Why L-cancelling shouldn't be in Smash 4.

[grizby2]

That's very nice.

Though you know what would make me very happy panda?

If you would kindly answer the question.

sorry, I thought that was sarcasm!

basically, in melee an l-cancel reduces landing lag from aerials in half.

for example, lets say im bowser, and I use my down air. if im still performing my down air and I hit the ground, bowser goes into the landing animation of falling on his back which, as you may know, is kinda long and punishable. if I pressed L (or R) right before I hit the ground, bowser gets back up in HALF the time. he can now get back into the fight sooner.

this can be done with all aerial moves I believe. and as somebody in this thread mentioned, theres not really a time you DON'T want to do this, because it gives you an upper hand.

L-Cancel is artificial difficulty though, which the OP explains in a very clear and understandable way.
I would support keeping it if there actually were any strategy and decision making involved when performing it. In other words, situations where it is better not to perform L-Cancel.
Now it is basically a required input everyones does in order to keep up. I don't want that.
A tech without any downsides or decision-making in it is not a tech anymore, it is just a forced input.

what he said in red is pretty much how I feel in a nutshell.

 

[[Corn]]

Giving a player an option they should perform every time does seem redundant, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be readjusted to work in a more proper way. For example, one could make it so characters can L-cancel only near the end of their aerial, or perhaps landing in such a way results in less landing lag altogether without the need for L-cancelling?

If L cancelling(or perhaps any AT) was PURPOSELY reinstated into Smash 4, the game itself should make it a point to explain exactly what it is(How to Play), and give you a visual cue for when you get it right(in P:M, for example, you flash white), though.


In Melee, if you perform an aerial normal attack(B moves don't count), and you land before your aerial finishes, you can press a Shield button at that time to reduce the amount of cooldown time you experience. The mechanic was removed in the transition to Brawl.

If an action adds no depth or strategic element to the game besides for an execution barrier, why should it exist? Brawl had it right and wrong at the same time.

Imagine that every aerial auto l-canceled. Would anything be lost?

 

[nLiM8d]

the game itself should make it a point to explain exactly what it is(How to Play)

Apparently people hate How Tut's

Conveyance is a challenge that developers seldom have success with, tutorials are nice options but can be daunting. Nevertheless, its always fun to have new players flop around a bit until they feel comfortable. This is the benefit to "Smash-verses" or whatever they're called, it gives people more locations to ask questions.

 

[Vkrm]

I can't believe this is still a thing. You always want to L cancel, in the same way you always want edgeguard, or power shield. The depth involved comes from doing it successfully. Pretty sick of seeing the argument of choice. "Landing lag vs less landing is an obvious choice therefore there are no decisions to be made. (which isnt even true by the way, some characters dip down lower during missed cancels which allows them to bait and punish shield grabs from taller characters.) Nobody ever stopped to think, (barring low level play ) if l canceling is always advantageous, how come not every aerial is canceled. We could develop a work around by finding a magic number of frame advantage for blocked aerials. Something safe enough to make canceled moves good enough for pressure but punishable when hitting a raised shield, but then a different problem comes up. The game becomes dull, we've played the early brawl hacks haven't we?

 

[Max?]

Scrubs, the lot of ye'

 

[Snakeyes]

yeah to be competitive it only need people willing to compete.. but if it were nt for these types of advance techs the game would not be lasting 10 years and counting... Look at brawl its obviously fading away, even tough wii had a much bigger instal base, brawl being a new game compared to melee. But its lack of depth, and advanced tech skills compared to melee has made it disappear almost. Yes there are a few tournaments here and there, but come on melee is coming back at evo and yes it was because people pay for it... but damn melee community is strong.

That is what I meant, the game has remained strong after these years because of the depth and reward you get when you keep dscovering and evolving the game after 12 years

That's got nothing to do with it.

Outside of staple fighting game techniques like special/super canceling, buffers and option selects, ST is one of the least technical games out there and yet has been going strong for close to 20 years.

A fighter with solid base mechanics that result in an exciting metagame will be played competitively for a while regardless of how many advanced techniques you need to learn to compete. Brawl's lack (I've read that Brawl also has a pretty extensive list of tricks, so that may not even be true) of advanced techniques is the least of its problems. It's just a poorly designed game from top to bottom.

 

[[Corn]]

I can't believe this is still a thing. You always want to L cancel, in the same way you always want edgeguard, or power shield. The depth involved comes from doing it successfully. Pretty sick of seeing the argument of choice. "Landing lag vs less landing is an obvious choice therefore there are no decisions to be made. (which isnt even true by the way, some characters dip down lower during missed cancels which allows them to bait and punish shield grabs from taller characters.) Nobody ever stopped to think, (barring low level play ) if l canceling is always advantageous, how come not every aerial is canceled. We could develop a work around by finding a magic number of frame advantage for blocked aerials. Something safe enough to make canceled moves good enough for pressure but punishable when hitting a raised shield, but then a different problem comes up. The game becomes dull, we've played the early brawl hacks haven't we?

There are very very very few situations that L canceling shouldnt be used. Ive never heard of someone willing not L canceling the large majority of their moves.

L canceling isnt comparable to edgeguarding or Power sheilding. Its simply an execution barrier and a "skill" that is required in high level play. It adds no depth if its used 99% of the time.

If it auto cancels what happens? The Casual community can get more involved and the comp community plays exactly the same, I dont understand the pride in having unnecessary execution barriers.

 

[John12346]

There's no such thing as auto L-cancelling, that's just the exact same thing as the dev team taking the landing lag animations for all characters and slashing them in half. There's no real point in that case... as it's an equal trade for all players, it's pointless.

However, with that in mind, if L-cancelling, automatic or not, is in Smash 4, it needs to be a situational tool, bar none. If it can be used in ALL situations like in Melee, then it would definitely become a little redundant, as there's little to no reason not to use it, and I agree with you on that point.

And this is the basis to my suggestion, in that, just as an example, landing lag is adjusted based on how close to the end of your aerial's animation you were when you landed. You get less of it if you land near the end of your attack for example. This would hardly alienate inexperienced players as it's a really intuitive feature that doesn't need to be explained(plus casual players have a habit of using aerials 5 miles up in the sky so they would defo. find out about it) and in turn it would also add utility to another facet of the game(using late/meaty aerials that don't hit as hard for more safety).

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

I agree with OP, I think L-cancel as we know it doesn't promote real skill, it just makes a barrier between those who do know how to use it and those who don't.

I'd be in favor of a system of L-canceling that promotes risk and reward. Instead of L-canceling on landing, you input it into the aerial, giving less damage allowing for strings of damage to be done in addition to juggling, and if you don't L-cancel it, it will be more powerful and provide more hit stun. If a player chooses the second option, it would put them in a much riskier situation but providing a much better reward. I think a system like this would be best complimented with an aerial tech system, which if timed corrected would allow players to tech weaker, L-canceled aerials.

This system isn't perfect and I'm by NO means an expert or any sort of skilled player, or someone who truly knows balance, but I feel this would provide for the best skill while providing fast paced gameplay. In this sort of system, you can have your bread and butter combos, those which can be broken out of my more skilled players. Also in this system is place for creativity, not choosing to L-cancel certain moves to place opponents in situations where they cannot tech and they are forced to follow up on it. Given mechanics like Smash-Di which we already have, no 2 encounters will ever be the same despite the same approach. It promotes skill among better players, doesn't make L-canceling just a thing you always have to do, rewards creativity and provides more interesting matches to watch on a spectator level.

Just some thoughts really, I personally think this would work, but again, I'm far from an expert.

 

[Chauzu]

I'm one of those who went through Melee without even hearing about l-cancel.

I agree with the argument that it doesn't add depth - just a nuisance.

 

[Strong Badam]

I can't believe this is still a thing. You always want to L cancel, in the same way you always want edgeguard, or power shield.

like, do you read what you're even posting? there are 400 different things your opponent can do while recovering. slightly mix up their timing, positioning, or even fastfall, or airdodge. recover high, recover low, recover at medium height, recover 2 pixels above medium height. you as a player are forced to interact with all of these things and your decision is not "do i edgeguard them? or do i let them recover?" it's "in what way do i edgeguard such that I cover as many options as i can, or in some cases cover the more likely options my opponent will use?" your argument would hold water if at top level play all edgeguards are converted, but this couldn't be further from the truth and what actually makes a successful edgeguard conversion so impressive. i am not impressed, ever, by an l-cancel.
powershielding is also completely different as it's a mechanic that provides depth in other ways. for example, at least in its melee incarnation, powershielding a regular attack causes more shield pushback but actually doesn't reduce shieldstun, but does allow the victim to perform grounded moves they are otherwise unable to perform while in shield (fsmash, dsmash, ftilt, utilt, dtilt, jab, downb, sideb). because of this, whether or not it's optimal to powershield a regular attack varies with your characters options, your opponents spacing/percent, and a variety of other factors. ps reflect does neither of these things, it simply reflects the projectile. however, the timing of it changes based on a variety of factors including your character's size, previous action's animation, shield size, and the opponent's projectile. the fact that players are still not able to powershield with anywhere close to 100% accuracy to this day is a testament to why this mechanic has actual depth.

this is competitive depth. not an artificial technical barrier. here's what's actually happening, bro. l-canceling is one of the few things you can do properly and you feel accomplished because you're able to do it with success. you cannot edgeguard effectively, your neutral game is probably even below average for people your level (you main falco, correct? yeah.), you haven't even begun to understand powershielding let alone apply it in game. so of all of these mechanics, the most endearment you hold is to l-canceling. congratulations, you can press buttons. let me know how far that gets you against an opponent that can press buttons and is smarter than you.

 

[smashbro29]

like, do you read what you're even posting? there are 400 different things your opponent can do while recovering. slightly mix up their timing, positioning, or even fastfall, or airdodge. recover high, recover low, recover at medium height, recover 2 pixels above medium height. you as a player are forced to interact with all of these things and your decision is not "do i edgeguard them? or do i let them recover?" it's "in what way do i edgeguard such that I cover as many options as i can, or in some cases cover the more likely options my opponent will use?" your argument would hold water if at top level play all edgeguards are converted, but this couldn't be further from the truth and what actually makes a successful edgeguard conversion so impressive. i am not impressed, ever, by an l-cancel.
powershielding is also completely different as it's a mechanic that provides depth in other ways. for example, at least in its melee incarnation, powershielding a regular attack causes more shield pushback but actually doesn't reduce shieldstun, but does allow the victim to perform grounded moves they are otherwise unable to perform while in shield (fsmash, dsmash, ftilt, utilt, dtilt, jab, downb, sideb). because of this, whether or not it's optimal to powershield a regular attack varies with your characters options, your opponents spacing/percent, and a variety of other factors. ps reflect does neither of these things, it simply reflects the projectile. however, the timing of it changes based on a variety of factors including your character's size, previous action's animation, shield size, and the opponent's projectile. the fact that players are still not able to powershield with anywhere close to 100% accuracy to this day is a testament to why this mechanic has actual depth.

this is competitive depth. not an artificial technical barrier. here's what's actually happening, bro. l-canceling is one of the few things you can do properly and you feel accomplished because you're able to do it with success. you cannot edgeguard effectively, your neutral game is probably even below average for people your level (you main falco, correct? yeah.), you haven't even begun to understand powershielding let alone apply it in game. so of all of these mechanics, the most endearment you hold is to l-canceling. congratulations, you can press buttons. let me know how far that gets you against an opponent that can press buttons and is smarter than you.

I'm with the annoying boxer kid from that one poker game.

L-cancels suck. Those are other things don't (though they should probably tweak them as they will everything).

 

[Vkrm]

like, do you read what you're even posting? there are 400 different things your opponent can do while recovering. slightly mix up their timing, positioning, or even fastfall, or airdodge. recover high, recover low, recover at medium height, recover 2 pixels above medium height. you as a player are forced to interact with all of these things and your decision is not "do i edgeguard them? or do i let them recover?" it's "in what way do i edgeguard such that I cover as many options as i can, or in some cases cover the more likely options my opponent will use?" your argument would hold water if at top level play all edgeguards are converted, but this couldn't be further from the truth and what actually makes a successful edgeguard conversion so impressive.

I'm never impressed by L cancels either. I'm am however impressed by good shield pressure, I get the impression so is everybody else when I watch mango's matches but that really has no relevance. The fact that not every aerial ends with a successful cancel is what I wanted to point out. Even good players drop them every once in awhile. That could start to happen more often if people start to utilize shield tilt. I consider altering the hitlag your opponent expects to be overall a pretty small amount depth, but if l cancel were to adjusted to include both a fail window and an alternate hitbox during landing (like 64) I would consider that to be way better then universal auto canceling. You probably think we should do everything we can to make the game as accessible as possible, and I can see the logic that, but I don't think that it'll boost tournament attendants or anything. Players who quit because of l canceling would find something else to quit about eventually.

powershielding is also completely different as it's a mechanic that provides depth in other ways. for example, at least in its melee incarnation, powershielding a regular attack causes more shield pushback but actually doesn't reduce shieldstun, but does allow the victim to perform grounded moves they are otherwise unable to perform while in shield (fsmash, dsmash, ftilt, utilt, dtilt, jab, downb, sideb). because of this, whether or not it's optimal to powershield a regular attack varies with your characters options, your opponents spacing/percent, and a variety of other factors. ps reflect does neither of these things, it simply reflects the projectile. however, the timing of it changes based on a variety of factors including your character's size, previous action's animation, shield size, and the opponent's projectile. the fact that players are still not able to powershield with anywhere close to 100% accuracy to this day is a testament to why this mechanic has actual depth.

.....is this an argument for how arbitrary difficulty can add depth? I'll start out by saying I had no idea that power shield didn't shorten shield stun. It was a bad example and you called me on it which is fine. If we were talking about brawl power shields, you would have no reason not to power shield everything that can be. I would still say this adds depth because of how hard of a read I would have to make to power shield properly. Then it becomes a choice, do I feel I can read or do I want something safer like adjusting my position or regular shielding. That's kind of a weak argument considering shielding and power shielding are the same input in brawl, but if you look at l cancel in the same light, the fact that I might not know too much about my opponents defensive habits might me apprehensive of risking a missed l cancel.

here's what's actually happening, bro. l-canceling is one of the few things you can do properly and you feel accomplished because you're able to do it with success. you cannot edgeguard effectively, your neutral game is probably even below average for people your level (you main falco, correct? yeah.), you haven't even begun to understand powershielding let alone apply it in game. so of all of these mechanics, the most endearment you hold is to l-canceling. congratulations, you can press buttons. let me know how far that gets you against an opponent that can press buttons and is smarter than you.

Pretty sure it says who I main under my smashboards ID, under my name bro. I actually consider myself a **** player compaired to the rest of the Vegas scene. I've got some vids up if you're interested.

 

[Nguz95]

I felt good about myself when i learned how to L-cancel. Maybe my expectations are a little low, but I don't want to give that feeling up.

 

[TreK]

The difference with powershielding is that it puts a technical barrier on the defense part of the game, and thus, it is a welcome technical barrier by everybody. The risk/reward ratio changes accordingly to what it should : IF you feel like taking risks, you are rewarded. If you don't, you are not rewarded. Lower skilled players who are not willing to take risks are not punished, they are just 'not rewarded'. Which is pretty much the same thing at high level play, but is a very different beast to casuals.

It also gives unique visual and oral feedback (as well as rumbles ? Idk, I've turned mine off), which makes it so everyone who's ever player Smash knows that this mechanic EXISTS. Feedback is an important part of game design : it tells people that they are doing stuff, the first step to being aware of a game's mechanics.
Not only do we have to explain how to L cancel to new melee players, we have to explain what it is. That's one of the reasons so many players think it is a glitch.
If L cancel had any sort of feedback, I'd actually be more okay with having it in Smash 4.

 

[FlowinWater]

You have l cancel to increase the skill gap. Period. Melee has lasted so long because of its gameplay and wide skill gap. Smash 4 better have it.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

You have l cancel to increase the skill gap. Period. Melee has lasted so long because of its gameplay and wide skill gap. Smash 4 better have it.

Wait...you're supporting the skill gap? You mean you actually want to exclude people from competitive play?

I...I'm not going to say anything more. If I did, I'd probably start devolving into personal attacks, and I really don't want to do that. Just know that I'm honestly disgusted by you.

 

[FlowinWater]

What is so disgusting about it? We are here to have a discussions aren't we?

L cancel not only adds input, it adds speed to the game, combo ability, and something that Must be practiced. How am I excluding people from competetive play? You want to compete? Go ahead, is not my fault you didn't practice L-canceling/wave dashing/dash dance etc.

Gamers now a days want everything given to them, Melee was both easy to play and hard to master. It shares a lot of characteristics with a sport, you can play basketball, but you will get balled up by someone that is really good, and to compete you practice and get better.

What is so wrong with this? This new generations of gamers are sooo lazy, games used to have depth and skill. Look by happens to Brawl, looked at happened to GOW, to Halo etc. games being dumb down to "appeal" to a bigger crowd and not leaving in the core mechanics. You can resort to personal attacks, but can't say I'll be offended, I am just here to have a discussion on my favorite game of all time.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

What is so disgusting about it? We are here to have a discussions aren't we?

L cancel not only adds input, it adds speed to the game, combo ability, and something that Must be practiced. How am I excluding people from competetive play? You want to compete? Go ahead, is not my fault you didn't practice L-canceling/wave dashing/dash dance etc.

Gamers now a days want everything given to them, Melee was both easy to play and hard to master. It shares a lot of characteristics with a sport, you can play basketball, but you will get balled up by someone that is really good, and to compete you practice and get better.

What is so wrong with this? This new generations of gamers are sooo lazy, games used to have depth and skill. Look by happens to Brawl, looked at happened to GOW, to Halo etc. games being dumb down to "appeal" to a bigger crowd and not leaving in the core mechanics. You can resort to personal attacks, but can't say I'll be offended, I am just here to have a discussion on my favorite game of all time.

The problem is L-canceling creates artificial skill. In game, for something there to be true skill involved, it involves mastering of a skill and implementation of that skill in situations that better players recognize. As it stands, there is no reason not to L-cancel, thus is just creates this artificial barrier between those players entering the game and those who have learned the game. One can argue that this is the whole point of something like L-canceling, but where is the skill in having to do something because there is no real alternative. It's not cutting core mechanics, it's tightening game design. For L-canceling to really work in smash bros again from a game design and a balance perspective, there needs to be pros and cons to using it, not just 'L-cancel every time because you're suppose to.' That just adds needless actions because EVERYONE will be doing it regardless.

I'm not sitting here saying that game speed is bad, I enjoy face paced play. But we can't just have another melee and call it a day. The core problem with L-canceling in melee is the no drawback aspect, there needs to be a system which promotes pros and cons.

 

[Vkrm]

You have l cancel to increase the skill gap. Period. Melee has lasted so long because of its gameplay and wide skill gap. Smash 4 better have it.

I think you're dead wrong about that. You make sound as if we were too busy perfecting L cancel to actually get at the decision making. Trying to get good at stage control and option coverage is whats taking so long.

 

[FlowinWater]

@ skater trainer


I don't understand your argument at all, there were pros and cons to it, if you played Falco (I was a falco main), and I missed my l cancel, I got grabbed and combo to death.

The L cancel balances it out some of the slower characters in the ground, look at the difference between Captain Falcon in 64, melee, to his uselessness in Brawl. Look at ganondorf, it allows slow characters to have a chance. Melee wasn't all technical skill I understand that, but he'll it gave you options. You could be a Tech crazy Dashizwiz or a smart player like Hungrybox.

The game is enhanced in every aspect the more you control the character, you are faster, less lag, can react quicker, can do more damage with combos etc.

Skill is skill, nothing is artificial, artificial is you give something to a player that isn't earned.

In melee there were sooo many play styles, to M2Ks gimps and edge guards, mangos aggressiveness, Hbox spacing, dr peepers defensive play, Armadas air priority game etc. why? Because you chose to have a technical, smart, or a combination of both skills to the game.

I'll bring basketball up again, you should learn how to dribble the ball, but you have people that are shooting specialists, can drive to the hoop, low post players etc.

I don't understand the artificial concept you are arguing. The best smash bros we have had by popular demand was melee. The new one should combine the best of all three, the combos from the 64, the speed and movement of melee, and the defensive style from Brawl.
With that, you have a wide skill gap, with more playable characters at a high level, and a lot of play styles.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

@ skater trainer


I don't understand your argument at all, there were pros and cons to it, if you played Falco (I was a falco main), and I missed my l cancel, I got grabbed and combo to death.

The L cancel balances it out some of the slower characters in the ground, look at the difference between Captain Falcon in 64, melee, to his uselessness in Brawl. Look at ganondorf, it allows slow characters to have a chance. Melee wasn't all technical skill I understand that, but he'll it gave you options. You could be a Tech crazy Dashizwiz or a smart player like Hungrybox.

The game is enhanced in every aspect the more you control the character, you are faster, less lag, can react quicker, can do more damage with combos etc.

Skill is skill, nothing is artificial, artificial is you give something to a player that isn't earned.

In melee there were sooo many play styles, to M2Ks gimps and edge guards, mangos aggressiveness, Hbox spacing, dr peepers defensive play, Armadas air priority game etc. why? Because you chose to have a technical, smart, or a combination of both skills to the game.

I'll bring basketball up again, you should learn how to dribble the ball, but you have people that are shooting specialists, can drive to the hoop, low post players etc.

I don't understand the artificial concept you are arguing. The best smash bros we have had by popular demand was melee. The new one should combine the best of all three, the combos from the 64, the speed and movement of melee, and the defensive style from Brawl.
With that, you have a wide skill gap, with more playable characters at a high level, and a lot of play styles.

L-canceling was not the sole reason for speed of melee. Hitstun was the driving factor as combos were actually possible. L-canceling provides faster movement, I'm not sitting here to argue that, but it's artificial skill. It's simply something you always have to do, from a design standpoint and even a competitive stand point it's stupid. You even pointed out how if you dropped an L-cancel you die, that IS NOT a pro-con situation. A pro-con situation is where you choose not to L-cancel and still gain a benefit depending on a situation.

The crux of the argument is that L-canceling in it's melee form is a mechanic that should not be implemented in future iterations. I'm not going to sit here and argue melee metagame, I'm not experienced enough and I don't have the wealth of knowledge it would take to discuss that as a whole. Regardless L-canceling as a mechanic found in 64/Melee is mindless. There is no con to NOT L-canceling. Where is the skill in that? You learn the skill and master it, from there on out you keep doing it without fail. I'm not arguing that it doesn't lead to faster gameplay, I'm arguing that as a mechanic it does not promote skill. I'm all for faster gameplay, you can refer to my post further up on the page, #289. For a mechanic like L-canceling to work, there has to be pros and cons to the system, it can't just be you do this every time because. Using the analogy used by the OP, instead of pressing the jump button, we have to use quarter circle forward to jump. It doesn't make a game more competitive or better if we are just adding artificial skill to the game. Again this isn't an argument on whether or not the speed of the game is better to watch, it's an argument on the system itself, I have to make that clear.

 

[DefenseTech]

L cancel not only adds input, it adds speed to the game, combo ability, and something that Must be practiced

You can add speed to a game without including a redundant and mindless mechanic

As it stands, there is no reason not to L-cancel, thus is just creates this artificial barrier between those players entering the game and those who have learned the game. One can argue that this is the whole point of something like L-canceling, but where is the skill in having to do something because there is no real alternative. It's not cutting core mechanics, it's tightening game design. For L-canceling to really work in smash bros again from a game design and a balance perspective, there needs to be pros and cons to using it, not just 'L-cancel every time because you're suppose to.' That just adds needless actions because EVERYONE will be doing it regardless.

I'm not sitting here saying that game speed is bad, I enjoy face paced play. But we can't just have another melee and call it a day. The core problem with L-canceling in melee is the no drawback aspect, there needs to be a system which promotes pros and cons.

This guy is a genius...

Excellent points and one of the best arguments against L-canceling I have seen thus far

No one can seem to produce a situation when L-canceling is NOT advantageous...Regardless of how your opponent defends himself (tilting shield)

Even the "I didnt L-cancel intentionally as a bait" argument doesn't hold water in my opinion because it is a gamble at best, momentarily putting you at a disadvantage

 

[FlowinWater]

@ skater trainer

Oh I see what you are trying to say, but with that argument in my opinion you are thinking too much on it. There is always the best way to do something, going with what you are thinking is not really smash brothers anymore and you stray away from a formula that thousands of people still play competitively. Why change something if it isn't broken?

Everyone wants a good game, Brawl to me was garbage, it emphasized slow defensive gameplay with gimps and hit and run tactics with no strong offense to counter. Worse you had mechanics like tripping. I want a game that I can have fun with my family, as well as play seriously with people who are good. No lie I am a melee fanboy, my favorite game of all time, but another dumbed down game is not the way to go. No need to change the formula.

Do you play GGX? So roman canceling should be removed because it has no pros and cons? (Similar to l cancel)? I see what you are dying, but no need to reinvent the wheel here.

 

[Sedda]

That's very nice.

Though you know what would make me very happy panda?

If you would kindly answer the question.

Z/L cancelling is the action of pressing Z/L on SSB64 OR SSBM while landing after performing an aerial, which cuts out the landing lag by 100% in SSB64 and 50% in SSBM

-woops. already answered.

ANYWAY, for those who say that Melee has only lasted 10 years because of the technical barriers, I would ARGUE that the scene would actually be bigger if there wasn't a stupid technical barrier dividing people.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

@ skater trainer

Oh I see what you are trying to say, but with that argument in my opinion you are thinking too much on it. There is always the best way to do something, going with what you are thinking is not really smash brothers anymore and you stray away from a formula that thousands of people still play competitively. Why change something if it isn't broken?

Everyone wants a good game, Brawl to me was garbage, it emphasized slow defensive gameplay with gimps and hit and run tactics with no strong offense to counter. Worse you had mechanics like tripping. I want a game that I can have fun with my family, as well as play seriously with people who are good. No lie I am a melee fanboy, my favorite game of all time, but another dumbed down game is not the way to go. No need to change the formula.

Do you play GGX? So roman canceling should be removed because it has no pros and cons? (Similar to l cancel)? I see what you are dying, but no need to reinvent the wheel here.

Well this entire thread is thinking too much on it. We can't control the development of the game and whether we like it or not, we have no choice in what's included, so we might as well just talk game/balance theory as a whole. This entire thread is just for people to share their opinions on what they believe is the best direction for the series. The "if it's not broken, don't fix it" argument is flawed in nature. By that standard, we will never see any progression or evolution. Airdodging wasn't in Super Smash Bros, but was included in melee, it wasn't changing the formula, it was adding onto the series as a mechanic. The last thing I want is a 62 v2 or a melee v2 or a brawl v2. Just because people enjoy it competitively, doesn't mean it can't change. Look at street fighter, MvC, tekken, and any other fighter, the core concepts stay in place and while previous versions were played and enjoyed competitively by thousands of players didn't stop change and evolution. Some changes are hit and some are miss, thus is the nature of progress.

I will agree to disagree. I enjoyed brawl for different reasons than I enjoy melee. I enjoyed the slow pace, I understand it's not everyone's personal preference. I understand there are broken mechanics but overall I think it's a fairly balanced game. From a balance perspective, I can argue it's more balanced than melee. Taking out metaknight, one can argue nearly 85% of the cast is playable, whereas you can't say the same for melee. The mechanics were poor on for a competitive atmosphere, but that doesn't mean it didn't work in a competitive atmosphere.

In recent interviews, Sakurai stated he's trying to find a balance between melee and brawl, I think as a whole, we don't really have to worry about another dumbed down game. We can't really comment on the 'playable' E3 demo because it was only played by devs and the game is still in development with about six months to a year left of development. Basing a game off it's initial trailers is just foolish as games change whilst in development, the brawl demo, for example was run on a modified melee engine, which included L-canceling. We have to wait and see until right before development to really pass judgment on footage.

I've never played GGX, never seen it played, and no absolutely nothing about it, so I can't really comment on it.

 

[FlowinWater]

@ seda

The scene is not excluding you, you want to compete you have to practice, that argument doesn't hold water since the Brawl scene doesn't come close to the melee scene.

@defense tech

I see what you two are arguing, and I counter how is me being punished for being aggressive not a con? L cancels allow more control and increase the offensive potential of a character. You guys are thinking to much into a game when all other successful competetive games have one formula, stick to it, and go with it. There is a reason Brawl is not being played as much as a 12 year old game.

 

[DefenseTech]

There is always the best way to do something, going with what you are thinking is not really smash brothers anymore and you stray away from a formula that thousands of people still play competitively. Why change something if it isn't broken?

The mechanic is broken, it has no drawback. L-canceling is ONLY ever a good thing to do...That is a perfect definition of a broken mechanic

I want a game that I can have fun with my family, as well as play seriously with people who are good. No lie I am a melee fanboy, my favorite game of all time, but another dumbed down game is not the way to go.

The exclusion of L-canceling does not guarantee a dumb'd down game

No need to change the formula.

There is a need to change the formula, they have been changing the formula since melee

Z-canceling was a mistake in SSB64...100% lag reduction...So what did they do? L-canceling was cut to 50% lag reduction in melee

They wanted to appeal to a broader demographic of gamers with brawl...So what did they do? Slowed the game down

Now they want to create a happy medium between melee and brawl...

And it is my opinion that L-canceling would NOT be the BEST mechanic to bridge the gap between two very different games

 

[IhaveSonar]

I agree with OP on this issue. L-cancelling serves as an artificial tech skill barrier that, in my experience, deters casual players from attempting to raise their level of gameplay. When faced with the prospect of L-cancelling, all of my friends have elected not to use it simply because it's an annoying, unnecessary button press that they have to invest time in learning when they could be practicing the other, more exciting aspects of the game.

Long story short, it should be automatic.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

I see what you two are arguing, and I counter how is me being punished for being aggressive not a con? L cancels allow more control and increase the offensive potential of a character. You guys are thinking to much into a game when all other successful competetive games have one formula, stick to it, and go with it. There is a reason Brawl is not being played as much as a 12 year old game.

Again you're missing the point. Being aggressive is an active choice by the player, it's not a direct result of L-canceling. There is no con to L-canceling, there is a con to playing too aggressively. Those are two completely different things. Again, we aren't saying L-cancels aren't good in melee, but the metagame evolved around the mechanic. It's a flawed mechanic. The whole point of this thread is to think into game balance theory, as previously stated the 'isn't broken, don't fixed it' mentality is flawed by nature. You're entire reference to brawl is just a jab at the game and not relevant to the discussion.

 

[FlowinWater]

@ skater trainer

I appreciate the discussion man.


Just from my point of view, Brawl wasn't satisfying and fun. It was a camp feat with limited options and there really is only one way to play it. That wasn't fun, just like you can argue about Brawl having balance, I can do the same for Melee. Melee had sheik, marth, jiggly puff, falco, fox, captain falcon, ganondorf, peach, doc, and samus that can be played to a really high level. L cancels do allow you to be more aggressive, since you greatly reduce the change of getting shield grabbed/punish. I try to be aggressive in brawl and I get gimped faster then I can say hello. No options whatsoever.

Didn't play Brawl to much, but from watching the tournaments on YouTube the character usages wasn't as broad as melee :/.

I love smash bros, and I am sure you do to, I jusst want a good game and not to be disappointed again.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

@ skater trainer

I appreciate the discussion man.


Just from my point of view, Brawl wasn't satisfying and fun. It was a camp feat with limited options and there really is only one way to play it. That wasn't fun, just like you can argue about Brawl having balance, I can do the same for Melee. Melee had sheik, marth, jiggly puff, falco, fox, captain falcon, ganondorf, peach, doc, and samus that can be played to a really high level.

Didn't play Brawl to much, but from watching the tournaments on YouTube the character usages wasn't as broad as melee :/.

I love smash bros, and I am sure you do to, I just want a good game and not to be disappointed again.

Again, player preference exists, no one person is right on what they prefer. You may not enjoy the campy style of brawl, that's your prerogative and we can't really make you enjoy anything.

That's 37% of the melee cast. In a balance discussion, looking at brawl characters as a whole from a balance perspective, in a metagame without an over dominance of metaknight, Every character from Ice Climbers to above Samus on the current tier list is fairly viable in a bubble. For the sake of the argument I won't bring that in because it's complete irrelevant in a bubble, but looking at SS tier to C tier, which are really the only viable tournament characters in brawl with some exceptions, it's 46% of the cast. If you're just looking at raw data.

 

[[Corn]]

The mechanic is broken, it has no drawback. L-canceling is ONLY ever a good thing to do...That is a perfect definition of a broken mechanic




The exclusion of L-canceling does not guarantee a dumb'd down game




There is a need to change the formula, they have been changing the formula since melee

Z-canceling was a mistake in SSB64...100% lag reduction...So what did they do? L-canceling was cut to 50% lag reduction in melee

They wanted to appeal to a broader demographic of gamers with brawl...So what did they do? Slowed the game down

Now they want to create a happy medium between melee and brawl...

And it is my opinion that L-canceling would NOT be the BEST mechanic to bridge the gap between two very different games

This is perfect logic and reasoning. I am happy with the explanations given here.


Making Air Attacks Have Less Ending Lag/Auto L Cancel/Whatever would decrease the skill floor of this game, has no effect on gameplay. More players is always a good thing if it doesnt harm the game. Simply put, making a meleeish type hitstun and movement control with brawl airdodge mechanics and auto L canceling sound like the exact boundary between casual and comp players.

L cancels do allow you to be more aggressive, since you greatly reduce the change of getting shield grabbed/punish. I try to be aggressive in brawl and I get gimped faster then I can say hello. No options whatsoever.

No one in this thread is talking about removing the effect l cancels have on aerial, rather having the input for them removed. Everything would stay exactly the same in terms of looks and gameplay. The only change would that people wouldnt have to press l every time they jumped. Brawls lag after air attacks was flawed, dont mention it at all. Compare Marths Fair to Ganons Fair if you dont think so.

 

[Vkrm]

@ Skip trainer was the data made to reflect that mid to lower tier mains almost never have to play their bad matchups in brawl? The brawl meta game has evolved to the point everybody seems to play 2 or 3 characters, because there's no reason not to. It might be more beneficial to how many of the games matchup are bad to unnwinable instead how high mid tier mains place.

 

[[Corn]]

Was data made to reflect that mid to lower tier mains almost never have to play their bad matchups in brawl? The brawl meta game has evolved to the point everybody seems to play 2 or 3 characters, because there's no reason not to.

Remove Meta and literally half the cast becomes viable.

What you said makes no sense. Counterpicking is a staple in gameplay. Every single character has bad matchups/stages in brawl bar meta who shouldnt even be mentioned.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

Was data made to reflect that mid to lower tier mains almost never have to play their bad matchups in brawl? The brawl meta game has evolved to the point everybody seems to play 2 or 3 characters, because there's no reason not to.

Of the characters previously mentioned, I think we can both agree that Fox, Falco, Marth, Shiek, Jiggly, CF, and Peach see the most play right?

In brawl MK, Snake, Ice Climbers, Diddy, Olimar, Marth, Falco, Pika, ZZS, and Wario all see play. I'm just going off of what is being played. All I did after that was divide the number of used characters by the cast number. So in brawl SS to C tier is 17 character, divided by the cast: 46%. I used the previously mentioned characters divided by the cast: 36%. I'm not compensating for anything.

Remove Meta and literally half the cast becomes viable.

What you said makes no sense. Counterpicking is a staple in gameplay. Every single character has bad matchups/stages in brawl bar meta who shouldnt even be mentioned.

This so hard. Metaknight is the main imbalance in brawl, every character from about Ice Climbers to Mario is 'viable' in brawl without metaknight.

 

[Aidebit]

Of the characters previously mentioned, I think we can both agree that Fox, Falco, Marth, Shiek, Jiggly, CF, and Peach see the most play right?

In brawl MK, Snake, Ice Climbers, Diddy, Olimar, Marth, Falco, Pika, ZZS, and Wario all see play. I'm just going off of what is being played. All I did after that was divide the number of used characters by the cast number. So in brawl SS to C tier is 17 character, divided by the cast: 46%. I used the previously mentioned characters divided by the cast: 36%. I'm not compensating for anything.

Why are we calculating the usage? Why not calculate the viability of each character?

This so hard. Metaknight is the main imbalance in brawl, every character from about Ice Climbers to Mario is 'viable' in brawl without metaknight.

Agreed, many characters are deemed useless because of their MK Matchup.

 

[nLiM8d]

My question is whether or not there is a way to augment the current state of this action in a way that adds different outcomes per character. Is there a way to include depth?

For some reason Pokemon moves came to mind, High jump kick in particular. The move will inflict damage on the user if it misses the target.

No doubt some moves are more effective than others in the damage that it yields or the time that it takes to recover.; it makes sense to me to have some benefit in being conscious of these attributes. I think perhaps I might be dense in recognizing how the subject leads to artificial skill barriers, there must be some sort of progression in respect to how mechanics relate to efficiency in one's play style.

Could you explain what you are trying to say in greater detail

I can certainly do my best, again once I think I have a grasp on something, often times I'm way off.

So what I'm hearing in this discussion is that the action of L-canceling is an artificial skill, if everybody's doing it then its only conditional to gameplay.

What I'm trying to understand is why an included mechanic would be an artificial resource. If every character jumps, does that make the action conditional? Its a poor way of looking at things because this conversation is in the interest of how certain aspects of gameplay actually contribute to depth alongside competitive play.

My concern is whether something like L-canceling can actually contribute to that depth. If utilized properly, can it make a difference mechanically? Sakurai mentioned briefly in his developer direct that every character has systems, what could that mean exactly? I trust that most of you here have a general idea, that certain moves have specific properties and characteristics.

Please help me along, I don't know how confusing this is outside of my own perspective.

 

[[Corn]]

My question is whether or not there is a way to augment the current state of this action in a way that adds different outcomes per character. Is there a way to include depth?

For some reason Pokemon moves came to mind, High jump kick in particular. The move will inflict damage on the user if it misses the target.

No doubt some moves are more effective than others in the damage that it yields or the time that it takes to recover.; it makes sense to me to have some benefit in being conscious of these attributes. I think perhaps I might be dense in recognizing how the subject leads to artificial skill barriers, there must be some sort of progression in respect to how mechanics relate to efficiency in one's play style.

Could you explain what you are trying to say in greater detail? I am confused at to what you mean.

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

Why are we calculating the usage? Why not calculate the viability of each character?

Because that's only possible in a bubble, the best viability we have is usage and tier placing