L-Cancelling DOES ADD DEPTH TO THE GAME

[KishPrime]

I got annoyed because I posted this in a thread and people actually still tried to argue that it does not. Can we please eliminate this fallacy in the hopes that more people will understand what the heck depth is? I'm even on board with the fact that it is a debatable mechanic for adding depth, but the fact that it does add depth cannot be argued.

Post as follows, with minor tweaks:

The reason l-cancelling adds depth is because it is increasing the complexity of selecting an aerial attack vs. selecting a ground attack.

If you say that it is false depth because you should always do it, that's half-right, but you're ignoring the fact that you actually SHOULDN'T always jump to begin with. There are a lot of highly technical things that you should always do when you narrow down the situation, and you're narrowing it down too much. L-cancelling adds a degree of difficulty to playing and approaching in the air that is not present on the ground, and thus players who master it open up new aerial options for play. Players who do not master it have to weigh the possibility of their execution error when deciding to jump. Thus, it is no different from deciding if you should go for a higher-risk, higher-reward combo - the value of playing the more difficult option - or the less high-risk, high-reward combo, another facet of depth.

Is it the BEST mechanic? Probably not, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Variable lag on landing based on the move you use is hardly a bad system itself, if the lag itself was actually balanced right.

However, there is no question that l-cancelling does enhance the depth tree, both from a skill- and decision-making perspective.

 

[iRobinhoood]

 

[Barbs Jr]

You are arguing that L-Cancelling adds depth at a low skill level. I don't think many people will disagree with you on that point.

Execution of L-cancelling is not even a consideration at high level play. People consitently go whole matches without missing a cancel, without putting a lot of effort. Thus, it does not add depth.

I, personally, enjoy it as a mechanic. I like pressing a lot of buttons and I like having a clear cut advantage over players who are too lazy to google super smash bros and then spend a couple hours in training mode. Other people disagree with this but I think that the people who are too lazy to do this aren't going to get to a high level anyway.

 

[SaggyG]

There's some solid arguments against L-cancelling. Some people would prefer aerials be that fast to begin with.

Problem with that is that would be giving people an advantage for free. At least they have to work harder to be aggressive with SHFFL if a fox/falco is pillaring you. I wouldn't want them to have it for free.

It also adds depth to defensive play. Makes the defending player have to think about what they should do (Light shield, DI shield, maybe even power shield if you're good) to throw off the opponents L-cancelling or just to create space between them.

 

[KishPrime]

You have to define "low-level." I certainly still see missed l-cancels in high-level matches, though they are rare in the highest-level matches. Beyond that, the fact is that the complexity that l-cancelling incurs still affects the pattern of attack and pressure that one can maintain.

I'm still not arguing that it is the best mechanic, but it is a mechanic that is built with the proper direction (greater difficulty=better result) that affects both ability to execute and decision-making about how to proceed, hence part of a depth tree no matter what level of skill you operate.

I'd like to see shield placement and powershielding have an even bigger impact than they do - that would enhance the mechanism. As it is, there's already some evidence that this is another way the depth is expanded.

 

[channlsrfr]

To me, the only way you can argue that an extra option (e.g. missing an L-cancel) doesn't increase depth is if nobody uses it ever.

I could foresee a situation where, at the start of a match against someone you don't know, you do some SHFF aerials and miss your L-cancels to say, "Hey, I'm not good at L-canceling" and maybe bait a shield-grab that you punish with a quick, post-L-cancel move. Will it matter against Mango? No. Will it work against Johnny Bo-Bob from Fartwater, TN? Maybe, just maybe. And that's enough.

 

[EPsilon933]

Manual l cancel adds complications more than it adds depth. Aerial landing lag should automatically be low. There's no legit reason to ever choose to not l cancel

 

[KishPrime]

Manual l cancel adds complications more than it adds depth. Aerial landing lag should automatically be low. There's no legit reason to ever choose to not l cancel

If you say that it is false depth because you should always do it, that's half-right, but you're ignoring the fact that you actually SHOULDN'T always jump to begin with. There are a lot of highly technical things that you should always do when you narrow down the situation, and you're narrowing it down too much.

It affects the balance and safety of aerial play, thus affecting the decision to engage in aerial play and what differently skilled players can do within that scope. The decision to l-cancel is not the issue, it is the effect of the mechanic itself.

 

[Bad Cupboard]

l-canceling is pretty cool

 

[PreacherDudeRox]

whats an l cancel


No but for real.

 

[Strong Badam]

i don't really agree, tim. i don't think l-canceling adds a relevant amount of depth (u see that one match where the one player tilted his shield and made the other player miss his l-cancel? and then not punish it? METAGAME!!!!!!) to justify the unnecessary barrier to accessibility.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I'm with the Kish man on this one. Harder to execute should mean better rewards. Plus it isn't even that hard

 

[KishPrime]

i don't really agree, tim. i don't think l-canceling adds a relevant amount of depth (u see that one match where the one player tilted his shield and made the other player miss his l-cancel? and then not punish it? METAGAME!!!!!!) to justify the unnecessary barrier to accessibility.

We can argue about the quantity (or relevance), but my only point to creating this topic is to note that it does impact the depth tree. I do actually disagree, though. Not that it adds vast swaths of depth, but that it certainly impacts the options that players are able to execute and adds a curve.

 

[XkaruX]

I agree with Kish, it probably isn't the best game design decision ever, but it's important to melee's gameplay and it does add depth.

"There's no reason to not doing it" is not a good argument, there are factors that affect your l-canceling (specially in high level melee). The more experience you have in a competitive environment the less likely you will miss them, making the game harder to master. That is something that, IMO, keeps the game fun and exciting (competitively) after all these years.

 

[luzbwl]

This is an interesting argument. So correct me if I misundesrstood, but it sounds like going for harders combos in other fighters like marvel (MAHVEL, lol) that you are more likely to drop but that deal more damage (and probably get the kill) than going for easier combos and do less damage. In many situations even very good players will have to make the decision of going for either combo and they woul weight how confident they feel with their excution at the moment. Of course we also have players that won't get this combos to work (like very very hard guilty gear combos) no matter how hard they practice so they would effectively be out of this layer of deph and will always choose the easier combo.

The amount of people that gets to participate in this layer of deph depends on how hard it actually is the combo/technice (in this case l-cancel). Having played this game for a while (I haven't played it recently, tough) and if I remember correctly l-canceling is not that hard, it just takes some hours of practice during maybe a week? to get it to work all the time with multiple chars. I don't know how hard people think it is but if it's not that hard then this layer of deph is actually pretty shallow. Like someone said, if you can do it then you should do it everytime, unless you don't even know it exists (like most people before comming to smashboards, lol, this techniche is a little obscure).

 

[BTmoney]

a wild auto cancel appears

 

[Prince_Abu]

l canceling doesnt add depth bc theres really no scenario where u shouldnt l cancel, which makes it something everyone ends up having to do which is just a pointless complication to the game

it doesnt make u think twice about jumping either because its so easy to do, its just a pointless thing that new ppl end up having to learn

 

[Zodiac]

I don't like to admit it but even though we stress l-canceling in melee because of how fast it can make you the fact is its not as important as most of the other techniques that we learn, and learning the specific mechanics of our characters. And without it, well it would kinda suck if everyone could just pressure your shield with fox or falco and without that much work.

 

[Oracle]

from a work=rewards standpoint, sure, it makes sense, but decision making? there is zero reason to decide not to l cancel ever; no real situation in smash is going to pop up where missing an l cancel is going to benefit you. Its more of a mindless barrier to me, but I think you (kish) may have a different definition of depth than some people

basically, if l cancelling's existence opens up more aerial options, why not just reduce landing lag? seems like that would have the same effect

 

[MuraRengan]

The people arguing against Kish are misdirecting their argument. That l-cancelling adds depth is undebateable, it gives a player more and better options than he would in normal play. Unlike wavedashing, which can be used in a way which doesn't give more or better options, l-cancelling always gives more and better options. That 's the relevant issue. L-cancelling is universally better than not l-cancelling, so the options it brings will always be chosen. At the point which a depth-adding gameplay element becomes universal, it need not be a tech, but a gameplay mechanic. Hence, auto-cancelling would be a better mechanic because it preserves the depth that l-cancelling brings without the useless option of the choice of whether or not to do it. L-cancelling definitely adds depth, just like how having a jump button adds depth. But when designing a game, the most convenient way of making that depth accessible to the player is the one that should be implemented.

 

[KishPrime]

from a work=rewards standpoint, sure, it makes sense, but decision making? there is zero reason to decide not to l cancel ever; no real situation in smash is going to pop up where missing an l cancel is going to benefit you.

basically, if l cancelling's existence opens up more aerial options, why not just reduce landing lag? seems like that would have the same effect

l canceling doesnt add depth bc theres really no scenario where u shouldnt l cancel, which makes it something everyone ends up having to do which is just a pointless complication to the game

it doesnt make u think twice about jumping either because its so easy to do, its just a pointless thing that new ppl end up having to learn

I've already pointed this out a couple of times, but the "no scenario where you shouldn't l-cancel" is not looking at the bigger picture of depth and how execution affects and limits options. There is no scenario where you shouldn't follow-up a Fox upthrow with a guaranteed uair->kill, either, right (if that option is available based on character/stage/%)? It's just a trivial execution barrier. So why don't they just make uthrow kill after a certain percentage in those situations?

Good mechanics scale with skill such that they open up more options the better you get with them. Early on in your skill development, it does limit your ability to play in the air. Later, it does impact the complexity of the follow-ups you are physically able to reliably perform. It is a part of the balancing mechanism between one's ability to play in the air, and just because people don't miss l-cancels does not mean that players don't mess up other things (spacing, timing, etc) because of the part of their mind they have to devote to that technical skill.

Many things in gaming are risk-reward-related. L-cancelling impacts that equation for highly-technical sequences, thus impacts that calculation on what a player is trying to do. luzbwl explained it well earlier.

Again, I'm not wholly defending it as the best mechanism - ideally there would be more player interaction built into it, but it's a perfectly acceptable mechanic.

 

[BTmoney]

Once again, auto canceling.

This is relevant to at least: Sheik, Peach, Falco, Ganon, Link, YL, Jiggs, Marth, Roy etc.
Now more characters should have relevant auto cancels but there. Discuss.

You weight early/specifically spaced aerial pokes with more safety against other aerials. That being said, with more relevant auto cancels the standard aerials could stand to be low lag without the need to L-cancel manually. A specific example would be nair'ing with Sheik. You have the option to space AC nairs to poke and stuff OOS options or you can nair low and L cancel since nair is +1 on shield.

 

[Oracle]

Comboing a fox uthrow to upair is ain interactive element that is in no way easy. The only way that it becomes as automatic as l cancelling is if you can somehow react insanely fast or read your opponents sdi timing and DI, which are all things that add depth because of the complicated interaction. L cancelling not as much. The other examples you use, spacing and timing, are also heavily interactive, which is why it adds depth to the game. I don't think continuing this argument is worthwhile because you seem to be using depth as a catch all term for competitive stuff that makes the game harder, whereas I'm referring to techniques that add a deeper layer of interaction. A game doesn't need to have a lot of buttons to be deep, or be technically demanding. That being said, I think the vast majority of people who still play melee play it largely for the huge technical depth that the game has, so they would probably agree with you.

 

[EPsilon933]

Fox's uthrow > uair is escapable. The victim can Smash DI out of it. But Fox can also bair instead of uair which makes the Smash DI useless. Or A Fox could change the timing of the uair so that the victim mistimes their Smash DI. Or somehow try to hit only with its 2nd hit. That's depth

 

[primes2113]

from a work=rewards standpoint, sure, it makes sense, but decision making? there is zero reason to decide not to l cancel ever; no real situation in smash is going to pop up where missing an l cancel is going to benefit you. Its more of a mindless barrier to me, but I think you (kish) may have a different definition of depth than some people

basically, if l cancelling's existence opens up more aerial options, why not just reduce landing lag? seems like that would have the same effect

It's not mindless, the timing is different depending on many different factors.

And in general, regardless of whether you think it's a pointless skill barrier or not it IS included in the game.

Learn to play.

 

[KishPrime]

I actually thought if you landed it perfectly than you could not smash DI out of the uair - my fault on the bad example. Fill in the blank with "guaranteed kill move off of previous move" and the scenario works just fine.

I don't think continuing this argument is worthwhile because you seem to be using depth as a catch all term for competitive stuff that makes the game harder, whereas I'm referring to techniques that add a deeper layer of interaction.

I suspect the actual difference is that I'm considering internal decision-making to be a part of depth vs. you considering only interactive elements to count as depth. We all make decisions based on our evaluation of our abilities and our belief in our ability to execute, and I think the risk-reward evaluation involved in that impacts a game's depth, i.e. the quantity and type of options available to us at any given moment in time, how effective they are, and how they are changing regardless of the opponent's situation.

Let me pose a question. Have you ever changed your tactics in response to your immediate ability, say, if you are having a "bad day" technically, by minimizing the number of inputs (l-cancels, so less jumping attacks) that you need to execute and actually achieved greated success? The ability to do this suggests that l-canceling is, in fact, not a choice you have to make and the game still requires a player to correctly evaluate his risk/reward tradeoffs internally as well as considering the external environment.

Interactive depth is certainly one area of depth, as is execution/skill depth. All of these affect how many options are truly available in a game, which sums up to the total depth.

 

[Oracle]

I worded that poorly; I basically meant depth in areas that aren't technical. I know how decision making based on factors other than your opponent contributes towards how deep a game is (though you could argue that most decision making has to be based on what an opponent does, thats not an argument for now lol). I don't think that the scenario you provided adds depth because of l cancelling, all it does is change how difficult it is to perform. All that l cancelling does is change the threshold at which one would decide to not shffl as much because of input errors (and really not that much, since its just a simple button press). That aspect of the game would exist even without l cancelling, although it wouldn't be as prevalent since shuffling would have one less input.

It's not mindless, the timing is different depending on many different factors.

And in general, regardless of whether you think it's a pointless skill barrier or not it IS included in the game.


Learn to play.

lol ok baddie

 

[Strong Badam]

I've already pointed this out a couple of times, but the "no scenario where you shouldn't l-cancel" is not looking at the bigger picture of depth and how execution affects and limits options. There is no scenario where you shouldn't follow-up a Fox upthrow with a guaranteed uair->kill, either, right (if that option is available based on character/stage/%)? It's just a trivial execution barrier. So why don't they just make uthrow kill after a certain percentage in those situations?

this comparison is silly, tim. u-throw -> u-air grants your opponent a good number of options to interact with you. the timing also changes from character to character since u-throw is weight dependent in animation speed. from the beginning, your opponent is able to mash out of your grab. then, upon being released, they're able to DI left, right, not at all, slightly left, slightly right, slightly more to the left than the "slightly left" mentioned previously, etc.. there are cases depending on the grab location where you can DI offstage such that fox can't follow it up, too. and even when he follows it up, you have the option to SDI it, multiple different directions which have varying levels effectiveness depending on your character's hitstun animation positioning, size, your previous DI, and fox's movement to catch up to you.
furthermore, there are several situations where fox would rather followup with a nair, bair, or even fair to continue a combo or use his opponent's DI against him. additionally, when you do get up-throw uaired, how effective that combo is depends upon your previous DI. not DIing fox's uthrow causes you to end up higher up vertically, which makes your KO % from uair lower. all of these are decisions that are made by the victim and fox that add depth. fox isn't simply executing his plan, he's reacting and interacting with his opponent every step of the way. the same cannot be said for l-canceling, where save for minute shield tilting (which isn't even applied in the metagame today at any relevant frequency), doesn't allow hardly any interaction.
i didn't even get into the implications your proposed change would make on a 2v2 situation. all of this and more would be lost if it were simplified to a killing throw, which isn't actually possible considering uthrow and uair scale differently with percent, and that up-throw ignores weight when calculating knockback while u-air does not.

i realize that you're not trying to say that l-canceling is a great mechanic because it offers a greater than 0 amount of depth, but i don't think even stating that it does offer any depth is particularly relevant. i have yet to see a person literally state that l-canceling offers no depth in a serious capacity; it is always stated that l-canceling offers such a small amount that it does not justify the accessibility barrier that it creates. the fact that l-canceling provides a small amount of depth doesn't make it any less poor a mechanic than the fact that pichu can deal damage makes him a less poor character. this game would retain a significantly high learning curve even if you were to remove arbitrary button presses due to the absurd amount of depth that directional influence, percent-based gameplay, and the breadth of movement options in a positioning-based game provide.

sorry for the poor grammar but i'm tired. tim, am i supposed to come to melee-fc?

EDIT: even if you replace fox uthrow uair with e.g. sheik dthrow fair or what have you, most of this still applies.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

You are arguing that L-Cancelling adds depth at a low skill level. I don't think many people will disagree with you on that point.

Execution of L-cancelling is not even a consideration at high level play. People consitently go whole matches without missing a cancel, without putting a lot of effort. Thus, it does not add depth.

Even top players miss l-cancels at critical points

 

[KishPrime]

this comparison is silly, tim. u-throw -> u-air grants your opponent a good number of options to interact with you. the timing also changes from character to character since u-throw is weight dependent in animation speed. from the beginning, your opponent is able to mash out of your grab. then, upon being released, they're able to DI left, right, not at all, slightly left, slightly right, slightly more to the left than the "slightly left" mentioned previously, etc.. there are cases depending on the grab location where you can DI offstage such that fox can't follow it up, too. and even when he follows it up, you have the option to SDI it, multiple different directions which have varying levels effectiveness depending on your character's hitstun animation positioning, size, your previous DI, and fox's movement to catch up to you.
furthermore, there are several situations where fox would rather followup with a nair, bair, or even fair to continue a combo or use his opponent's DI against him. additionally, when you do get up-throw uaired, how effective that combo is depends upon your previous DI. not DIing fox's uthrow causes you to end up higher up vertically, which makes your KO % from uair lower. all of these are decisions that are made by the victim and fox that add depth. fox isn't simply executing his plan, he's reacting and interacting with his opponent every step of the way. the same cannot be said for l-canceling, where save for minute shield tilting (which isn't even applied in the metagame today at any relevant frequency), doesn't allow hardly any interaction.
i didn't even get into the implications your proposed change would make on a 2v2 situation. all of this and more would be lost if it were simplified to a killing throw, which isn't actually possible considering uthrow and uair scale differently with percent, and that up-throw ignores weight when calculating knockback while u-air does not.

The only real reply I have to your "interaction argument" is that my bad example was trying to narrow it down to a specific situation where it is trivial, technically, to react and there is only one correct move - the kill move. That said, it was probably a bad argument to begin with and I don't really care to defend it. Shrug.

If you want a game theory argument as to why L-cancelling may have been implemented, it may simply have been an attempt at a type of balance imposed since, while jumping, you are able to move your character along two axes instead of one, an obvious advantage. Thus, it was figured that this advantage should require a corresponding increase in required execution skill. It's not a bad theory, nor is it bad game design.

And obviously you're supposed to come to MELEE-FC.

 

[Snakeyes]

Strong Bad summed up my opinion on the matter perfectly.

I also feel that the concern about Fox and Falco's pillaring coupled with lower aerial lag across the board is only valid if you think about it strictly within the context of Melee. It's obvious that a Melee spacey with halved lag on all of his aerials would be a nearly broken character. But if you remove the ability to jump cancel the shine (like Brawl already did), the technique's effectiveness at pressuring the opponent's shield is cut in half, automatic L-canceling or not.

 

[Oracle]

Kish im pretty sure l cancelling was implemented as part of the 'secret world' approach of game design, where you put advanced tech and depth in the game without making it obvious so that only the people who go looking for it (ie competitive players) will find it and casuals wont even notice enough to be bothered by it. Its the same approach used in pokemon and minecraft and its such a good idea I wish designers would use it more

 

[gnosis]

It affects the balance and safety of aerial play, thus affecting the decision to engage in aerial play and what differently skilled players can do within that scope. The decision to l-cancel is not the issue, it is the effect of the mechanic itself.

Okay so why don't we make jumping require a 3 button precisely timed sequence? Hell, let's just take every action, and will have the simple ones down here, and then will just make a ladder and each step up becomes more arbitrarily technically difficult.

I'm drowning in the depth already.

edit: I now realize you're not necessarily saying l-canceling is a good mechanic, just that it does add some amount of depth. Sure, I think most anti-lcancel types realize that, they just don't think it's a justifiable amount (same reason 3button jumping wouldn't be).

 

[KishPrime]

Kish im pretty sure l cancelling was implemented as part of the 'secret world' approach of game design, where you put advanced tech and depth in the game without making it obvious so that only the people who go looking for it (ie competitive players) will find it and casuals wont even notice enough to be bothered by it. Its the same approach used in pokemon and minecraft and its such a good idea I wish designers would use it more

I agree that it's a good system to design games, but within that, one would hope there would be a game theory reason for each particular mechanic as opposed to just randomly punishing jumping attacks. Would also explain wavedashing, though, if that was the goal.

 

[KishPrime]

Okay so why don't we make jumping require a 3 button precisely timed sequence? Hell, let's just take every action, and will have the simple ones down here, and then will just make a ladder and each step up becomes more arbitrarily technically difficult.

I'm drowning in the depth already.

Well that's where we can argue how useful it is. I'm not arguing that point. There comes a point where game knowledge becomes burdensome as well beyond the point of useful depth - Pokemon arguably passed that point a loooooooooooong time ago. There's nothing wrong with designing a game where you have to memorize 150,000 unique factoids to achieve mastery, but it's not going to appeal to many people at that level.

EDIT: And I actually really enjoy Pokemon, by the way.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If everything auto cancels, the game loses a lot of depth. For example Fox jumping on a platform. If he uses bair and doesnt fast fall he auto cancels. If he needs to fast fall he must lcancel. Sometimes he can edge cancel. Without an L/R press, that whole interaction simply becomes jump on platform with no distinction between them.

 

[primes2113]

I worded that poorly; I basically meant depth in areas that aren't technical. I know how decision making based on factors other than your opponent contributes towards how deep a game is (though you could argue that most decision making has to be based on what an opponent does, thats not an argument for now lol). I don't think that the scenario you provided adds depth because of l cancelling, all it does is change how difficult it is to perform. All that l cancelling does is change the threshold at which one would decide to not shffl as much because of input errors (and really not that much, since its just a simple button press). That aspect of the game would exist even without l cancelling, although it wouldn't be as prevalent since shuffling would have one less input.

lol ok baddie

I'm positive you **** up L-cancels, even though you state the ease of the input.

 

[dkuo]

the real question is if this needed another thread
lol

but yeah my stance is the same as kishprime that it does add depth but its not really worth keeping around

 

[Lovage]

terrible posters seeping over into the melee boards

 

[KrIsP!]

I'm positive you **** up L-cancels, even though you state the ease of the input.

Their argument is that adding a mechanic you can mess up that essentially decides whether you can or can't play competitively limits our outreach to newcomers. I want a game that has depth and puts the more skilled player at an advantage but something that you NEED to commit to muscle memory and put little further thought into really is just a barrier.

Does it add depth, no doubt. That cannot be argued and it is also nice to have a bit of a barrier, its always nice to get destroyed and feel like you're truly playing the game for the first time but tech, wavedashing, ccing, etc. have more depth to them as a tool you can use in different ways rather than a tool you need to learn just to make things faster. The game could simply be faster instead.

Basically does it add more than it takes away in terms of depth vs. learning curve. That can be argued