L-Cancelling DOES ADD DEPTH TO THE GAME

[NalsXR]

You guys are focusing on the wrong stuff. The focus could be spent on actually playing the game. The control is an illusion. You know that. it doesn't deserve to be defended as a legitimate boon to the game i dont think jc grabs add depth as much as the option to dash grab vs sliding standing grab adds depth

its bad for a game like melee to test physical skill in such a base way. its farcical. the only time technical skill should be rewarded in a game is when the situation calls for buttons to to be pressed to influence an interactive variable in the flow of the game.
FOR EXAMPLE: wavedash out of shield pressure,dash dancing just out of fox nair range to pivot grab, chaingrab DI/chaingrabbing itself, etc.

L cancel is a limiter. it doesn't add anything to the hard balance of the game. I acknowledge that using the mechanic to add to the overall cost of an action is an effective game design technique, but it doesn't change that it's balls and better ways to make the game more demanding can be devised.

Thespymachine:Its true that fighting games reward fast button inputs/technical skill as well as mental clarity. In some cases melee rewards that skill more than others. L cancelling skews the mental-physical ratio needlessly with yes, BUSYWORK. consistency with l cancelling ingame is nice, but

overall the focus of l cancelling detracts from focus on the development of skills that relate to solid improvement and deeper play. i've already specified ways technical skill can be exercised without l cancelling and that fit in the greater scheme of the game.

Of course it adds depth! Not only is it a skill you need to learn, but it is one of the things that make Melee so special.

Do you think JC'd grabs don't add depth?

When I started out, L-canceling was one of the things that really interested me. If Melee had automatic L-canceling, I'd rather play 64

The only reason you found L cancelling interesting is because you knew it would give you an immediate advantage over your contemporaries without any hard mental work.

 

[Radiowar]

if i'm understanding correctly it seems like your problem with l-cancelling is less that it lacks the technical or strategic depth of dash dancing or wavedashing, but that it is unique from other techniques in the game in that its function is singular. it isn't that there is "no situation where you should not l-cancel", it's that there is only one situation where you can l-cancel, as if the ability to l-cancel in mid air or against walls or other surfaces would justify it simply by increasing the number of situations in which it is a strategic option (or its "depth").

your problem with l-cancelling is that it is primarily mechanical rather than strategic in nature - though that is debatable for reasons which have been brought up before. l-cancelling influences a player's actions in a more subtle way, like their choice of aerial in a given situation, or the way the opposing player's shielding tendencies (light shielding, angling, ice climbers, etc.) can force a different approach, or simply cause hesitation. just because the game is played at a level where we take l-cancelling for granted doesn't mean that we should. if anything the fact that something as singular as l-cancelling has the ability to influence gameplay in both direct and indirect ways should be taken as indication of not only its own merit but the depth of the game as a whole.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

It would be silly to state that l canceling adds no depth to the game. I do think that it adds no competative depth to the game as a needless skill barrier though. There is a difference between the two. By making l canceling automatic we lose nothing from the game from a competative standpoint because there are no options lost because there is no reason to ever use the option of not l canceling. To add competative depth there needs to be additional options given. L canceling does this by it's structure but not by the extra input.

Similarly teching add huge amounts of depth do to the multiple options and rps situations it adds. To remove teching would be to remove competative depth. But removing the unneeded input of l in the tech wouldn't remove competative depth. If holding left made you tech left, right tech right, up tech in place and no input would give you no tech, this would result in the same competative depth without any needless skill barrier. This is how most fighting games do hard knockdowns.

These skill barriers may not add competative depth but they do add gameplay depth in far deeper game to learn but this comes at the cost of accessibility. This is a line to walk and I think l canceling is over the line the game depth it adds is small compared to accessibility you lose by adding it. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Bones0]

But removing the unneeded input of l in the tech wouldn't remove competative depth. If holding left made you tech left, right tech right, up tech in place and no input would give you no tech, this would result in the same competative depth without any needless skill barrier.

This is absolutely wrong. Requiring the input for a tech makes it so you have to know ahead of time when you will need to tech. If your opponent lets you get extremely close to the ground so you input a tech and then hits you with a move that hits you into the ground just outside your first tech input's window, suddenly the player has created a situation where requiring the opponent to input their tech leads to a myriad of options. There are different amounts of risk and reward associated with each tech opportunity, and players who want to be prepared for both will have to make better guesses about the first tech so that they can input it sooner (so they can input the second tech without it being cancelled out).

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

^ For example, if marth is chaingrabbing a spacie and hears them press L/R, he can immediately dthrow and they will not be able to tech which gives him a free fsmash (07 tricks)

 

[s l e e p y]

in response to all the teching conversation:

first of all, an input is an input. whether L/R/Z is included or it were simply a matter of directing one's tech with the joystick, the fact still stands that one would have to input their response to the given scenario within 20 frames of hitting the ground (this is a most basic example, of course). so in essence, the statement,

this would result in the same competative depth without any needless skill barrier.

is not true.

but to analyze it further, teching is not exactly like L-canceling, in practice. although you should always do both, there are more competitive facets to the concept of teching, such as the scenario bones0 described: L-canceling is something that requires learning and muscle memory, but not thought or analysis after that point; teching, on the other hand, presents us with more options for analysis once the scenario or possibility has presented itself. there is one answer to the question "how should i L-cancel?"--6 frames before you land, whenever you can make it happen (always, for those who can). but to the same question asked of teching, there are many more things to be considered.

i think a lot more actual depth is added to the game from teching than is gained from L-canceling. but L-canceling still adds depth. this depth just may be seen as...an extremely unnecessary mechanic.

 

[NalsXR]

I have to state this outright:
I'm aware of the effect l cancelling has on player decisions.
I'm also aware that the timing of aerial landings can be changed depending on where the landing character is and the hitstun from shields.
I realize that l cancelling can create its own meta for what is feasible in the current situation. It does add that to the game.

But I know that the philosophic belief that worrying about these technicalities equates to skill is in the long run only keeping us from a firmer grasp of the fundamentals of this game.

I believe that L cancelling encourages bad decisions by obscuring these fundamentals.

Melee requires many insights to be made regarding: the spacing of the characters, he most sound options in order to maximize damage/reward, and the prediction of what actions the opponent will take.
technical skill is the engine that fuels the movement between players and allows them to take the actions based on those insights.

Melee is a result of its fast pace. it allows players to make feints, parry, riposte with the speed that it affords. The player is constantly testing the validity of the movements he makes against his opponents, he is constantly looking,exploring in order to best take advantage of the opportunities given to him and to create more situations that he can take advantage of. when he is beaten back, he sooner or later realizes that his approach is faulty. He gets up and tries again. He gets faster, smarter, more cunning. He starts figuring out how to best move to avoid the worst of his opponents repertoire. He tricks them into making mistakes. He capitalizes on those errors harder and harder each time. And everyone he plays against is doing the same thing. watching, playing, learning, advancing.

But when he makes an adjustment to his play. everytime, regardless how far he has progressed against and with other players, when something is figured out, when the game is satisfied in all other aspects, it asks: 'did you l cancel or not?
Now if it's at a certain skill level, and assuming the action is relatively mundane, this is only a minor setback. players would probably figure it out in the match if not done on impulse, without thinking.

in the worst cases this happens:
'I can't explore further in this direction because it's too hard for me right now. Instead, i'm going to practice l cancelling this move more.'
-The insightful play is avoided due to the interference of l cancelling in the decision making process.

'I can l cancel when I perform this set movement every time. I just have to work this in somehow. I'm not worried about mixing it up. and I can beat my friends anyway.'
-Insightful play is disregarded in favor of complacent play.

The other players didn't do anything to force this obstruction of the tactic, this shift in the playing field. and unfortunately for all involved. they'll never know the difference. Instead of working to overcome each others' best showing, their attentions are then split on becoming quicker mentally, training their hands to act as fast as they can think, and ALSO l cancelling. What is that doing here? It shows skill, but at the expense of everything else in the game that also shows and promotes skill. The influence that l cancelling has on those actions is 'invalid', as Melty Blood would put it.

That said, it's a given that most players of this game are used to this, accept it, and devise strategies around it. That's the correct way to play any game. But it is still a limiter to insights concerning it.

Again, If you want skill barriers influencing play, barriers that force players to think and act fast, give the players the tools to enforce them on their opponents. Allow them the ability to excell in the game and create hard situations for their opponents to figure out & progress through as they improve. Melee already does this. It doesn't need l cancelling to give it artificial depth.

 

[Strong Badam]

itt jaded melee community convinced that melee is a good game because literally everything about the game is the way it is argue for a poor mechanic that good players don't really care for.
it's like i keep learning reasons why brawl being awful ruined this community.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

L canceling is not a whole lot of depth and it's very very specific and extremely rare situations where you don't want to.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

That is a good example of showing that teching does have some competative depth that it adds. I like those kinds of hidden details that you find in games. There are small pieces of competative depth in these skill challenges but these are pretty small pieces of depth that you gain for significant decreases in the accessibility of the game. Teching I think is a good example of a great skill challenge that doesn't hurt accessibility too much but allows for lots of fun stuff like some of the crazy edge teching that happens at high level.

My complaint is that there is so little lost to the competative depth of the game by just making it happen if you just made it automatic. But the increase in accessibility is great. Tech skill is great for increasing the depth of the game but is definitely not required. Chess certainly is very competitively deep with no special skills needed.

What additional player interactions are created by the technical input requirement of the l cancel? The only argument I've heard is the possible timing change do to things like ice climbers, light shielding, and the such. The tiny depth lost here I really feel would be insignificant compared to the increased accessibility that would be gained by removing this skill barrier.

Things like wave dashing and dash dashing are totally different from this do to the huge additional of competative depth added by these fantastic mobility options. These are not needless skill barriers as they are much deeper than just simple button inputs. Just like fox's up throw has the OPTION of killing at higher percents with the correct inputs it is much deeper than just input to get a kill.

 

[Bad Cupboard]

Strong bad why are you always so angry

 

[ph00tbag]

Strong bad why are you always so angry

Brawl was so bad, he's still angry about it.

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

L canceling is not a whole lot of depth and it's very very specific and extremely rare situations where you don't want to.

Name one situation where you wouldn't want to L cancel.
And I won't accept "mind games" as an answer.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i've had times where sheik avoided a grab because she didn't l cancel. i was ganon so she was still in that goofy duck animation after the fair. she grabbed me afterwards. salt flowed.

i was always under the impression that l canceling was a thing primarily because the game design made it so that you could get into your shield faster than you could do anything else after an aerial, thus allowing decent (read: some) defense options after committing to an aerial. that's how i've always looked at it anyway...not that it matters.

i like that l canceling is in the game, cuz i feel like the shield wouldn't be nearly as strong at lower levels if it wasn't. but i guess that'd be okay.

 

[Zhea]

Something to keep in mind. Complexity is currency you use to buy depth for your game. For example take a game like Go. The rules are very simple. You can explain them in less than 5 minutes. Go is head crushingly deep though. The difference in skill between a beginner(who effectively knows all the mechanics of the game already) and a Grand Master is larger than the gap between a melee beginner and Mango. Much as I hate the mechanic (Even though I no longer think about doing it), it does add depth. A little bit. Problem is the complexity of it's execution doesn't yield nearly as much depth as other parts of the game. Hell DD is probably the simplest of the advanced techniques, and it adds more depth than l-canceling ever has. WDing is more complex to master(in my opinion), yet it adds so much more depth for the complexity it takes.

I should also specify here:
Complexity: Difficulty of Execution and Knowledge requried
Depth: How much meaningful choice it adds to the game.

To put it bluntly, the amount of depth added by L-canceling is very poor for the level of complexity it takes. There is very little choice, 95% of the time you want to L-cancel, the other 5% of the time you just don't because of convenience. It adds a ton of complexity for such little depth, yet bars so many people from ever getting to the fun part of melee.

It's important to note that this doesn't mean you are wrong for loving L-canceling. From a player perspective it's a tactic that once mastered gives you a huge edge on your opponents who have not, which makes you feel good and accomplished. And you should, you mastered a technique that lets you play the real game.

However this is a failure of design. If the real, super fun part of the game (Movement and comboing) is put on the other side of a wrought iron fence, what do you gain as a designer? People not playing your game, or worse, playing it but never getting to the best part of it?

L-canceling is part of melee's identity, however if another smashesque game wanted to keep the pace and feel of melee, I would advise them to drop it.

 

[Rocketpowerchill]

when the first person picks up smash4 atfer release, what do you think they will check to make sure they shudnt smash the game
they are definitely going to shorthop nair and try to l cancel.
if anything at all, sakurai shud try to make it like 64

 

[1MachGO]

These are the common problems with how people view the l-cancel debate:
1. L-cancelling is incorrectly categorized as an action in the same league as wavedashing, shielding, jumping, etc. When, in actuality, it is an execution based mechanic associated with the action of aerial attacks. This distinction is important to recognize because it means that L-cancelling cannot be argued against for its lack of decision making. Its similiar to saying that pressing the A button to jab is stupid because pressing the A button has no decision making; well of course it doesnt, its the jab which is associated with decision making. Likewise, L-cancelling is something you are required to do if you make the decision to aerial attack near the ground.

2. L-cancelling is always viewed in a vaccum. While it is fair to say that a mechanic like l-cancelling is genrally "bad design"... shouldn't you just be asking how does it operate in the context of Super Smash Bros. Melee? If the mechanic didn't exist, wouldn't a plethora or combos and usable options be lost? Hypothetics may not be wrong and may provide empowering knowledge but its wrong to ignore the facts of something's contributions within its context.

3. Depth is narrowly viewed as something which only can be applied to decision making. You can't define a word like depth; it can be used to describe the effect of multiple concepts. Symbolism in a book adds depth, subtext in dialogue adds depth, decision making in games adds depth, execution barriers in games adds depth, the interaction of decision making and execution barriers in games adds depth, etc. These are all true; substantial arguments can defend them all.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Name one situation where you wouldn't want to L cancel.
And I won't accept "mind games" as an answer.

That was the point of my post.

You aren't going to not L Cancel unless someone brings up something really obscure not named Peach.

 

[Zhea]

These are the common problems with how people view the l-cancel debate:
1. L-cancelling is incorrectly categorized as an action in the same league as wavedashing, shielding, jumping, etc. When, in actuality, it is an execution based mechanic associated with the action of aerial attacks. This distinction is important to recognize because it means that L-cancelling cannot be argued against for its lack of decision making. Its similiar to saying that pressing the A button to jab is stupid because pressing the A button has no decision making; well of course it doesnt, its the jab which is associated with decision making. Likewise, L-cancelling is something you are required to do if you make the decision to aerial attack near the ground.

2. L-cancelling is always viewed in a vaccum. While it is fair to say that a mechanic like l-cancelling is genrally "bad design"... shouldn't you just be asking how does it operate in the context of Super Smash Bros. Melee? If the mechanic didn't exist, wouldn't a plethora or combos and usable options be lost? Hypothetics may not be wrong and may provide empowering knowledge but its wrong to ignore the facts of something's contributions within its context.

3. Depth is narrowly viewed as something which only can be applied to decision making. You can't define a word like depth; it can be used to describe the effect of multiple concepts. Symbolism in a book adds depth, subtext in dialogue adds depth, decision making in games adds depth, execution barriers in games adds depth, the interaction of decision making and execution barriers in games adds depth, etc. These are all true; substantial arguments can defend them all.

1. You are right, it is strictly an execution barrier, something you are forced to do to get the better version of a move.

2. It is because it doesn't exist in a vacuum that it is a problem. Again on paper it's not bad, press 2 buttons at the right time for a given option. Except in completely invalidates a whole other set of options across the entire board of characters. Imagine a Melee that had the land lag of L canceling as a base. What have you lost here? You have lost something, 1 of the many small technical hurdles that divided the starting players from slightly better than starting players.

3. Depth is easy to define. In fact it's easy to say why those examples can add depth or don't. Depth gives the room for interpretation. 2 people can look at the same mechanic and come away with different opinions on its uses which influences their decisions. This is why good competitive games develop multiple styles of play at the highest level. It's only what those interpretations are that is hard to define. Execution barrier adds depth on a superficial level of how the player decides to interface with the game. Controller grip styles and controller types are influenced by this. Execution Barriers are not Evil either, but execution barrier should never be arbitrary. When you put it there, you are putting it there, because there are other choices for the player to make and you are not going to do it for them. This is all L-Canceling exists for. Again a lot of people take pride in their execution, myself among them. However unlike pretty much all the other advanced techniques if you just had the L-Canceled Lag without the barrier nothing from a gameplay perspective changes. You don't lose meaningful options.

 

[Massive]

An empirical way to settle all of this would be to try out InternetExplorer's Auto L-Cancel code and determine from there if there has been any depth lost. Deciding what depth really is will be the hard part, I guess.

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

I want to join in on the L-cancel discussion. KishPrime, StrongBad.

I have two things to say.

One:
There are two kinds of 'depth'. The first is where an option in a game allows for more decisions to be made*. The simplest example is chess vs. checkers. This is the more important depth, as it's what distinguishes Melee from Smash64. However, without a physical factor to a game, there is no skill. Unfortunately, this kind of 'depth' isn't easily quantifiable, and is different for every person, which is why this topic is so difficult for us to articulate our thoughts about. Therefore, while L-canceling adds no depth to the game, "decision-wise," it does add a level of skill, which becomes its own sort of depth, depending on the person, depending on their character, depending on their opponent. As for this, we can't really argue about this, we just have to pick something and go with it, just like the designers of Melee did when they decided to re-implement l-canceling. I mean, what do you want anyone to say? Under pressure, my tech skill goes bonkers, and I'm mentally forced to change my playstyle to choose less skill-risky options. It's part of my game that I bring, that I add on to the game we decided to play, and in a sense this is realistic, because it reflects what actually happens in life. The real question here is whether we enjoy it or not.

Two:
Massive is right. Play with l-cancels 'off' (automatic), and let's see if we miss it or not.


*1MachGo said this pretty well.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I do not know what "depth" means =/= depth has not been defined

just sayin

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

Mercy, please. I was afraid too gentle of a voice would not have been heard, instead of speaking how I felt.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Im not trying to offend, im just hoping to save 2 useless pages of discussion about what "depth" really means.

 

[ph00tbag]

Too late, there's already been three pages about it.

 

[1MachGO]

An empirical way to settle all of this would be to try out InternetExplorer's Auto L-Cancel code and determine from there if there has been any depth lost. Deciding what depth really is will be the hard part, I guess.

On this topic, wouldn't Melee's survival as a competitive game over 10+ years stand as some kind evidence which supports L-cancelling? Its not necessarily proof that the mechanic is amazing, but it would be wrong to say that it had nothing to do with its competitive success.

Stuff

I am not sure if you didn't understand my second point or if I simply do not fully understand your response. Basically what I am saying is this:

In a vacuum, most would probably not consider L-cancelling to be a good mechanic. Some of these reasons being that its arbirtrary, it limits accessibility, and games which strive towards more mental interaction are superior.
People then make the conclusion that L-cancelling is bad design and does not add depth to the game. This hypothetical conclusion bases itself on the analysis of something in a vacuum.

Essentially, I think its unfair to judge L-cancelling like this. Consider: as a competitive Melee player, would you prefer no L-cancelling (not automatic, NONE) or L-cancelling? I would be extremely surprised if anyone didn't want the latter.

Now consider this, why? Why would you want L-cancelling over no L-cancelling? This is a good way to dodge the whole vacuum mindset a lot of theory-smashers get into when analyzing this argument. It should force you to think about what L-cancelling does in the context of melee versus what an alternative could do in the context of general gaming.

Here are some conclusions I would hope you are able to draw from this:
>No L-cancelling would mean that all characters would have regular landing lag from aerials making aerial attacks significantly less safe
>The higher landing lags would substantially reduce combos and strengthen defensive play
>L-cancelling slightly homogenizes landing lag making slow characters have comparable attributes to fast characters; balancing the game slightly
>L-cancelling makes short hopping and fast falling more useful in more situations. Without L-cancelling, players would try to avoid ending up in aerial landing lag
>L-cancelling gives you something to practice. This is probably the most underrated, underappreciated, and underused argument in favor of L-cancelling. Fighting games can be difficult to improve at because they typically require that you play other people. When that isn't always an option, its good if there are things which you can practice by yourself and see actual improvement. It is definitely a good reward which motivates you to keep at the game.
>L-cancelling creates more interaction between a shielding player and attacking player
>L-cancelling can feel good; it makes combos feel more rhythmic. This sounds subjective but there are real psychological concepts
>Going back to the "practice by yourself" pro, L-cancelling contributes to the two main skillsets: technical consistency and decision making ability (tech skill vs. mindgames, if you will) These two things interact a lot, one can give you more options through the other and it gives players more room in forming their own playstyles by opting to improve in one more than the other. This interaction is a massive part of the game and it makes the metagame more expansive. Like you said, a good competitive game permits more playstyles.

My hope is that if you forced yourself to think about the positive aspects of L-cancelling that you'll be able to compare L-cancelling to hypothetical "auto-L-cancelling" within the context of the game. Obviously many of the same pros still exist such as game balance, new options, and complimented mechanics, but wouldn't you lose some other things? If a mechanic contributes to individual replay value and a dynamic metagame, doesn't it have some merit? This certainly shouldn't change your opinion, but I think this debate would be better if these attributes were recognized and L-cancelling wasn't seen as a general mechanic but rather a Melee mechanic which interacts with many facets of the game.

In regards to your response to my 3rd point, I think what I have already said should respond to some your other ideas. (Essentially, L-cancelling will seem arbitrary if you analyze it in a vacuum, though if you recognize how it interacts with other parts of the game and the player element, it will seem less so) However, I still disagree with your views of depth. Depth is essentially the amount of complexity something adds to a whole. It really isn't something you can define; saying "Depth: How much meaningful choice it adds to the game." is wrong because almost any element of a game can add depth, not just meaningful choice.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Too late, there's already been three pages about it.

I thought I was talking with people that already knew.... Obviously, at least Kish knows what it means

 

[UltiMario]

In Soviet Russiaverse:

"Hey guys wouldn't it be great if, oh say, in our Smash game with really low aerial lag, we could introduce a mechanic where you have to press a button to get that low endlag? So that means if you miss the input, your lag for no reason gets DOUBLED. Wouldn't that be the best mechanic?! It'd add so much depth to the game!"

Ah hah. Hahahaahahahaha.

No.

 

[M15t3R E]

L-cancelling absolutely is an unnecessary skill barrier. Top players would play the same way if there were automatic L-cancelling. A universal tech that must always be done does not in any way add competitive value to the game.

 

[cannedbread]

i like the sound of my hands pressing clacky buttons as much as the next guy but l-cancelling is kind of silly
is there an advantage or some sort of mixup to choosing not to l-cancel?

 

[M15t3R E]

i like the sound of my hands pressing clacky buttons as much as the next guy but l-cancelling is kind of silly
is there an advantage or some sort of mixup to choosing not to l-cancel?

Nope.

 

[cannedbread]

silly
oh well
like that one rapper said
that's just the way it is

 

[Zhea]

Stuff

You didn't read my post. If you had you would know I am comparing L-canceling and just having the L-canceling land lag to just be the land lag.

You are also treating L-canceling as if it is the only technical aspect of the game (I.E. in a vacuum). WD, DD, Combos, WL, SHFF Aerials, there are so many other things to practice that already bring that and have more depth to them.

The point is, how much actual game play do you get from having L-canceling vs just having the L-cancel land lag. Sure you have lost a bit of technical finesse, a small bit, but now it's more accessible without losing the depth that makes it so compelling.

 

[Bones0]

L-cancelling absolutely is an unnecessary skill barrier. Top players would play the same way if there were automatic L-cancelling. A universal tech that must always be done does not in any way add competitive value to the game.

If you actually try it with the automatic L-cancelling code, you'd know that you definitely do not play the same way. It may look the same at first glance, but it doesn't feel the same at all when you're actually playing.

 

[M15t3R E]

If you actually try it with the automatic L-cancelling code, you'd know that you definitely do not play the same way. It may look the same at first glance, but it doesn't feel the same at all when you're actually playing.

If anything, not having automatic L-canceling reduces the competitive value because there are no situations in which you would choose not to L-cancel. There are more options out of L canceling landing lag and fewer that come with no cancellation. It would be more fun to play and watch if it was automatic. I feel that's the way it should have been.

 

[Bad Cupboard]

L-canceling doesn't necessarily add depth, but that's not really a bad thing. It's something you need to learn how to do in order to be good at the game.
Basically ANY game has stuff like this. You need to learn how to throw in football, how to kick in soccer, how to dribble in basketball, etc etc. Even more basic, you need to have proper form for running.
So really the argument is more "Is it okay to have a technique in a game that doesn't add depth but rather adds a technical limitation," and at that point we're not really talking about Melee anymore.

So essentially I don't think l-canceling adds depth, but that doesn't mean it's pointless or shouldn't be in the game.

 

[Bones0]

If anything, not having automatic L-canceling reduces the competitive value because there are no situations in which you would choose not to L-cancel. There are more options out of L canceling landing lag and fewer that come with no cancellation. It would be more fun to play and watch if it was automatic. I feel that's the way it should have been.

Everyone against L-cancelling just keeps repeating the same phrases without any actual explanation. I keep hearing people throw around terms like "competitive value" without explaining how L-cancelling adds or detracts from it. Yeah, obviously there are no situations where you would want to miss L-cancels, but to say that makes L-cancelling a pointless execution barrier is ignoring the complexity of L-cancelling itself. There's also no situations in which you would want to mistime a grab during a tech chase or mistime an attack in a combo. It's not like once you get into the habit of L-cancelling you never have to think about it again. Players are constantly focusing on L-cancels to make sure they don't miss. With all of the possible scenarios, there are many different timings of L-cancels to choose from in order to land them properly. The necessity to focus on L-cancelling alone affects how the game is played, and I'm sure that if L-cancelling was automatic then players would have a lot of different tendencies making the metagame different from what it is today.

 

[M15t3R E]

L-canceling doesn't necessarily add depth, but that's not really a bad thing. It's something you need to learn how to do in order to be good at the game.
Basically ANY game has stuff like this. You need to learn how to throw in football, how to kick in soccer, how to dribble in basketball, etc etc. Even more basic, you need to have proper form for running.
So really the argument is more "Is it okay to have a technique in a game that doesn't add depth but rather adds a technical limitation," and at that point we're not really talking about Melee anymore.

So essentially I don't think l-canceling adds depth, but that doesn't mean it's pointless or shouldn't be in the game.

I don't like those analogies because landing lag wasn't a crucial thing that needed to be programmed into the game. Pros play assuming their opponent isn't going to miss an L-cancel at any given moment. It's not a bad thing, per se, just unnecessary.

Everyone against L-cancelling just keeps repeating the same phrases without any actual explanation. I keep hearing people throw around terms like "competitive value" without explaining how L-cancelling adds or detracts from it. Yeah, obviously there are no situations where you would want to miss L-cancels, but to say that makes L-cancelling a pointless execution barrier is ignoring the complexity of L-cancelling itself. There's also no situations in which you would want to mistime a grab during a tech chase or mistime an attack in a combo. It's not like once you get into the habit of L-cancelling you never have to think about it again. Players are constantly focusing on L-cancels to make sure they don't miss. With all of the possible scenarios, there are many different timings of L-cancels to choose from in order to land them properly. The necessity to focus on L-cancelling alone affects how the game is played, and I'm sure that if L-cancelling was automatic then players would have a lot of different tendencies making the metagame different from what it is today.

Competitive value, meaning adding extra skill needed in the game to be greater than your opponent. At least that's how I'm defining it. L-canceling is very easy, but it is so tedious that at some point, one just wonders why it isn't just automatic. L-canceling successfully 20 times in a row in a game and the next time missing the L-cancel is akin to tripping in Brawl, if you ask me. Something so easy but so repetitive doesn't belong in a game like Melee where technical skill and reads are what should pave the way.

 

[michael_li]

melee would be sick if you didn't need to lcancel lol ****... everyone would be ****ing ****

 

[NalsXR]

i want to add some stuff about depth but i think its too out there

STUFF

aight bones

what you are describing undeniably adds a layer of 'depth' to the game. that's just the bare bones of it. the focus required to make a decision AND follow through with it enough to l cancel accounting for landing is good and it proves something. The title of the thread does not lie.

but in the continually ****ty posts that i made i was playing battleship with the idea that 'the depth that l cancelling provides interacts in ways with other mechanics of the game that ultimately hinders their contribution to the game as a whole'. it ADDS but also TAKES 'depth' away.

yeah people play differently without l cancelling. i told you that overall it hinders the full extent that the other mechanics have on the complexity of the game. or
"L cancelling shows skill but at the expense at other things in the game that also show and promote skill." this is to a point where we're potentially missing out on some seriously sick metagame. It is felt that the 'depth' it brings is false.

the act of focusing on landing the l cancel means that you're not focusing as much on what is going to happen if the opponent is hit, or if she blocks it, or if it whiffs, etc
it also means that thanks to muscle memory you might decide to jump in without as much thought put into it. you may have instead chosen a completely different option that was more tactically sound.

(Forgive me if I'm wrong (seriously), but maybe you don't believe without the focus to make these decisions correctly without L cancelling's influence, you have no business making them? )

When they play with auto l cancelling, they're playing 'smarter', or at least without the same inhibitions that helped prevent them from figuring out what was 'the smartest' thing to do. The skills that they hone in this environment will carry over even when they play at the next tournament they go to, I reckon.

is this good? or perhaps melee without l cancelling is degenerative? that it destroys 'depth'? Share your thoughts.
But in the long run it is not so. the 'depth' that l cancelling would take with it would just be refilled by the other components (technical skill,mindgames/prediction,spacing, and tactics/game knowledge as wobbles might put it in his 'Four Aspects of Melee').

L-canceling successfully 20 times in a row in a game and the next time missing the L-cancel is akin to tripping in Brawl, if you ask me.

but we don't miss l cancels