse to act based on your unrealistic expectations, and it's stupid and selfish to imply as much

Couple of things, firstly: do you care to back up that first claim with some sources? It's pretty asinine to make statements like that claim "This is true, you are wrong" and not back them up.

Secondly: while you can argue that L-Cancelling is arbitrary and is a perfect choice that you never want to mess up, to claim that it's unrealistic to expect someone to be able to L-Cancel is really, really, really, silly. The L-Cancel window is 7 frames, that's fairly tight but it's not nearly as asinine as 1 frame links that are prevalent in other fighters. The window is just tight enough that you could reasonably mess it up if you're not paying attention but not so narrow that it requires hours of training to be able to be capable of it in theory but inconsistent in practice, in fact most people at that bi-weeklies I attend can hit at least 90% of their L-Cancels in any given game, these are people that have anywhere from 4 months of experience to 2 years worth so with that in mind L-Cancelling seems fairly easy even if it's completely arbitrary. L-Cancelling might be completely arbitrary from a game design perspective but to claim that it's unrealistically difficult just makes you come off as entitled and whiny.

 

[Vigilante]

no, see, there is no "other side" - there's people who think l-canceling is fine, and there's people who don't play project m

people are not being stubborn because they refuse to act based on your unrealistic expectations, and it's stupid and selfish to imply as much

That's the basic ruleset, you live with it, or you don't, that is your choice after all. As much as I respect opinions, L-canceling is one of the easiest techniques one could ever learn in a fighter. If I can do it using my pinkie fingers, a monkey suffering from anencephaly could learn it fairly easily. Removing an advanced technique just because some people don't want to take the very small amount of time required to learn it is not something I want to even entertain. Many steps were taken to make it easier to learn and that is a very good compromise we did. You don't make a game easier to adapt to those who are too lazy to learn. You learn the techniques and adapt. That's how competitive gaming is. You can enjoy Project M as a non-pro and don't have to go to tournaments. That is acceptable and no one will criticize you for it. However, i enjoy L-canceling, many enjoy L-canceling, and I'm not about to take that depth away from the game.

Let me reiterate: I L-cancel with my pinkies. I am the living proof that even under disadvantageous circumstances, this technique is very easy to learn.

 

[Bleck]

Couple of things, firstly: do you care to back up that first claim with some sour

bleeeh whatever

L-canceling is one of the easiest techniques one could ever learn in a fighter. If I can do it using my pinkie fingers, a monkey suffering from anencephaly could learn it fairly easily.

if it's easy and trifling to learn, why does it matter if it's in the game

 

[Delta Chae]

bleeeh whatever



if it's easy and trifling to learn, why does it matter if it's in the game

You're really not helping your case with statements like these.

 

[Bleck]

You're really not helping your case with statements like these.

your stance is that everyone else is unreasonable to not want to learn how to use a mechanic that's so easy as to be worthless to the metagame for no other reason than you've had to do it before, because someone being able to enjoy something without having to work at it like you did (needlessly) isn't 'fair'

you're being stupid and selfish and to try and pretend like this is some grand debate instead of a bunch of entitled pissbabies sperging out over pushing buttons is pathetic

 

[Vigilante]

bleeeh whatever



if it's easy and trifling to learn, why does it matter if it's in the game

It it's easy and trifling to learn, why should it bother anyone?

At this point, I don't think we can have a good discussion. I am very open to debating, but not when the other side results to insulting people for simply disagreeing with them.

 

[Bleck]

nobody can have a good discussion about this because the side that supports l-canceling statements are equally divided between "I'm very reasonable, let's talk and I'll show you how reasonable I am" and "everyone should have to do it because I had to do it, even if it's a dumb mechanic that doesn't matter"

maybe I'd be less inclined to insult people who believe stupid things that negatively impact this thing that I care about if they, you know, didn't believe stupid things that negatively impact this thing that I care about, especially for such dumb, selfish reasons

 

[Delta Chae]

your stance is that everyone else is unreasonable to not want to learn how to use a mechanic that's so easy as to be worthless to the metagame for no other reason than you've had to do it before, because someone being able to enjoy something without having to work at it like you did (needlessly) isn't 'fair'

you're being stupid and selfish and to try and pretend like this is some grand debate instead of a bunch of entitled pissbabies sperging out over pushing buttons is pathetic

Excuse me? Not once have I said that it's unreasonable for people to not learn L-Cancelling. Whether it exists or not is something I do not care about. The reason I'm against Auto L-Cancel is because unless every single person agrees to using it (Which isn't going to happen) the PM community will only end up divided and will inevitably wither and die as a direct result. I'm sorry that your reading comprehension skills are too lacking to understand this and that you don't have enough common sense to realize that I've never said that I think L-Cancelling is a good or a bad thing, but for the sake of PM's survival manual L-Cancel must remain the competitive norm for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bleck]

Excuse me?

post is right there man if you didn't hear me just read it again

 

[Delta Chae]

post is right there man if you didn't hear me just read it again

How about you stop behaving like a little **** and actually read what others are telling you?

 

[Strong Badam]

Gonna need y'all to be a bit more civil in here or this thread will go the way of every other L-canceling-related thread has and be locked. Be respectful and understand that people will disagree with you, try to learn from each other's viewpoints. If you can't do that then please leave the thread so it doesn't get ruined for those who can.

 

[Bleck]

How about you stop behaving like a little **** and actually read what others are telling you?

this is pretty funny coming from someone who argues in favor of l-canceling

 

[Ningildo]

It it's easy and trifling to learn, why should it bother anyone?

At this point, I don't think we can have a good discussion. I am very open to debating, but not when the other side results to insulting people for simply disagreeing with them.

Well, about that

One might wonder at this point; why? If it's so easy to do, why make such a huge fuss? It's here that some assume the other side can't l-cancel to save their life and promptly tells them to get good (doesn't really help discussion at all, it seems, making rash assumptions). The reason is simple (for me at least); it doesn't serve a purpose. As mentioned, the supposed interaction between players trying to angle their shield to mess up l-cancel timings of their opponents doesn't happen at top level play, nor does giving your opponent frame advantage ever truly help as a mix up. Certain tech could be argued to be not difficult (see wavedashing, dash dancing and so on), but these techs are incredibly versatile tools, which require knowledge of both the game's intricacies and the moment at hand to fully utilize. They have purpose, hence why no one argues for their simplification or removal (well, some do, but that's for another discussion). L-cancelling, on the other, is easy as well, but serves no purpose other then to avoid giving frame advantage to your opponent, which can be easily accomplished by halving landing lag for aerials universally without removing any significant interactions from the game.

Is what I think.

 

[Vigilante]

It does serve a purpose though, it's a pressure tool. Under pressure, a lot of people start to fail their L-cancels. It's a sort of intrinsic reward for keeping your head in the game, and a reward for the one doing the pressure for having rattled his foes. There is a deep psychological game in Smash, one of the things I love about it.

 

[Bleck]

"l-canceling is a good mechanic because, like, when you fail an l-cancel you're, like, punished for failing an l-cancel"

 

[Rawkobo]

I understand where you're coming from but I also think you're missing Vigilante's point. Having some tournaments with Auto L-Cancel and others that don't would fracture the community even if it were only an experimental ruleset. The situation you are proposing is very similar to the Unity Ruleset debacle that killed Brawl's competitive community. Unless you get every single tournament to accept Auto L-Cancel as the competitive standard (Which is not going to happen) running a few tournaments as Auto L-Cancel and leaving the others with manual L-Cancel will only serve to fracture the community even more and if that happens then PM's community will wither and die as Brawl's did. Regardless of how you feel about L-Cancelling from a design perspective if the PM community is to survive then manual L-Cancel must remain the competitive norm for the foreseeable future.

That's a really bold assumption to make. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just the Unity Ruleset debacle that effectively killed Brawl. There were numerous factors that contributed to that, including the growing existence of us at the time, Project M.

See, here's the problem with saying that if we don't stay with L-Cancelling, we're going to "sever the community": the community was already severed the moment PM was abruptly finalized. There are a considerable number of people now trying to say that if we want to continue having events, we'd be best off having 3.02 tournaments because that was "the best version." You and I both know that's garbage based on very faulty observations of the period, but way too many people have been saying we should've either made the components of the dev build available for play if the community finalized them, or gone back to a prior, "better" version, like, say, 3.02.

What's going to do us in, then, is something completely unrelated to L-Cancelling itself: it's a lack of community unity, that stems from two distinct parties. There are people who want to change things because now is a better time than ever to try, and those who don't want to because they want to save something they actually can't articulate.

I'll admit wholeheartedly, as part of the "change" movement, that there's always going to be a chance for failure, and that it's reasonable for there to be fear of that failure. But you do also understand that what fractures the community in this particular circumstance wouldn't be auto-L-cancel itself, but the refusal to even give reasonable consideration to those changes? That, to a similar extent, refusing to make changes could also, in a way, cause the death of the community due to lack of new player integration?

It's more of a situation of "how do you know you won't like it if you haven't tried it," and to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt anyone who's vehemently against it has actually participated in an auto-L-cancel tournament. Because it comes down to, unfortunately, this culture of stubbornness that has been developed in the Smash community.

 

[Delta Chae]

That's a really bold assumption to make. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just the Unity Ruleset debacle that effectively killed Brawl. There were numerous factors that contributed to that, including the growing existence of us at the time, Project M.

See, here's the problem with saying that if we don't stay with L-Cancelling, we're going to "sever the community": the community was already severed the moment PM was abruptly finalized. There are a considerable number of people now trying to say that if we want to continue having events, we'd be best off having 3.02 tournaments because that was "the best version." You and I both know that's garbage based on very faulty observations of the period, but way too many people have been saying we should've either made the components of the dev build available for play if the community finalized them, or gone back to a prior, "better" version, like, say, 3.02.

What's going to do us in, then, is something completely unrelated to L-Cancelling itself: it's a lack of community unity, that stems from two distinct parties. There are people who want to change things because now is a better time than ever to try, and those who don't want to because they want to save something they actually can't articulate.

I'll admit wholeheartedly, as part of the "change" movement, that there's always going to be a chance for failure, and that it's reasonable for there to be fear of that failure. But you do also understand that what fractures the community in this particular circumstance wouldn't be auto-L-cancel itself, but the refusal to even give reasonable consideration to those changes? That, to a similar extent, refusing to make changes could also, in a way, cause the death of the community due to lack of new player integration?

It's more of a situation of "how do you know you won't like it if you haven't tried it," and to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt anyone who's vehemently against it has actually participated in an auto-L-cancel tournament. Because it comes down to, unfortunately, this culture of stubbornness that has been developed in the Smash community.

My point is that we don't need to divide this community even further. I personally don't care about whether or not Auto L-Cancel is on or off since I primarily play Melee with little interest in PM. That being said I also do not want to see PM wither and die as I can see that it has a ton of potential now that we know 3.6 is the final version.

As for the Unity Ruleset, it wasn't the only contributing factor to Brawl's demise but it was the main one. A lack of agreement as to what the ruleset should be can and will kill a game's chance at being taken seriously competitively. I'd argue that one of the things that holds PM from being as big as Melee (Among other things) is the lack of agreement as to what the rules should be. Which stages are neutral/which ones are counterpicks, how many legal stages, how many bans, should there even be bans at all, etc. Games like this need a ruleset that is mostly accepted by everyone that has room for small differences here and there.

 

[Rawkobo]

My point is that we don't need to divide this community even further. I personally don't care about whether or not Auto L-Cancel is on or off since I primarily play Melee with little interest in PM. That being said I also do not want to see PM wither and die as I can see that it has a ton of potential now that we know 3.6 is the final version.

As for the Unity Ruleset, it wasn't the only contributing factor to Brawl's demise but it was the main one. A lack of agreement as to what the ruleset should be can and will kill a game's chance at being taken seriously competitively. I'd argue that one of the things that holds PM from being as big as Melee (Among other things) is the lack of agreement as to what the rules should be. Which stages are neutral/which ones are counterpicks, how many legal stages, how many bans, should there even be bans at all, etc. Games like this need a ruleset that is mostly accepted by everyone that has room for small differences here and there.

Fair enough.

As an aside, the longevity of all games themselves has been put into question several times since the esports movement started up, and considering recent details about what it would mean for an esport to stay alive, this concept would likely come to the table time and time again simply because of the fact that it could make a difference for the life of the game.

To argue it would divide the game is simply true because of the nature of debate and community discourse, but I do feel we might be representing slightly different angles on the same point, because what's equally subjective as saying it will help the community is saying that it won't.

That's the beauty of the back-and-forth here. Everything comes down to stuff we can't really argue beyond saying, "Well, it just feels that way." Because even testing it wouldn't really produce results beyond maybe some anecdotal ones of their own, now that I think about it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

My point is that we don't need to divide this community even further. I personally don't care about whether or not Auto L-Cancel is on or off since I primarily play Melee with little interest in PM. That being said I also do not want to see PM wither and die as I can see that it has a ton of potential now that we know 3.6 is the final version.

As for the Unity Ruleset, it wasn't the only contributing factor to Brawl's demise but it was the main one. A lack of agreement as to what the ruleset should be can and will kill a game's chance at being taken seriously competitively. I'd argue that one of the things that holds PM from being as big as Melee (Among other things) is the lack of agreement as to what the rules should be. Which stages are neutral/which ones are counterpicks, how many legal stages, how many bans, should there even be bans at all, etc. Games like this need a ruleset that is mostly accepted by everyone that has room for small differences here and there.

No it wasn't.

The main reasons were,

1) Metaknight in general.
2) Project M started replacing it.
3) Smash Documentary/Evo.

Interest faded when PM replaced it and Melee got a boost in popularity from PM, Evo and the documentary. IF anything the only reason some places still have Brawl is because they actually cut off one of the biggest killers of like for the game, "Metaknight." If you were fine with the engine, I know I am saying this in the PM boards, but if you were Metaknight was a large killer for hype and enjoyment of a lot of people.

Unity Ruleset isn't what killed the game, it was people being stubborn to accept it and then APEX strong armed people to not follow that ruleset so it was left alone and faded away as a result.

Edit: You do need a unified ruleset, I agree with that. Which is why people will most likely not allow Auto-LCancelling unless the TO strongarms it. People won't make it one or the other off debate if it is a good mechanic or not. They will do it off numbers and push power people have.

 

[Vigilante]

Actually, Brawl faded because it wasn't strong enough to maintain itself. The game didn't have enough depth to support long-term play. Project M didn't "replace" it forcefully. People willingly came to PM because they were drawn to it. Keep in mind, it's not exactly a bash against Brawl, but whenever a game fades into obscurity and doesn't have the excuse of being unofficial, the responsibility weighs heavily on the game itself.

If a Project M "killed" Brawl's scene, the game was simply not interesting enough to keep interest up for these particular people. Individuals tend to put a lot of blame on Project M for that, but Melee proved that a deep game will be supported for a very long time.

 

[trash?]

I made a whole lotta words on brawlstuff, many many moons ago

metaknight technically killed its metagame to boredom (ice climbers buffs with every ruleset change, why didn't you just ban him whyyyy) but for overall context, there were few brawl players who were brawl players, in the same way you'd think of a lot of PM purists like "yep, they're PM players". they were just kind of ssb players who played the new smash thing, which was also kinda why PM got super big for a good while in 2014, but then ssb4 came out and that was that. obviously, you can't blame them, since smash is an anomaly in competitive focusing and with every other franchise, you just go to what's new, but it's still important to note the difference.

PM's passed the stage with those people, and we're still getting 10k youtube videos for GFs regularly, so I'd to think (or hope, depending on your POV) that the scene's safe on that, so it's likely none too relevant to discussion

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually, Brawl faded because it wasn't strong enough to maintain itself. The game didn't have enough depth to support long-term play. Project M didn't "replace" it forcefully. People willingly came to PM because they were drawn to it. Keep in mind, it's not exactly a bash against Brawl, but whenever a game fades into obscurity and doesn't have the excuse of being unofficial, the responsibility weighs heavily on the game itself.

If a Project M "killed" Brawl's scene, the game was simply not interesting enough to keep interest up for these particular people. Individuals tend to put a lot of blame on Project M for that, but Melee proved that a deep game will be supported for a very long time.

You need to realize game depth does not always make something popular or not.

You also need to realize that external factors can also affect it.

Another game popping up is a part of that, the ruleset argument for the Unity group killing Brawl was not a key reason for this. If anything it would have extended the life of the game.

I was arguing against the comparison because it was external and other reasons for the game falling down, not ruleset issues.

As I said,
1) PM being made
2) Documentary + Evo
3) People sticking with MK legal

were the main reasons for it.

People did move to other games but due to external factors and TOs dropping it, plus due to PM drawing heavily from Melee, other Melee tournaments picked it up quickly since it was very simular where as Brawl was a strong divergence.

~

This same thing applies to PM, a lot of reasons it lost steam was due to a new official game that could be supported by sponsors and Nintendo got released and large tournaments outright dropping it.

The content in PM or it's game play had nothing to do with it. It was external factors. They might have been for some people, for me it is picking two main smash games and I went with Sm4sh and Melee but I still enjoy PM but I cut down to the ones I liked the most.

Just to be clear, my argument was against the notion that split rulesets was one of the main things that killed Brawl.

Worse gameplay, PM is better, wanted to go to Melee, etc. I get that but I am mostly saying that the notion Jun1 posted is not true and what did it in was a lot of outside factors.

 

[Bleck]

Brawl died off (and PM is dying) because probably 90% (and even that is a low estimate) of people who play Smash play whichever game is the newest, because the actual appeal in the game is the fanservice-y stuff and playing new characters on new stages with new items in new game modes and etc.

note; this is also why Smash 4 sold, you know, ten million copies, despite a couple thousand (if that) children constantly screaming about how deep and rich Melee's campy bull**** metagame is

 

[Strong Badam]

This isn't a Brawl vs. Melee vs. Smash 4 or whatever thread. Please discuss the hypothetical ruleset change, and don't derail the thread further. This is directed at multiple users here.

 

[Eisen]

The game won't "die" until people start deciding that they dislike the other side of the argument so much that they quit playing the game.

Personally, I think having L-cancel on is kind of pointless aside from making the game feel more like Melee and raising the skill floor. Enabling it wouldn't harm the better players who already know how to do it, but allow newer players to feel less overwhelmed when picking the game up, which, honestly, a game (that's non-official and needs all the followers it can get) like Project M could benefit from.

Basically, I'm saying that enabling makes even the best of players a little bit better, and there's no downside to it aside from very niche situations that aren't really significant and/or in the spectrum of thoughts involved while fighting (afaik most players don't go for specific moves just to change their hurtbox position just so they MIGHT be missed by an opponent -- might as well dodge at that point.) However, I'm not one to make a big fuss over it either. I'm for auto L-cancel for a number of reasons, but I don't feel it's worth forcing on people, if that makes sense.

 

[Rawkobo]

This isn't a Brawl vs. Melee vs. Smash 4 or whatever thread. Please discuss the hypothetical ruleset change, and don't derail the thread further. This is directed at multiple users here.

It's not that type of thread, but the path of discussion went down that road because of people positing that making such a change would collapse the community in similar ways to other games, which is a bit of a stretch.

I apologize on behalf of everyone, though. I made the tangent.

@ everyone else: I still maintain that testing this is the best approach to knowing if it's actually harmful or not, and that refusal to participate without having actually given it a chance in the first place is the real problem.

 

[Ningildo]

It does serve a purpose though, it's a pressure tool. Under pressure, a lot of people start to fail their L-cancels. It's a sort of intrinsic reward for keeping your head in the game, and a reward for the one doing the pressure for having rattled his foes. There is a deep psychological game in Smash, one of the things I love about it.

I suppose that works at mid level play, but at high level play this isn't something that happens even remotely frequently, nor can players take advantage of missed l-cancels (as the time needed to notice a missed l-cancel makes the reactive punish come out too late. I'm pretty sure JOE! knows more about this).

When talking about the psychological game, yes, it's present and yes, I like it too. Except flubbed ledgedashes, CGs, wavedash, OoS and a whole bunch of other things are a result of it too and make players lose more often then not. In contrast, when's the last time a missed L-cancel cost anyone a game? Or even a stock?

Again, I stand by my point. L-cancels are not hard (which is a good thing, I guess?), but don't offer options or mix ups in comparison to other, arguably just as easy tech (DD, for instance). It's just there because.

For the record, I couldn't care less about what happens regarding l-cancelling. It's not hard at all, hasn't really caused issues for me in tournaments and all that. It's just that I don't like people arguing for things that aren't defensible in the slightest, choosing to constantly bring up incredibly niche scenarios that will likely never influence a match (due both the crazy amount of set up needed and that better alternatives always exist), bring up possible punishes for messing up the "tech" (ignoring that only very few moves would have enough regular lag for the opponent to be able to react to the missed l-cancel in time, that moves that do end up punished this way get punished more so due improper spacing, timing (late vs early) and whatnot and that at high level play, missed l-cancels simply don't happen and thus are never in play) and sometimes just calls out the other side for being bad. Given all these (bar the latter), what interactions would be lost from the game? What would we lose that meaningfully impacts interactions? Forget the impact on the community for a second and just answer that.

 

[Vigilante]

Actually, even top level players will sometimes crack under pressure and miss an L-cancel or two. It doesn't happen a lot of course, but it is the trace of a good player when even under pressure, they can keep their cool IMO.

 

[JOE!]

Actually, even top level players will sometimes crack under pressure and miss an L-cancel or two. It doesn't happen a lot of course, but it is the trace of a good player when even under pressure, they can keep their cool IMO.

While true, that is sort of subjective in two parts:

1) Aren't there other examples of this that are even more critical than a single button press when landing? While I agree that it has a great feel to it as a way to keep tempo with your inputs and all, strictly from a mechanical point of view there are more important and complex flubs that can occur under pressure that I would personally say are more impressive to be consistent with such as ledge dashing or wall techs, etc.

2) When they miss the occasional Lcancel, would it have truly mattered? I say this since, at least IMO, everyone should sorta be "expecting" an Lcancelled aerial to occur anyways. In that setting, it would take a chunk of frames (10-15) for a human to even comprehend that a missed Lcancel took place in order to punish accordingly. In some cases, it is reasonable to assume that they have time to react and act from the input of a missed cancel, in others it may not have mattered at all. The punish option also may have worked on the aerial Lcancelled or Not, who knows.

I agree that Manual should be the official push for now, but also agree that Automatic should be worth exploring as it seems that benefits outweigh the negatives outside of community aversion, which isn't exactly measurable.... though still a "big" factor.

 

[Vigilante]

Well, negatives include less pressure on the player, unfairness cause by some wanting to use the auto-cancel and not. In fact, most would use the auto-cancel not because it's what they want, but because they want to win.

 

[Rawkobo]

Well, negatives include less pressure on the player, unfairness cause by some wanting to use the auto-cancel and not. In fact, most would use the auto-cancel not because it's what they want, but because they want to win.

Can you provide context for "less pressure"? Because as far as I'm aware, were we to consider L-cancelling a part of inputs, failing to L-cancel would fall under "missed inputs," something that doesn't actually change from being an issue if the need to L-cancel is removed.

High stakes situations will still require mental fortitude and avoiding misspacing/failed inputs. Removing one input from the failed inputs section doesn't change how serious it is to mess that up.

 

[Vigilante]

Can you provide context for "less pressure"? Because as far as I'm aware, were we to consider L-cancelling a part of inputs, failing to L-cancel would fall under "missed inputs," something that doesn't actually change from being an issue if the need to L-cancel is removed.

High stakes situations will still require mental fortitude and avoiding misspacing/failed inputs. Removing one input from the failed inputs section doesn't change how serious it is to mess that up.

Failing to L-cancel as a result of pressure is what I mean by it. To me, it's not about being punished for failing an input. It's about being punished for panicking.

 

[xquqx]

Well, negatives include less pressure on the player, unfairness cause by some wanting to use the auto-cancel and not. In fact, most would use the auto-cancel not because it's what they want, but because they want to win.

If the only reason you're beating someone is manual l canceling, you probably aren't very good in the first place.

 

[Vigilante]

If the only reason you're beating someone is manual l canceling, you probably aren't very good in the first place.

I don't think you're actually reading the arguments here. I've states that it is one of the elements that add depth to the gameplay... one of many.

 

[Rawkobo]

Failing to L-cancel as a result of pressure is what I mean by it. To me, it's not about being punished for failing an input. It's about being punished for panicking.

...Which missed inputs/misinputs covers and can refer to more relevant things than L-cancelling in this circumstance.