A proposal regarding Automatic L-Canceling

[4tlas]

Everybody already has perfect L-cancels, from mid/low-level play upwards. That's why many people are arguing that it's redundant, since current meta is taking into assumption that you never miss a single one. People bring up missing L-cancels on purpose to try bait opponents in and punish that (maybe power-shield > anything), but let's be real...I can't name a single person I know who does that lol.

I'd like to contest the claim that everyone has near perfect L-cancels. However I'm going to contest my own claim because I want to be thorough.

1) Anecdotal evidence in this case can disprove your claim because I only need to find one person (or many, since its obvious that you didn't truly mean everyone) who has non-perfect L-cancels. To that end I provide as evidence my entire scene. Often my opponents check their L-cancel percent, and for good players I usually see anywhere from 70-95%. I also know that I personally do not L-cancel and still play well, though I don't think 1 person is reasonable evidence.

2) One tournament we had someone turning on Auto-L-cancelling to see it in action and forgetting to turn it off. People only noticed because they got suspicious from getting 100% multiple times. That suggests 1) they are used to not getting 100% and 2) they imagine themselves as landing most L-cancels, otherwise they would have noticed long before seeing 100% that something was off. This is evidence in both directions.

3) On a similar note, I think that turning on auto-L-cancelling without telling people would actually work as long as the flash and L-cancel stat still pretended to be manual. Unfortunately that is not how it is coded at present (the code literally forces an L-cancel on every single landing) and I don't know if its possible. A man can dream!

4) I think L-cancelling is a bad mechanic even if its assumed that some people can do it and others can't. Just because it takes skill doesn't mean it takes skill that is relevant to gameplay. Pressing buttons without decision-making is exactly what Smash is NOT about. Players don't need to have perfect L-cancelling to prove that the mechanic is unnecessary.

 

[Taytertot]

personally i see it as being the same as technical skills in any sport. If a person was given the automatic ability to throw a football perfectly every time without the need for practice then that would take away from the achievement of perfecting the skill. yes having a more or less perfect L-cancel rate is kinda a given in competitive play but having technical skills and a mastery over all fundamentals of the game is part of what makes the game so appealing. having a high skill ceiling gives players a large amount to improve on. imagine if you could press a button during a short hop that made you automatically SHFFL you're aerial perfectly. following down that path is kinda a slippery slope towards making the game too easy to play effectively. I certainly know that as a low level player i wouldnt feel nearly as accomplished with my progress if things like L-canceling were made automatic.

 

[4tlas]

personally i see it as being the same as technical skills in any sport. If a person was given the automatic ability to throw a football perfectly every time without the need for practice then that would take away from the achievement of perfecting the skill. yes having a more or less perfect L-cancel rate is kinda a given in competitive play but having technical skills and a mastery over all fundamentals of the game is part of what makes the game so appealing. having a high skill ceiling gives players a large amount to improve on. imagine if you could press a button during a short hop that made you automatically SHFFL you're aerial perfectly. following down that path is kinda a slippery slope towards making the game too easy to play effectively. I certainly know that as a low level player i wouldnt feel nearly as accomplished with my progress if things like L-canceling were made automatic.

However, this is not a sport, which are tests of physical ability and decision-making skill, but a game, which can be a test of whatever skills it is designed to. Smash was designed to be the fighter that used simple inputs and game mechanics. The control scheme was made as simplistic as possible. L-cancelling is a control issue with no decision-making aspect: hence it is inappropriate for Smash. The reason why manual L-cancelling has a place at all is because some people may enjoy that extra challenge, which is fair. It is however not reasonable to expect that requirement of others. Being proud of yourself for accomplishing L-cancelling is the flipside of scoffing at those who cannot. Hopefully someday players who wish to take on and enjoy that extra challenge can do so without ruining the game for others.

 

[Taytertot]

However, this is not a sport, which are tests of physical ability and decision-making skill, but a game, which can be a test of whatever skills it is designed to. Smash was designed to be the fighter that used simple inputs and game mechanics. The control scheme was made as simplistic as possible. L-cancelling is a control issue with no decision-making aspect: hence it is inappropriate for Smash. The reason why manual L-cancelling has a place at all is because some people may enjoy that extra challenge, which is fair. It is however not reasonable to expect that requirement of others. Being proud of yourself for accomplishing L-cancelling is the flipside of scoffing at those who cannot. Hopefully someday players who wish to take on and enjoy that extra challenge can do so without ruining the game for others.

i do see your point but i disagree with it not being a sport. yes esports is still not completely accepted as legitimate but i think that competitive gaming has just as much right to be regarded as a mental sport as a board game (the most prominent being Chess probably, though im sure Go and many others are up there as well). personally i see the game design of smash to definitely be tests of physical ability and decision-making skill (i think decision making in smash is so important a skill in competitive smash that i almost feel the need to list it several times as apart of the game design). games can be a test of what the game maker chooses and i think that competitive smash tests technical prowess, decision making, fundamentals (like spacing, DDing, WDing, combo execution etc.) and an understanding of game physics. i feel that nintendo's vision of smash was meant to be simple inputs and game mechanics but whether that is the intention of the competitive scene is a different matter. i dont mean to say that i think your reason is poor because i completely understand that it would open up the competitive scene much more and there wouldnt be so much hate for the competence of newer players (which is an aspect of the smash community that i am disappointed in), but i think that the community needs to have a different outlook on the skill level of newer players and that that is a different topic. i do think itd be interesting to see how the competitive community would grow if auto L-canceling were allowed but, im curious why you feel that that extra challenge ruins the game for others?

 

[ECHOnce]

I'd like to contest the claim that everyone has near perfect L-cancels. However I'm going to contest my own claim because I want to be thorough.

1) Anecdotal evidence in this case can disprove your claim because I only need to find one person (or many, since its obvious that you didn't truly mean everyone) who has non-perfect L-cancels. To that end I provide as evidence my entire scene. Often my opponents check their L-cancel percent, and for good players I usually see anywhere from 70-95%. I also know that I personally do not L-cancel and still play well, though I don't think 1 person is reasonable evidence.

2) One tournament we had someone turning on Auto-L-cancelling to see it in action and forgetting to turn it off. People only noticed because they got suspicious from getting 100% multiple times. That suggests 1) they are used to not getting 100% and 2) they imagine themselves as landing most L-cancels, otherwise they would have noticed long before seeing 100% that something was off. This is evidence in both directions.

Just as you pointed out that using one person as evidence is not enough, using one scene is not enough. It could very well be an outlier, both in terms of self-interpreted skill, actual skill when compared to other scenes, standards for skill levels, individual player habits, and community-wide habits that many players seem to share. When I say low-mid level players being reasonably consistent with L-cancelling (90% up; "perfect" is an exaggeration, but is often the case), I'm taking this from knowledge of multiple scenes that grow separately from one another and may not interact often outside of regional/major tournies. I may also have a different standard for recognizing player skill - I consider the majority of scenes to have low to low-mid level players up to somewhere in the top 10 ranked in state, and mids occupying the top half. And in some cases, top level players occupying the top few slots, pushing the others down a few. But just as our standards may not be universal, so are our scenes. My scene could very well be much stronger/weaker than yours, or both somewhere along the US average. Age of the scene, and it's experience with each game, also plays a huge part in that. I digressed; the "evidence" you've gathered isn't substantial to make a valid point. Nor was my assumption, which I took for granted considering the time it takes to learn L-cancelling.

3) On a similar note, I think that turning on auto-L-cancelling without telling people would actually work as long as the flash and L-cancel stat still pretended to be manual. Unfortunately that is not how it is coded at present (the code literally forces an L-cancel on every single landing) and I don't know if its possible. A man can dream!

The L-cancelling % really isn't as important to players who can do it consistently as some make it out to be. Rather, they just never mess up, and are aware of the one or two potential instances where they did miss any, so they have no need to check. It's only useful for players who're still practicing; whether the L-cancel % stays, is removed, or shows a pseudo count of how many the player would have L-cancelled without ALC, is negligible to anyone besides those who're already benefiting from ALC (and may not care to check it anyhow if it's made automatic).

4) I think L-cancelling is a bad mechanic even if its assumed that some people can do it and others can't. Just because it takes skill doesn't mean it takes skill that is relevant to gameplay. Pressing buttons without decision-making is exactly what Smash is NOT about. Players don't need to have perfect L-cancelling to prove that the mechanic is unnecessary.

Many of us agree (check first page). I'm still of the belief that, in the context of PM, implementing ALC as a toggle-able option for each player (like tapjump) would be for the best, if possible. It would be a huge step towards accommodating and keeping incoming players from the Smash 4 scene. But at the same time, just as toggled tapjump is a setback for many new players transitioning from any game to Melee, so would the ALC toggle. Melee scene might be strong, but it's still pretty questionable to offer accommodations that do have setbacks...especially when those accommodations are for something as minor as one of the easiest tech that can be grinded out into muscle memory within a week. (a month for those having more difficulty, tops, so long as there is sincere 10-15min of daily practice on just L-cancelling, +occasional friendlies to integrate it into play.)

 

[ECHOnce]

personally i see it as being the same as technical skills in any sport. If a person was given the automatic ability to throw a football perfectly every time without the need for practice then that would take away from the achievement of perfecting the skill. yes having a more or less perfect L-cancel rate is kinda a given in competitive play but having technical skills and a mastery over all fundamentals of the game is part of what makes the game so appealing. having a high skill ceiling gives players a large amount to improve on. imagine if you could press a button during a short hop that made you automatically SHFFL you're aerial perfectly. following down that path is kinda a slippery slope towards making the game too easy to play effectively. I certainly know that as a low level player i wouldnt feel nearly as accomplished with my progress if things like L-canceling were made automatic.

However, this is not a sport, which are tests of physical ability and decision-making skill, but a game, which can be a test of whatever skills it is designed to. Smash was designed to be the fighter that used simple inputs and game mechanics. The control scheme was made as simplistic as possible. L-cancelling is a control issue with no decision-making aspect: hence it is inappropriate for Smash. The reason why manual L-cancelling has a place at all is because some people may enjoy that extra challenge, which is fair. It is however not reasonable to expect that requirement of others. Being proud of yourself for accomplishing L-cancelling is the flipside of scoffing at those who cannot. Hopefully someday players who wish to take on and enjoy that extra challenge can do so without ruining the game for others.

i do see your point but i disagree with it not being a sport. yes esports is still not completely accepted as legitimate but i think that competitive gaming has just as much right to be regarded as a mental sport as a board game (the most prominent being Chess probably, though im sure Go and many others are up there as well). personally i see the game design of smash to definitely be tests of physical ability and decision-making skill (i think decision making in smash is so important a skill in competitive smash that i almost feel the need to list it several times as apart of the game design). games can be a test of what the game maker chooses and i think that competitive smash tests technical prowess, decision making, fundamentals (like spacing, DDing, WDing, combo execution etc.) and an understanding of game physics. i feel that nintendo's vision of smash was meant to be simple inputs and game mechanics but whether that is the intention of the competitive scene is a different matter. i dont mean to say that i think your reason is poor because i completely understand that it would open up the competitive scene much more and there wouldnt be so much hate for the competence of newer players (which is an aspect of the smash community that i am disappointed in), but i think that the community needs to have a different outlook on the skill level of newer players and that that is a different topic. i do think itd be interesting to see how the competitive community would grow if auto L-canceling were allowed but, im curious why you feel that that extra challenge ruins the game for others?

The game-vs-sport analogy is pretty common. What usually sets them apart - as you guys sorta touch on - is the use of sport rules, and game laws. In sports, we set guidelines on what we should do and be limited by; we could easily just pick up a soccer ball and run with it to the goal, but allowing for such an easy scoring to happen wouldn't be challenging. More rules (limitations) give sports more depth. In games, players are given different "laws of physics" as a start, and then push the boundaries as much as they can within those laws. More laws (limitations) take away from the game's potential depth.

This analogy isn't very thorough, since rules and laws apply in both situations. In real life, we abide by laws in sports by training our thought process, our reactions, and our body, and abide by the rules when making decisions in play. Rules are there to limit disorganization and unfairness. Initially, there isn't any debate over the disabling of laws, because we take for granted that it's a given rite-of-passage that everyone kinda has to go through. But then steroids come into play. ALC modding. The ability to change the laws of the sport/game. While no actual rules against steroids or ALC were made in the first place, it suddenly becomes an ethical issue - it would make it easier for newer generations to get into the game, but that's bad because X. Everyone else had to go through the trouble before this, and skipping out wouldn't be fair. Abiding by the formerly limiting laws is better for new players, since they may learn new skills or otherwise grow from putting in the extra effort or overcoming the challenge (better fitness/tech consistency. Better mindset when met with a challenge, and better recognition of new challenges and how to handle them...I provide several examples on the first page). The ALC debate has been in limbo at the "if/how it should be implemented" stage, with reference to feasible technical issues and ethics. To move beyond this point, we need to either bring up completely new ideas, or receive a go ahead. Neither of which have happened for the months or years of repeated arguments lol. We're just regurgitating old ideas for more people to see and take sides, which doesn't affect those that hold any power of decision (who're presumably well-read in our perspectives already)

 

[Scribe]

The game-vs-sport analogy is pretty common. What usually sets them apart - as you guys sorta touch on - is the use of sport rules, and game laws. In sports, we set guidelines on what we should do and be limited by; we could easily just pick up a soccer ball and run with it to the goal, but allowing for such an easy scoring to happen wouldn't be challenging. More rules (limitations) give sports more depth. In games, players are given different "laws of physics" as a start, and then push the boundaries as much as they can within those laws. More laws (limitations) take away from the game's potential depth.

This analogy isn't very thorough, since rules and laws apply in both situations. In real life, we abide by laws in sports by training our thought process, our reactions, and our body, and abide by the rules when making decisions in play. Rules are there to limit disorganization and unfairness. Initially, there isn't any debate over the disabling of laws, because we take for granted that it's a given rite-of-passage that everyone kinda has to go through. But then steroids come into play. ALC modding. The ability to change the laws of the sport/game. While no actual rules against steroids or ALC were made in the first place, it suddenly becomes an ethical issue - it would make it easier for newer generations to get into the game, but that's bad because X. Everyone else had to go through the trouble before this, and skipping out wouldn't be fair. Abiding by the formerly limiting laws is better for new players, since they may learn new skills or otherwise grow from putting in the extra effort or overcoming the challenge (better fitness/tech consistency. Better mindset when met with a challenge, and better recognition of new challenges and how to handle them...I provide several examples on the first page). The ALC debate has been in limbo at the "if/how it should be implemented" stage, with reference to feasible technical issues and ethics. To move beyond this point, we need to either bring up completely new ideas, or receive a go ahead. Neither of which have happened for the months or years of repeated arguments lol. We're just regurgitating old ideas for more people to see and take sides, which doesn't affect those that hold any power of decision (who're presumably well-read in our perspectives already)

The steroids analogy kinda falls apart when you consider that ALC would be a factor within the rules/laws of the game, while dealing with steroids is a matter of determining whether or not an outside factor should be allowed to impact the game. L-canceling is a legitimate thing, while PEDs are a method of cheating. In the case of esports, the use of steroids are more akin to modded controllers with turbo or macro buttons, or if you wanna be literal about it, the use of adderall as a performance-enhancing drug in esports.

As a side note, I've actually been thinking on Smash 64 Z-canceling and how that would play out in a Melee like environment.

For those not familiar with Smash 64, the gist of it is that rather than reducing the move's base end lag, Z/L-canceling in normal fall makes you go through the same landing lag as an empty jump, and Z/L-canceling in fast fall has a landing lag equal to twice that. It also has a longer frame window (11 frames, to be exact).

 

[4tlas]

i do see your point but i disagree with it not being a sport. yes esports is still not completely accepted as legitimate but i think that competitive gaming has just as much right to be regarded as a mental sport as a board game (the most prominent being Chess probably, though im sure Go and many others are up there as well). personally i see the game design of smash to definitely be tests of physical ability and decision-making skill (i think decision making in smash is so important a skill in competitive smash that i almost feel the need to list it several times as apart of the game design). games can be a test of what the game maker chooses and i think that competitive smash tests technical prowess, decision making, fundamentals (like spacing, DDing, WDing, combo execution etc.) and an understanding of game physics. i feel that nintendo's vision of smash was meant to be simple inputs and game mechanics but whether that is the intention of the competitive scene is a different matter. i dont mean to say that i think your reason is poor because i completely understand that it would open up the competitive scene much more and there wouldnt be so much hate for the competence of newer players (which is an aspect of the smash community that i am disappointed in), but i think that the community needs to have a different outlook on the skill level of newer players and that that is a different topic. i do think itd be interesting to see how the competitive community would grow if auto L-canceling were allowed but, im curious why you feel that that extra challenge ruins the game for others?

I think we view the term esports differently. When I see that term I only think of competitive gaming with production value. That still does not mean to me that physical skill is an attribute worth building the competition around.

Just as you pointed out that using one person as evidence is not enough, using one scene is not enough. It could very well be an outlier, both in terms of self-interpreted skill, actual skill when compared to other scenes, standards for skill levels, individual player habits, and community-wide habits that many players seem to share. When I say low-mid level players being reasonably consistent with L-cancelling (90% up; "perfect" is an exaggeration, but is often the case), I'm taking this from knowledge of multiple scenes that grow separately from one another and may not interact often outside of regional/major tournies. I may also have a different standard for recognizing player skill - I consider the majority of scenes to have low to low-mid level players up to somewhere in the top 10 ranked in state, and mids occupying the top half. And in some cases, top level players occupying the top few slots, pushing the others down a few. But just as our standards may not be universal, so are our scenes. My scene could very well be much stronger/weaker than yours, or both somewhere along the US average. Age of the scene, and it's experience with each game, also plays a huge part in that. I digressed; the "evidence" you've gathered isn't substantial to make a valid point. Nor was my assumption, which I took for granted considering the time it takes to learn L-cancelling.


The L-cancelling % really isn't as important to players who can do it consistently as some make it out to be. Rather, they just never mess up, and are aware of the one or two potential instances where they did miss any, so they have no need to check. It's only useful for players who're still practicing; whether the L-cancel % stays, is removed, or shows a pseudo count of how many the player would have L-cancelled without ALC, is negligible to anyone besides those who're already benefiting from ALC (and may not care to check it anyhow if it's made automatic).


Many of us agree (check first page). I'm still of the belief that, in the context of PM, implementing ALC as a toggle-able option for each player (like tapjump) would be for the best, if possible. It would be a huge step towards accommodating and keeping incoming players from the Smash 4 scene. But at the same time, just as toggled tapjump is a setback for many new players transitioning from any game to Melee, so would the ALC toggle. Melee scene might be strong, but it's still pretty questionable to offer accommodations that do have setbacks...especially when those accommodations are for something as minor as one of the easiest tech that can be grinded out into muscle memory within a week. (a month for those having more difficulty, tops, so long as there is sincere 10-15min of daily practice on just L-cancelling, +occasional friendlies to integrate it into play.)

Your assertion was that all players (or at least almost all) have a trait. It is easy to disprove this by finding one (or a significant amount) of negatives. In this case, I have used one of the (if not the) largest scene, Smashing Grounds. Now while this does disprove your point, I was not using it to make any claim of my own. Your claim was clearly untrue so I brought up evidence against it. I have no counter-claim.

My point about having auto-L-cancelling on at a tournament shows that nobody noticed it was on through play *alone*. It is essentially an inconsequential mechanic.

Options are options. The proposal in the OP was to make ALC player-dependent. If someone wants to switch between this and Melee, this is not the option for them. If someone wants to switch between this and Sm4sh, they should be given this option. It is not a game mechanic critical to our evaluation of skill, and thus should be as customizable as controls in PM. If MLC players want to scoff at ALC players, let them. They are participating under the same rules just as if they would scoff at a tier ***** or noob character.

 

[ECHOnce]

The steroids analogy kinda falls apart when you consider that ALC would be a factor within the rules/laws of the game, while dealing with steroids is a matter of determining whether or not an outside factor should be allowed to impact the game. L-canceling is a legitimate thing, while PEDs are a method of cheating. In the case of esports, the use of steroids are more akin to modded controllers with turbo or macro buttons, or if you wanna be literal about it, the use of adderall as a performance-enhancing drug in esports.

But does it really? Steroids are considered cheating because they aid in building body muscle more quickly; to shorten the time it takes to learn a skill needed to abide by a "law" in sports - that a fit body is a more able one. And by using steroids, players put themselves ahead of their peers that don't or didn't use them to reach or maintain their peak fitness. And because they're skipping the hardship of working out as much, they're potentially missing out on learning skills or strengthening their mindset. ALC is no different, from a large chunk of the scene's perspective. It shortens the time needed to become competent with SHFF aerials. One thing less to consider for your first month while learning neutral/punish games, speeding up learning.

People are lazy. That's human nature. Give them an easier option, and they'll take it, because it's "optimal." (from what can be understood at their stage in learning/experience)

Your assertion was that all players (or at least almost all) have a trait. It is easy to disprove this by finding one (or a significant amount) of negatives. In this case, I have used one of the (if not the) largest scene, Smashing Grounds. Now while this does disprove your point, I was not using it to make any claim of my own. Your claim was clearly untrue so I brought up evidence against it. I have no counter-claim.

As far as I can tell, we've both rehashed this point? No disagreement here. I'll emphasize again that "perfect 100% consistency" was just thrown out loosely. No need to go to picking at wording/phrasing to such an extent, when I just acknowledged it wasn't to be taken literally.

My point about having auto-L-cancelling on at a tournament shows that nobody noticed it was on through play *alone*. It is essentially an inconsequential mechanic.

This was brought up several times on page 1, with various arguments I agreed and disagreed with. Avoiding repetition.

Options are options. The proposal in the OP was to make ALC player-dependent. If someone wants to switch between this and Melee, this is not the option for them. If someone wants to switch between this and Sm4sh, they should be given this option.

...I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say here. That said, I wrote a massive post in support of S4 converts near the bottom of page 1. Disregarding views on ALC in relation to Melee, you'll likely find that we're probably in agreement here too.

It is not a game mechanic critical to our evaluation of skill, and thus should be as customizable as controls in PM.

Forgive me for saying so again...you're stealing the words right from my mouth. Page 1. I may sound like I'm contradicting what I've said here on P2. Playing Devil's advocate, although they are still my own legit concerns.

If MLC players want to scoff at ALC players, let them. They are participating under the same rules just as if they would scoff at a tier ***** or noob character.

Please avoid victimizing the party you're defending, and generalizing the opposition as ignorant and dismissive. They're not ignorantly dismissing anything as a whole group, or even as a majority. They're either here taking interest in everyone's points, or minding their own business. They're not actively going out of their way to stamp out ALC. And they're certainly not resorting to name-calling.

 

[4tlas]

As far as I can tell, we've both rehashed this point? No disagreement here. I'll emphasize again that "perfect 100% consistency" was just thrown out loosely. No need to go to picking at wording/phrasing to such an extent, when I just acknowledged it wasn't to be taken literally.


This was brought up several times on page 1, with various arguments I agreed and disagreed with. Avoiding repetition.


...I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say here. That said, I wrote a massive post in support of S4 converts near the bottom of page 1. Disregarding views on ALC in relation to Melee, you'll likely find that we're probably in agreement here too.


Forgive me for saying so again...you're stealing the words right from my mouth (albeit disagreement in some of the reasoning behind it). Page 1.


Please avoid victimizing the party you're defending, and generalizing the opposition as ignorant and dismissive. They're not ignorantly dismissing anything as a whole group, or even as a majority. They're either here taking interest in everyone's points, or minding their own business. They're not actively going out of their way to stamp out ALC. And they're certainly not resorting to name-calling.

You are correct that we agree. I was also commenting for the sake of other viewers in the thread. I am also splitting hairs, though I think that they are important ones. I know we have agreed on this topic from other times we have discussed.

Which brings me to the part where I mentioned that if MLC players want to scoff at ALC players then that is a consequence we will have to live with. From those other times we have discussed this, I have encountered a large part of the community that was actively trying to stamp it out. And they absolutely were resorting to name-calling. And I have experienced this attitude with regards to L-cancelling all over the place. I worded it poorly, that's true. And this particular thread was pretty nice before I made that statement, for which I apologize. But that does not make it any less relevant that this "skill" that people value often translates into devaluing the people who don't know it. My main point with that statement (which admittedly was not obvious) was that players who feel that people taking the "easy way" of ALC are "cheating" or "playing a different game" will find something else to criticize even if we don't allow both ALC and MLC in tournaments. Saying that people will never agree to allow some players to participate with ALC *for this reason* is invalid.

Edit: I did not mean to refer to ALL MLC players with that statement. Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

[ECHOnce]

That was probably my biggest concern that I...think(?) I arrived to earlier. :/ The stigma that can't really be avoided, on a case-by-case basis of whether the scene promotes that sort of behavior. I'd like to think that I'm lucky enough to not be in one.

P1 is a ridiculous wall of text, so it's more than understandable that you didn't skim through it. But while I'll admit it may have been unreasonable for me to point it out so many times (rude of me, sorry; we both stepped a bit out bounds aha), we can't avoid repetition otherwise.

 

[4tlas]

That was probably my biggest concern that I...think(?) I arrived to earlier. :/ The stigma that can't really be avoided, on a case-by-case basis of whether the scene promotes that sort of behavior. I'd like to think that I'm lucky enough to not be in one.

My scene is very good about it, but I know it exists ever so slightly. Its the nature of most competitive people: they are looking to judge everyone by the same rules so that they can determine who is better, and they have the passion for this game that makes them value it. I can't ask for them not to feel that way, I can only ask for them not to push it upon others.

 

[GunBuster]

I've always been neutral about the whole L cancelling thing since it's been the only way to fix your character suffering half a year's worth of landing lag every time you try to land mid attack, something you basically can't escape committing to in Smash Wii U. basically It's just been "what you do" so I'd always tried to get it down.

now I'm having trouble with it both in practice and in arguing for it's practicality, purely because messing around with Rivals Of Aether has really thrown me off. the way it still functions as a fast paced smash game but just opts for generally low endlag across the board really makes L canceling in smash feel a lot more arbitrary.

 

[JOE!]

Just saying, the steroid analogy is a bit off. Steroids not only let to "catch up" to "natural" people, but often surpass them in ways you cant just work-out towards. They effectively raise the ceiling of what is physically possible to do in the sport.

ALC vs MLC is a matter of purely catch up/consistency and is a matter of how high the floor is compared to the ceiling. Somebody with ALC playing a MLC player would hardly be different than the MLC vs another MLC as the player who is manual is already used to dealing with an l-cancelled aerial being the norm. In the other Lcancel thread, I even mapped out reaction times and proved that with 90% of aerials you wouldn't even be able to react to them missing an lcancel to begin with, and instead you need to predict that they'd mess up which is a whole other can of worms.

So it then boils down to how "normally" you would be predicting vs an incoming aerial to begin with, with the understanding that it will most likely be Lcancelled at a high level anyways and mathematically, odds are you wouldn't be able to process most aerials missing an Lcancel anyways outside of tossing something out and it happens to work due to the opponent messing up. Ideally, you would be whiff-punishing moves based on spacing more-so than missed Lcancel as at higher level the Lcancel is a non issue anyways.

ALC will simply bring players to "basic level" that much quicker, but still do nothing for every other "real" fundamental they need to learn.

 

[Scribe]

Just saying, the steroid analogy is a bit off. Steroids not only let to "catch up" to "natural" people, but often surpass them in ways you cant just work-out towards. They effectively raise the ceiling of what is physically possible to do in the sport.

ALC vs MLC is a matter of purely catch up/consistency and is a matter of how high the floor is compared to the ceiling. Somebody with ALC playing a MLC player would hardly be different than the MLC vs another MLC as the player who is manual is already used to dealing with an l-cancelled aerial being the norm. In the other Lcancel thread, I even mapped out reaction times and proved that with 90% of aerials you wouldn't even be able to react to them missing an lcancel to begin with, and instead you need to predict that they'd mess up which is a whole other can of worms.

So it then boils down to how "normally" you would be predicting vs an incoming aerial to begin with, with the understanding that it will most likely be Lcancelled at a high level anyways and mathematically, odds are you wouldn't be able to process most aerials missing an Lcancel anyways outside of tossing something out and it happens to work due to the opponent messing up. Ideally, you would be whiff-punishing moves based on spacing more-so than missed Lcancel as at higher level the Lcancel is a non issue anyways.

ALC will simply bring players to "basic level" that much quicker, but still do nothing for every other "real" fundamental they need to learn.

That bit regarding the steroid analogy is spot-on. Unlike performance-enhancing drugs, ALC doesn't do anything that would put you ahead of people who use MLC, it just brings you up to speed on that specific aspect of the game. It doesn't increase your character's speed or reduce your landing lag to a greater degree than MLC does. It doesn't give you an edge in any way in-game, and in no way affects the skill ceiling. It's less like using PEDs or other ways of cheating, and more like using a different training regimen that produces the same results more quickly, though the "rules vs. laws" things comes into play here.

But with the rest of it, you basically gave a better explanation of something I said before. It wouldn't necessarily give a real advantage over MLC in competitive play. It would just make it take less time to develop the same skills necessary to reach that level. Though one could argue that extending the frame window would produce similar results without making any work that players put in to learn how to L-cancel a waste of time.