Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[Kurri ★]

you guys do realize that my analogy has nothing to do with arguing for, or against l-canceling correct?

You say this, but then:

100% of the time you want the ball to be accurate. Everything else is independent from how accurate the ball is, just like l-canceling is independent of aerials, fastfalling, reading, etc.

You say that. Which is it? Is it an analogy for L-Cancel or is it not? And if it's not, why does it hold any significance? And furthermore, if you don't want us to "rip it to shreds" why are you posting it in the first place?

Either have something substantial to contribute or go.

 

[Narpas_sword]

And still. No one who thinks Manual L-cancelling is a good idea is able to provide a good reason to add the same mechanic to special moves.

Why do the Manual Supporters keep passing that by?

 

[MetalMan]

I like it but I wish later on it could be applied individually, just like tap jump toggle.

 

[CORY]

that could be nice, but at the same time, there's currently not detriment to manually lcancelling with auto on, and you can more easily make sure no one's using auto if the tourney rules are set as such by just checking the toggle in rules, rather than double checking all the names.

 

[Quillion]

You know what, I'm simply tired of debating. Sometimes things need to be left unresolved.

 

[Kurri ★]

I'm pretty sure replacing the current

You know what, I'm simply tired of debating. Sometimes things need to be left unresolved.

Don't feel bad. Just give it a break and come back when you're ready.

 

[OninO]

I'll put my hat in the ring for manual L-cancelling and here's why.

This is a 2 person game, it's not me vs. a punching bag CPU, it's me vs. a real person. That person might be you. I want you to fail, I want you to mess up some arbitrarily difficult input that I can execute because I work harder than you. Conversely, I want to dance the razor's edge, I want there to be holes and danger purely because I didn't practice enough.

Raising the execution barrier adds value to a specific type of physical hard work that I find enjoyable, in the same why that I find playing the guitar enjoyable.

Lots of people play smash for the cerebral exchange, the pattern recognition and punishment. I play it for that, but also for the micro-exchange, the perfectly spaced aerial that you thought you could grab. The double-shine into grab. Difficulty of execution matters, otherwise why not have one button auto-combos?

 

[Narpas_sword]

why not have one button auto-combos?

Because that's not the same thing.

Combos require reaction to DI, knowledge of follow-ups, choosing the correct option.
L-cancelling is not choosing an option. it's mashing L before you land.

If you think it adds value, would you care to take a punt at the question i keep asking?

"If manual L-Canceling adds value, would it be better to add it to Special moves too? Why?"

 

[Draco_The]

Between wanting to win a match by having the opponent miss an arbitrary difficult input instead of winning by having a better understanding of the fundamentals and comparing auto L-cancel with auto-combos, especially in a game like this (even though it would still be stupid in other games because you're still given the options to go for stun, damage or a reset), I don't really know what to tell you.

In regards to "raising the execution barrier makes it cool", I'll let another guy ask you the "would you also like L-cancel if you had to press A, L, down on dpad, up on stick, right on cstick, all while dancing like Shakira".

 

[Candypants]

Everybody would be losing the need to L-cancel and nothing else in theory. I'm not sure where "losing options" is coming from.

This is also my opinion, but I think pushing the limits is something people actually want to see.

For example, a GnW might want the extra hitboxes in an interaction in which the opponent expects the hitboxes to end earlier. That is what I would class as an option anyway.

The Fox issue is he may be OP with ALC as his balance lies in how fast and consistent you can do inputs.

 

[OninO]

@ Narpas_sword

I'm not sure, it's an interesting proposition. I'd say sure why not but there are some implications for balance that I haven't thought through.

What about increasing the default lag on specials by 50% and having l-cancel reduce by 50% putting the resulting frames of lag at 75% of current values? For Falco, this would make little difference, but for Pikachu this would probably open up some interesting approach options.

And here we get to the point that I think people only ever acknowledge as a "so what it's only a hypothetical". Execution barriers are a way of balancing things in a way that isn't as crude as "change up-smash BKB to x". To go a little further, and be explicit with the hypothetical that people only ever touch on. Fox without technical execution barriers is absurdly OP. The frame data for nair is pretty crazy even given you have to work for it currently. Without work, it's outright broken. You could say, well lets slow him down, tack a couple of frames on here and there etc, but now you've taken something away from what I personally think makes Melee jaw droppingly beautiful and that's sheer visceral speed when played at the highest level. You have to lower the ceiling (speed of thought, speed of attack) to simultaneously lower the floor and maintain balance.

Also, an example of "argument from auto-combo" is, why don't Fox and Falco multi-shine by default? I mean, it's strictly superior to single shine, I always want to do it, why can't I just hold down B to spam Shine's as fast as they'll come out?

@ Draco_The

Stop being childish man. I've come in here, dropped my opinion on what is ultimately a subjective question on game design, NOT a question of "objective game design" which people keep claiming it is. The very phrase "objective game design" is oxymoronic, what is fun to one person is not necessarily fun to another.

Should dance-dance revolution be played with half the required steps?

Should Street Fighter be played with forward to fireball, up to shoryuken?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, both of those are questions of execution and I personally thing both are open to debate.


Finally, regarding which button should be used for L-cancelling. I like the feel of L personally, I wouldn't design it around the D-pad because it would require giving up your control stick thumb and slow down the play for a succesful execution, rather than speed it up. A or X might be interesting but also probably slow down rather than speed up.

(Yes I know you're being rhetorical, or at least think you are, but the fact that I can give you what I think is a legitimate answer to that question goes to show, yet again, that it's not "objectively stupid" and can be considered under its own merits as a design question).

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

@ Narpas_sword
stop being childish man. I've come in here, dropped my opinion on what is ultimately a subjective question on game design, NOT a question of "objective game design" which people keep claiming it is. The very phrase "objective game design" is oxymoronic, what is fun to one person is not necessarily fun to another.

Should dance-dance revolution be played with half the required steps?

Should Street Fighter be played with forward to fireball, up to shoryuken?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, both of those are questions of execution and I personally thing both are open to debate.


Finally, regarding which button should be used for L-cancelling. I like the feel of L personally, I wouldn't design it around the D-pad because it would require giving up your control stick thumb and slow down the play for a succesful execution, rather than speed it up. A or X might be interesting but also probably slow down rather than speed up.

As a designer, we're taught to look at things more objectively so we have a solid means of justifying and defending our choices when we design anything. Subjective or whimsical reasons always seem so baseless. (You made x. orange because that's your favorite color, not knowing your client absolutely hates the color orange before you present your product to him). So it's not always a good idea to base your choices on your feelings because not everyone has the same feelings you do.

So back to L-Cancelling. The best way to look at it objectively is how is how strong is its relationship to the other tech in the game. If it's seen too weak, it's best we remove it. Trim the fat so people can focus on what's important.

 

[OninO]

What constitutes too weak? How it compares to other tech is just another lens to look at it through. You're trying to arbitrarily draw a line and call it an objective decision.

I don't mind that you don't want L-cancelling, but dressing it up as an "objective design decision" is misleading. I'd be happier if you just said "I prefer to get straight to the mental interaction of the game with less emphasis on physical performance, so I'd rather have auto-cancelling", at least that would be more honest.

The most honest argument for blanket auto-cancelling would be "we want the game to appeal to the broadest base, thus we will lower the execution barrier and attempt to maintain balance by changing other aspects of the characters", this lowest-common denominator approach takes you to Smash 4. I'm not saying the idea isn't sound, or even that it wouldn't be fun. I think if Sakurai sped Smash 4 up and kept dash-dancing in, it would be a fun game and I would probably enjoy it more than I do.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

What constitutes too weak? How it compares to other tech is just another lens to look at it through. You're trying to arbitrarily draw a line and call it an objective decision.

I don't mind that you don't want L-cancelling, but dressing it up as an "objective design decision" is misleading. I'd be happier if you just said "I prefer to get straight to the mental interaction of the game with less emphasis on physical performance, so I'd rather have auto-cancelling", at least that would be more honest.

The most honest argument for blanket auto-cancelling would be "we want to game to appeal to the broadest base, thus we will lower the execution barrier and attempt to maintain balance by changing other aspects of the characters", this lowest-common denominator approach takes you to Smash 4. I'm not saying the idea isn't sound, or even that it wouldn't be fun. I think if Sakurai sped Smash 4 up and kept dash-dancing in, it would be a fun game and I would probably enjoy it more than I do.

You're not comprehending what I said. You determine whether it's weak or not when you compare it to the game's other tech and whether or not it influences the game as a whole as much as the others. If you can remove L-Cancelling/cut landing lag in half and the game doesn't change much as a whole then it was never important to begin with.

It is not arbitrary as you believe and it's how most of things you enjoy everyday are created.

 

[Rawkobo]

For example, a GnW might want the extra hitboxes in an interaction in which the opponent expects the hitboxes to end earlier. That is what I would class as an option anyway.

The Fox issue is he may be OP with ALC as his balance lies in how fast and consistent you can do inputs.

Fox's balance doesn't change with L-cancelling. L-cancelling was not the difficult part of SHFFLing for players, it was SHFF as a stick movement. L-cancelling also has little to nothing to do with multishining. So if short-hop nairs are what makes Fox OP (which they aren't), then that's a balance change.

 

[GP&B]

The real question that should be asked is this: does L-canceling offer enough to the game in the long run that it's worth arbitrarily increasing the skill ceiling and thus deterring new players?

Or another way of asking it would be this: does L-canceling in any way offer technical freedom in comparison to the game's other nuances? The answer is, absolutely not. Freedom would imply it's a choice but it's not at all. Wavedashing, by comparison, doesn't even lend a direct use to it upon just learning the technical side of it. It's a tech that's supplementary to movement and as such, only becomes useful the more a player understands movement. L-canceling is directly detrimental to learning how to space and time aerials and its usefulness does not increase over time. The result from using it is strictly binary and offers no freedom as to how its used or most importantly, not used. When you look at how other technical nuances add to the game, there's a pattern: they're options. They add to the list of choices you can make.

 

[Draco_The]

@ Draco_The

Stop being childish man. I've come in here, dropped my opinion on what is ultimately a subjective question on game design, NOT a question of "objective game design" which people keep claiming it is. The very phrase "objective game design" is oxymoronic, what is fun to one person is not necessarily fun to another.

Should dance-dance revolution be played with half the required steps?

Should Street Fighter be played with forward to fireball, up to shoryuken?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, both of those are questions of execution and I personally thing both are open to debate.


Finally, regarding which button should be used for L-cancelling. I like the feel of L personally, I wouldn't design it around the D-pad because it would require giving up your control stick thumb and slow down the play for a succesful execution, rather than speed it up. A or X might be interesting but also probably slow down rather than speed up.

(Yes I know you're being rhetorical, or at least think you are, but the fact that I can give you what I think is a legitimate answer to that question goes to show, yet again, that it's not "objectively stupid" and can be considered under its own merits as a design question).

In Dance-Dance Revolution and other games like the Mario & Luigi series, those arbitrary inputs play an important role. Dance-Dance Revolution is all about them. The only way to add challengue to the game is by adding more steps. In the Mario & Luigi series (and Paper Mario) they are there just to make the game not feel like a traditional RPG. If you took them out, the game would basically become a very different thing.

In regards to Street Fighter (and other fighting games) inputs, until very recently I thought of that as a way of balance like you do, but the more I think about it the more I see that it's just a way to hide BS, mostly in regards to moves with invincibility. Taking them out doesn't change anything, just making more obvious how stupid some things are. The mobile ports of Street Fighter IV, Street Fighter X Tekken and King of Fighters XIII showed me this (you can perform supers and ultras with just one input and specials are just that, forward + SP button). This is also what I was referring to when @ Candypants was talking about auto L-cancel affecting Fox. If auto L-cancel makes Fox seem stupid, it's not L-cancel the problem but Fox.

In Smash Bros. case, it just fails to add anything. If you took out L-cancel the game would still be the same. That's why L-cancel is objectively stupid.

And no, you didn't answer that question. The question was: "would you also like L-cancel if you had to press A, L, down on dpad, up on stick, right on cstick, all while dancing like Shakira".

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

You say this, but then:

You say that. Which is it? Is it an analogy for L-Cancel or is it not? And if it's not, why does it hold any significance? And furthermore, if you don't want us to "rip it to shreds" why are you posting it in the first place?

Either have something substantial to contribute or go.

You're right. It doesn't contribute anything except to compare lcanceling to something. It doesn't argue for or against l-canceling.


This debate is nothing but subjective arguments from both sides who don't care about the other side's opinion (I'm apart of this as well), so excuse me for not staying right on line with this debate that isn't getting us anywhere anyway lol

 

[Rawkobo]

This debate is nothing but subjective arguments from both sides who don't care about the other side's opinion (I'm apart of this as well), so excuse me for not staying right on line with this debate that isn't getting us anywhere anyway lol

Well, that's a bit far from the truth. It's already been said that if those on the side of manual L-cancelling can provide real, substantial proof as to how it actually affects the game, then their argument has some form of a basis. We've provided our side with at least a basis to stand on, even if there are some subjective claims within that basis.

The burden of proof is on those "for" the value of L-cancelling, and it always will remain that way as long as that side positively affirms the existence of such a value. That's where this debate has somewhat come to a halt.

 

[Bleck]

did another person seriously come into this thread, decide not to read it, and make the same stupid ****ing arguments that have already been responded to seven hundred thousand goddamn times

here's a little tidbit for you guys who are for l-canceling; something being "subjective" doesn't mean "nobody can tell me I'm wrong", as arguments about things that are subjective (like value) are still based on arguments that can be (and in your case often are) rooted in ignorance and misinformation

whether or not l-canceling is good for the game is ultimately subjective information, but the whole "this topic is subjective so it doesn't matter if my arguments are dumb" is horse**** and you need to grow up

you see those reasonable-as-**** questions that people like Rawkobo and AuraMaudeGone keep asking about the value of l-canceling? either answer those questions or shut up and learn something for once

 

[Strong Badam]

did another person seriously come into this thread, decide not to read it, and make the same stupid ****ing arguments that have already been responded to seven hundred thousand goddamn times

here's a little tidbit for you guys who are for l-canceling; something being "subjective" doesn't mean "nobody can tell me I'm wrong", as arguments about things that are subjective (like value) are still based on arguments that can be (and in your case often are) rooted in ignorance and misinformation

whether or not l-canceling is good for the game is ultimately subjective information, but the whole "this topic is subjective so it doesn't matter if my arguments are dumb" is horse**** and you need to grow up

you see those reasonable-as-**** questions that people like Rawkobo and AuraMaudeGone keep asking about the value of l-canceling? either answer those questions or shut up and learn something for once

I'm gonna have to ask you to take a chill pill bro. Posts like these are usually why these threads end up getting locked. The subject matter tends to bring out the more passionate folk, but if this becomes the norm this thread will go like the others. Keep it civil folks.

 

[OninO]

Well, that's a bit far from the truth. It's already been said that if those on the side of manual L-cancelling can provide real, substantial proof as to how it actually affects the game, then their argument has some form of a basis. We've provided our side with at least a basis to stand on, even if there are some subjective claims within that basis.

The burden of proof is on those "for" the value of L-cancelling, and it always will remain that way as long as that side positively affirms the existence of such a value. That's where this debate has somewhat come to a halt.

You don't see the "proof" because you don't accept that there is value in a design that allows a way for you to fail to achieve something because of physical limitations.

You also don't set any guidelines for what would constitute "proof". Of course it affects that game. Why is PPMD better than me at melee? Part of it is because he's played longer, understands more, has many more and better ingrained (fast) responses. Part of it is simply that he doesn't **** things up like I **** them up because I haven't practised enough or get nervous and flub under pressure. It seems auto-L-cancel advocates want only the first part of that to be relevant.

 

[Rawkobo]

You don't see the "proof" because you don't accept that there is value in a design that allows a way for you to fail to achieve something because of physical limitations.

You also don't set any guidelines for what would constitute "proof". Of course it affects that game. Why is PPMD better than me at melee? Part of it is because he's played longer, understands more, has many more and better ingrained (fast) responses. Part of it is simply that he doesn't **** things up like I **** them up because I haven't practised enough or get nervous and flub under pressure. It seems auto-L-cancel advocates want only the first part of that to be relevant.

No, I don't see the proof because nobody has given me any proof.

I don't need to give you guidelines for proof because, as I just established, those guidelines don't matter. Because you claim that there is value in manual L-cancelling, it is not on me to tell you how to give an answer; it's on you to tell me how there is without falling back on "I think."

 

[OninO]

In Dance-Dance Revolution and other games like the Mario & Luigi series, those arbitrary inputs play an important role. Dance-Dance Revolution is all about them. The only way to add challengue to the game is by adding more steps. In the Mario & Luigi series (and Paper Mario) they are there just to make the game not feel like a traditional RPG. If you took them out, the game would basically become a very different thing.

In Smash Bros. case, it just fails to add anything. If you took out L-cancel the game would still be the same. That's why L-cancel is objectively stupid.

So what's the value of challenge in DDR? If there's value in pure physical challenge, which I think there is, and people who take DDR seriously think there is, then why does this value not exist in smash?

You also claim, but don't provide "proof" that the game would still be the same if no-one had to L-cancel. I've already argued that a part of the game would have to change (Fox) to accommodate the lack of L-cancelling, you haven't disagreed with that. You affirmed Fox was stupid, do you disagree that he should change in an auto L-cancel environment?

 

[Kurri ★]

So what's the value of challenge in DDR? If there's value in pure physical challenge, which I think there is, and people who take DDR seriously think there is, then why does this value not exist in smash?

DDR is a completely different genre. It's fundamentals are nothing like Smash. End of discussion...

 

[OninO]

No, I don't see the proof because nobody has given me any proof.

I don't need to give you guidelines for proof because, as I just established, those guidelines don't matter. Because you claim that there is value in manual L-cancelling, it is not on me to tell you how to give an answer; it's on you to tell me how there is without falling back on "I think."

Wow, you really won't look at this from the other side. I've pointed out the type of value that I see in L-cancel. Directly a couple of times and indirectly implied it in a number of posts.

The value is that the physical execution barrier allows a way for you to fail, in turn allowing a way for me to succeed, and vice versa. It rewards practise, perseverance and composure under pressure.

 

[Rawkobo]

Wow, you really won't look at this from the other side. I've pointed out the type of value that I see in L-cancel. Directly a couple of times and indirectly implied it in a number of posts.

The value is that the physical execution barrier allows a way for you to fail, in turn allowing a way for me to succeed, and vice versa. It rewards practise, perseverance and composure under pressure.

Except what you just described has to do with mental fortitude and not technical skill. This was addressed earlier, which is more than likely why I didn't respond to the same thing again.

The reason none of us "look at this from the other side" is because the other side has failed to present answers that aren't literally the same after getting them debunked numerous times over the course of 11 pages now.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

You also claim, but don't provide "proof" that the game would still be the same if no-one had to L-cancel. I've already argued that a part of the game would have to change (Fox) to accommodate the lack of L-cancelling, you haven't disagreed with that. You affirmed Fox was stupid, do you disagree that he should change in an auto L-cancel environment?

Earlier in the thread there are claims that L-Cancelling is not a difficult feat and most people should be able to perform it 70~100% of the time, especially "top players".
Agree/Disagree?

If the above is proven true: Would there be a real difference in gameplay if Landing Lag was universally cut in half (L-Cancel amount). Y/N?

The value is that the physical execution barrier allows a way for you to fail, in turn allowing a way for me to succeed, and vice versa. It rewards practise, perseverance and composure under pressure.

The existence of a fail window for L-Cancel is proven false earlier in the thread. What now?

 

[Narpas_sword]

@ Narpas_sword

I'm not sure, it's an interesting proposition. I'd say sure why not but there are some implications for balance that I haven't thought through.

What about increasing the default lag on specials by 50% and having l-cancel reduce by 50% putting the resulting frames of lag at 75% of current values? For Falco, this would make little difference, but for Pikachu this would probably open up some interesting approach options.

.

Oh no no no, i wasn't looking for suggestions on how to implement it.
I was looking for an explanation on why implementing it in the exact same way as L-Cancelling Aerials would be good.

The point is to remove the aspect of 'appeal to tradition'.

If you support Manual l_Cancelling as a good mechanic, you would surely be able to explain why the value it adds would also apply to any other set of moves.

So this is the situation:

Specials now have double their 'current' landing lag.
in order to halve the value (returning it to it's current value), the player must hit L before they land.

Why would implementing this be a good idea?

@ Narpas_sword

And here we get to the point that I think people only ever acknowledge as a "so what it's only a hypothetical". Execution barriers are a way of balancing things in a way that isn't as crude as "change up-smash BKB to x".

.

This seems backwards to me.

You think adjusting a specific move is crude.
but adding a button press to give you the good landing lag across all characters isnt?

Surely if one character needs adjustment, adding a cancel input to every character is a bit 'crude'?

 

[Draco_The]

You also claim, but don't provide "proof" that the game would still be the same if no-one had to L-cancel. I've already argued that a part of the game would have to change (Fox) to accommodate the lack of L-cancelling, you haven't disagreed with that. You affirmed Fox was stupid, do you disagree that he should change in an auto L-cancel environment?

AUTO L-CANCEL DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

I don't know how to make that clearer. Auto L-cancel does what its name implies. You don't need to press shield on landing lag from aerials. THAT'S ALL. What people can achieve with auto can also be achieved without it, so if you think Fox would be stupid with auto then that means he's also stupid without auto, but this discussion isn't about Fox's design. It was just a point someone brought up a thousand pages ago.

If basic logic isn't enough for you, you can enable this option on PM and try it for yourself.

 

[OninO]

Earlier in the thread there are claims that L-Cancelling is not a difficult feat and most people should be able to perform it 70~100% of the time, especially "top players".
Agree/Disagree?

If the above is proven true: Would there be a real difference in gameplay if Landing Lag was universally cut in half (L-Cancel amount). Y/N?

The existence of a fail window for L-Cancel is proven false earlier in the thread. What now?

The fail window is everything outside contact -7 frames.

L-cancelling is "somewhat difficult". The best should be able to hit it 100% but don't. If auto-cancel existed then the game would be faster at all levels so yes there would be a real tangible difference. Top players would also be relieved of the tension of execution. Neither of those are bad things, but it's definitely not a case of "no difference".

@ Narpas_sword

I know you insist on framing it like that so I say yes, add it on for specials. Then it would be 100% consistent, which is nice. Then let me re-raise you with the question I asked before? What could you do with variable timings on specials across the cast to balance moves at different levels of play?

It's crude in the sense that devs often just hit the nail that sticks up the most, ignoring or glossing over more fundamental problems with characters.

Fox in melee isn't outright broken (he skirts the line) because it's hard as **** to be broken good with him. Great foxes will make the game feel broken, but look how hard they're working in any given moment.

 

[OninO]

AUTO L-CANCEL DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

In the echo chamber, he who shouts loudest wins huh?

 

[Kurri ★]

Fox in melee isn't outright broken (he skirts the line) because it's hard as **** to be broken good with him. Great foxes will make the game feel broken, but look how hard they're working in any given moment.

So you admit he's broken? The only limit being how hard he is to play. That's still broken and bad game design...

In the echo chamber, he who shouts loudest wins huh?

Maybe it's only an echo chamber, because no one has given substantial reasoning as to why L-Cancel is good.

 

[Narpas_sword]

What could you do with variable timings on specials across the cast to balance moves at different levels of play?
.

For one, you could remove the need to have 2 values for each landing lag, and instead have one. then adjust that to be fair landing lag for that move.

But your reason to add it to specials is to create consistency?
What about tilts then? double the end lag, now you have to press L to get it back to normal too?
Smashes?
Jabs?
Throws?

If consistancy is your reason, surely we'd need to implement L-Cancelling to all sets of moves.

or you know.

Remove it from the one set that currently has it.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

The fail window is everything outside contact -7 frames.

L-cancelling is "somewhat difficult". The best should be able to hit it 100% but don't. If auto-cancel existed then the game would be faster at all levels so yes there would be a real tangible difference. Top players would also be relieved of the tension of execution. Neither of those are bad things, but it's definitely not a case of "no difference".

Nice response.
I wouldn't attribute being punished for whiffing Aerial to the fault of whether or not I L-Cancel, but I do agree that missing an L-Cancel could make things more severe for the attacker in that situation.

 

[CORY]

The fail window is everything outside contact -7 frames.

is this a hypothetical statement? because, unless there was a change in 3.6 that wasn't noted in the changelog, there is no fail window. you can mash shield inputs the entire time you're doing an aerial and not have it affect your lcancelling. it'll mess up tech windows,but lcancelling is unaffected.

 

[Narpas_sword]

is this a hypothetical statement? because, unless there was a change in 3.6 that wasn't noted in the changelog, there is no fail window. you can mash shield inputs the entire time you're doing an aerial and not have it affect your lcancelling. it'll mess up tech windows,but lcancelling is unaffected.

This is correct,
And it wont mess up your Tech window if you use Z (or mash softpress)

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Welp @ OninO , what now?
The difficulty of L-Cancelling seems very questionable now, would you agree?

 

[Rawkobo]

My current question is how the other side went from "L-cancelling is easy" to "L-cancelling is a technical barrier." Mostly because:

1) the latter isn't really true at all, and
2) both points contradict each other if the latter somehow were true.

Like, if L-cancelling is easy, which was never actually in question from either side (until recently, apparently), then how is it a technical barrier that separates people on a competitive level from the casual players? It would seem that the bigger dividers are movement, tech skill and application/fundamentals, which have little to nothing to do with L-cancelling in the bigger picture.

Reversing the claim, if L-cancelling is a technical barrier, why is it that when I go to play at fests, locals, clubs, etc., even the so-called "casuals" know how to L-cancel? Doesn't seem to be a hard barrier to jump over. Might not even be one.

 

[OninO]

Welp @ OninO , what now?
The difficulty of L-Cancelling seems very questionable now, would you agree?

Have you picked up a controller and tried to make L-cancelling easier for yourself by spamming all the shield buttons all the time while you do your aerials? Let me know how that goes for your gameplay. I have experimented with spamming it myself, I didn't find it helpful.

@ Rawkobo There is no uniform "other side", I don't really care what anyone elses' reasoning is for enjoying L-cancelling. I've put forth my reasoning and you can argue that I'm wrong, or that they're wrong, but not that I'm wrong on their behalf and they're wrong on mine.

Whether or not the "casuals" know how to L-cancel is not the question, can they do it when their tournament life is on the line?

@ Narpas_sword Smashes, jabs, and throws can not be used in the air, hence there is no reason to cancel their landing lag. I take your point though. And I guess I should make it clear, I'm not saying there should be no option to play with auto-cancelling on. I'm talking about why I like the manual L-cancelling mechanic, specifically how the mechanic adds value to my experience.

I'm also trying to make the point that the change is not simply one of "everything being the same". I believe it would require a further re-balancing effort to slow down some characters who are balanced somewhat by work rate (Fox).