Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[MEnKIRBZ]

nobody is saying that you can't punish a missed l-cancel, they're saying you can't punish a missed l-cancel on reaction - if you're punished a whiffed l-cancel, you're doing it on a read, and what people have been arguing is that about whether or not there's any inherent value in having an arbitrary button press that determines the safety of your moves instead of leaving that aspect of the metagame to be determined by other, less transparent things like reach and un-altered recovery frames

this is also why people have repeatedly rhetorically asked why we don't add other button presses to other arbitrary points of action that benefit your attacks/movement in some capacity and/or further complicate l-canceling with additional required inputs; if raising the skill floor arbitrarily is a good thing, why don't we do it with everything? ? ?

maybe instead of calling other people dumb and bad you could try reading the thread

You don't bother to read somebodies post, then you tell someone to "try reading the thread." Gud wun.

 

[Ningildo]

99% sure he wasn't serious and even if he was, how does him being a bit hypocritical disprove his solid point that the other side has yet to answer, it being that if L-cancelling (an arbitrary input) that artificially raises difficulty is good, why not add this to all other moves? If no, why do we not do that, but keep L-cancelling?

The answer seems to be appeal to tradition aka "bcuz maylay". Of course, this is a ****ty argument and, on top of that, I'm just strawmanning right now. Surely you have a solid reasoning when answering those questions and, if so, I'd like to hear it.

If the other side doesn't answer these (and other) questions and instead chooses to assume all pro auto L-cancelling players can't L-cancel and say that they need to get good or states points that others in the thread obviously have issue with already instead of answering those concerns, we're going to stay at a stalemate.

 

[Rawkobo]

If the other side doesn't answer these (and other) questions and instead chooses to assume all pro auto L-cancelling players can't L-cancel and say that they need to get good or states points that others in the thread obviously have issue with already instead of answering those concerns, we're going to stay at a stalemate.

Half-true.

Let's say I'm an atheist and I've been confronted by a Christian by a lack of belief of God. One might argue that because I was confronted, it's my responsibility to prove there isn't a God. But by rules of logic, if someone affirms the existence of something, then it is on them---aka they have the burden of proof---to show me that God exists with real, substantial evidence. If they cannot do so, then I am not led to believe their argument that God exists is compelling. Note that it is not to say my argument is; the real atheistic claim is that science and logic exist and there isn't real evidence of a higher power amongst things that isn't really debunked by these things when they're brought up.

To bring this into the context of this thread, if the people who are affirming manual L-cancelling has a value are unable to provide real, substantial evidence that isn't debunked by misunderstandings/frame data/what have you, then it's hard for any of us to see or follow their point, but it's not to say, necessarily, that ours is any better, because as established:

1) We all agree it's a good thing the switch was added as an option.
2) We all agree to some extent that it is up to TO's to decide what to do with it, not necessarily the community at large; it's simply an interesting matter of discussion.

In general to the thread, I'd like to also "half-apologize" for everything that followed; somewhere along the line, this was missed.

 

[MetalMan]

So, handicap as it worked in brawl could be set for individual players from the CSS and NOT be assigned to tags. I believe that would be the best way to implement it as it would work in tournament play very well.

P1: Hey want auto L-cancel?
P2: Nah I prefer choosing/doing it myself
P1: Fine, Ill turn it on just for myself.

A whole 3 sentences where a person who finds it unnecessary can stop worrying about it and a person who likes to perform it does not feel gimped.

An opinion on pro L-cancelling I do not agree is seeing its value when people DONT perform it correctly. If the only value for it in comparison too having it automatic is the chance of it not being done, I feel it is generally redundant to have it in. Teching for example rewards the player when performed correctly but also has downsides if not done. Auto-teching, while very hilarious, could not be done as it gives you options on how to land after a hit. Heck, even missing the tech on purpose can throw off a read. I know im going off on a tangent but basically, the merit is giving true options to the player and not "Yes=good, no=bad".

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

An opinion on pro L-cancelling I do not agree is seeing its value when people DONT perform it correctly. If the only value for it in comparison too having it automatic is the chance of it not being done, I feel it is generally redundant to have it in. Teching for example rewards the player when performed correctly but also has downsides if not done. Auto-teching, while very hilarious, could not be done as it gives you options on how to land after a hit. Heck, even missing the tech on purpose can throw off a read. I know im going off on a tangent but basically, the merit is giving true options to the player and not "Yes=good, no=bad".

Personally, I believe there is no value in not l-cancelling/failing it.
I wouldn't want an "Auto-Tech" option because choices are being taken away from me. How would it determine if I want to tech roll or tech in place? What if I wanted to mind game and lay there for a while? Good post though.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

I'm just dissatisfied that no one is directly addressing my or other people's solid points. We've spent a lot of time making our cases and people just keep repeating the same arguments we had already argued against instead of providing direct counter-points. Why is this? Surely if manual L-canceling adds inherent, in-game depth, it should be very easy to show how. I would love to be an advocate for manual L-canceling if the arguments that we've put up can be soundly analyzed and dismantled piece by piece.

I, until recently, really liked L-canceling. It made me feel like I was physically accomplishing something that a lot of other people who played the game weren't doing or doing well, which felt awesome. The only reason I'm emotionally dissatisfied with L-canceling nowadays is due to the toll it has on my hand, it'd just be nice not to do it at all if possible. But that's not why I argue against it. Even when I liked doing it, I knew it was a useless mechanic for the reasons stated in this thread. Just because I felt good doing it and it made me feel better about myself and put me above the skill floor, does not mean it is good game design. People can enjoy, appreciate, and find value in mechanics that are fundamentally flawed. I used to be a Brawl player. That game was flawed in way more ways than one. But I loved playing that game and I still do whenever I can because I find personal value in overcoming those flaws. Doesn't mean there are no flaws, though.

Most of the arguments stated in this thread that are for pro-manual L-canceling are saying L-canceling has depth by arguing an appeal to tradition, appeals to emotion, an artificial increase of the skill floor, and/or about missing L-cancels and we've shown why each of these arguments fail. Where are the counter-points to our arguments? Why must the discussion always stop advancing at this point like its done for so many years? Are we ready to take the next step forward in the discussion or will we be saying the same things again for years to come?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm just dissatisfied that no one is directly addressing my or other people's solid points. We've spent a lot of time making our cases and people just keep repeating the same arguments we had already argued against instead of providing direct counter-points. Why is this? Surely if manual L-canceling adds inherent, in-game depth, it should be very easy to show how. I would love to be an advocate for manual L-canceling if the arguments that we've put up can be soundly analyzed and dismantled piece by piece.

I, until recently, really liked L-canceling. It made me feel like I was physically accomplishing something that a lot of other people who played the game weren't doing or doing well, which felt awesome. The only reason I'm emotionally dissatisfied with L-canceling nowadays is due to the toll it has on my hand, it'd just be nice not to do it at all if possible. But that's not why I argue against it. Even when I liked doing it, I knew it was a useless mechanic for the reasons stated in this thread. Just because I felt good doing it and it made me feel better about myself and put me above the skill floor, does not mean it is good game design. People can enjoy, appreciate, and find value in mechanics that are fundamentally flawed. I used to be a Brawl player. That game was flawed in way more ways than one. But I loved playing that game and I still do whenever I can because I find personal value in overcoming those flaws. Doesn't mean there are no flaws, though.

Most of the arguments stated in this thread that are for pro-manual L-canceling are saying L-canceling has depth by arguing an appeal to tradition, appeals to emotion, an artificial increase of the skill floor, and/or about missing L-cancels and we've shown why each of these arguments fail. Where are the counter-points to our arguments? Why must the discussion always stop advancing at this point like its done for so many years? Are we ready to take the next step forward in the discussion or will we be saying the same things again for years to come?

These things tend to go in circles with new people also not reading the thread or older ones just ignoring counter points.

 

[MetalMan]

Personally, I believe there is no value in not l-cancelling/failing it.
I wouldn't want an "Auto-Tech" option because choices are being taken away from me. How would it determine if I want to tech roll or tech in place? What if I wanted to mind game and lay there for a while? Good post though.

Two things: The first is that I DONT think auto teching is valid or would actually be fun, it was just an idea,thats ehy I said while funny i dont think it would be beneficial.

second. on pure hypothesis, it would work by inputting the direction you input while landing. techroll being sides and down being in place, analogous to rolling and spot dodging.

And excuse my scenarios, I always think of controls and how things can be more intuitively setup

 

[kinje]

I don't think that's correct.

got an example?

Fastfall falcon and ganon dair

 

[Narpas_sword]

Fastfall falcon and ganon dair

Thanks mate.

If you continue on the thread a bit, you'll see that GaW was provided as an example, with landing hit-boxes that double when an l-cancel is missed.

I didn't think ganon or falcon have landing hit-boxes too though.

 

[kinje]

99% sure he wasn't serious and even if he was, how does him being a bit hypocritical disprove his solid point that the other side has yet to answer, it being that if L-cancelling (an arbitrary input) that artificially raises difficulty is good, why not add this to all other moves? If no, why do we not do that, but keep L-cancelling?

The answer seems to be appeal to tradition aka "bcuz maylay". Of course, this is a ****ty argument and, on top of that, I'm just strawmanning right now. Surely you have a solid reasoning when answering those questions and, if so, I'd like to hear it.

If the other side doesn't answer these (and other) questions and instead chooses to assume all pro auto L-cancelling players can't L-cancel and say that they need to get good or states points that others in the thread obviously have issue with already instead of answering those concerns, we're going to stay at a stalemate.

Missing an l-cancel on a move with fewer than 10 frames of landing lag often results in the player accidentally hitting shield, which effectively adds end lag to the move and can get them stuck in shield if the opponent pressures it while it's up. Such a blunder also costs them shield size (which believe it or not, is totally an important resource that you have to manage in PM).
Characters with usable wind boxes, like dedede, can also occasionally exploit fastfallers attempting to shffl near the ledge by pulling them slightly so they don't land on stage or their move gets accidentally edge canceled and the attempted l-cancel results in an air dodge offstage instead. This can also be done with much greater difficulty with character collisions and shield push instead of a windbox.

When attempting an edge-canceled aerial, the player has to make a decision as to whether or not to l-cancel in case they miss the edge and land on platform with significant landing lag, or not l-cancel in case they successfully edge cancel and the shield input from the l-cancel attempt results in an unwanted air dodge.

I would also question why you consider the ability to press L or R with proper timing so "arbitrary" of a skill barrier when most traditional fighting games require you to be able to properly input weird control stick motions with proper timing to even use more than half of a character's moveset.

Also, on the less formal/technical side of the argument...bruh can you even imagine how stupid easy fox and falco nairshine and drillshine pressure would be if they didn't have to worry about l-canceling?

 

[Kurri ★]

I'm just gonna sit here and watch...

 

[kinje]

I'm just gonna sit here and watch...

I've invaded your den of heathens Ricky. How will they rebut?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

I would also question why you consider the ability to press L or R with proper timing so "arbitrary" of a skill barrier when most traditional fighting games require you to be able to properly input weird control stick motions with proper timing to even use more than half of a character's moveset.

Also, on the less formal/technical side of the argument...bruh can you even imagine how stupid easy fox and falco nairshine and drillshine pressure would be if they didn't have to worry about l-canceling?

-Shrugs- Because you don't even have to do it properly. Just spam the L/R/Z buttons.
The latter is more a Fox/Falco problem imo.

 

[Kurri ★]

I've invaded your den of heathens Ricky. How will they rebut?

You can hit them with the food analogy...

That and, if Fox and Falco become easy with auto L-Cancel, doesn't that mean the problem is with them?

 

[OSCA MIKE]

I would also question why you consider the ability to press L or R with proper timing so "arbitrary" of a skill barrier when most traditional fighting games require you to be able to properly input weird control stick motions with proper timing to even use more than half of a character's moveset.

the existence of other fighting games having ridiculous stick motions doesn't justify the existence of l-canceling in this game

in other words, the existence of one thing in a certain medium doesn't justify the existence of the same thing in another medium

in fact, i would wager that fighting games having such stick motions are the worse offender of the two, so it's not exactly an example helping your case

 

[Azurie]

Man, I'd really love to hear some pmbr opinions on this matter. Does the majority honestly feel manual l-cancelling is better for the gameplay? Or is it still around to keep the melee vets from bailing on Project M? Don't get me wrong, community is a huge part of Project M. I just want to know what's going through the minds of the pmbr.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Man, I'd really love to hear some pmbr opinions on this matter. Does the majority honestly feel manual l-cancelling is better for the gameplay? Or is it still around to keep the melee vets from bailing on Project M? Don't get me wrong, community is a huge part of Project M. I just want to know what's going through the minds of the pmbr.

I had a small conversation w/ Fireball Stars in the last thread.

 

[NTHPlayr]

I don't think automatic L-canceling should be legal in tournament, i'm just used to l-canceling all the time. It depends on if the player doesn't like L-canceling manually.

64: Melee: Brawl: PM: Smash 4:

 

[Narpas_sword]

I don't think automatic L-canceling should be legal in tournament, i'm just used to l-canceling all the time.

It doesnt affect your Manual Lcancel input having it on.

 

[Kurri ★]

Figured I should "tackle" this.

Missing an l-cancel on a move with fewer than 10 frames of landing lag often results in the player accidentally hitting shield, which effectively adds end lag to the move and can get them stuck in shield if the opponent pressures it while it's up. Such a blunder also costs them shield size (which believe it or not, is totally an important resource that you have to manage in PM).
Characters with usable wind boxes, like dedede, can also occasionally exploit fastfallers attempting to shffl near the ledge by pulling them slightly so they don't land on stage or their move gets accidentally edge canceled and the attempted l-cancel results in an air dodge offstage instead. This can also be done with much greater difficulty with character collisions and shield push instead of a windbox.

Wouldn't auto L-Cancel fix this issue then? Now you're not accidentally shielding or air-dodging.

When attempting an edge-canceled aerial, the player has to make a decision as to whether or not to l-cancel in case they miss the edge and land on platform with significant landing lag, or not l-cancel in case they successfully edge cancel and the shield input from the l-cancel attempt results in an unwanted air dodge.

What I'm understanding here is that they should've positioned themselves better.

I would also question why you consider the ability to press L or R with proper timing so "arbitrary" of a skill barrier when most traditional fighting games require you to be able to properly input weird control stick motions with proper timing to even use more than half of a character's moveset.

It's not so much the proper timing, but the lack of decision making behind it. I know you hate when i say this, but L-Cancel is an option that isn't really an option.

 

[kinje]

You can hit them with the food analogy...

That and, if Fox and Falco become easy with auto L-Cancel, doesn't that mean the problem is with them?

No, because they are balanced with the current system, which makes their potentially safe, overpowering combos and shield pressure a little risky, as it's easy enough to mess up that even weston messed it up 5 times when I MM'd him (2 times because I tilted shield to purposefully throw off his timing), and if they do, they get shield-grabbed on reaction and chain-grabbed/up-thrown or down-thrown into combos/thrown offstage into relatively easy edge-guards. L-cancel is flawed in theory because it presumes imperfect (read human) play, but in the current game (read practically), it adds risk/reward to the move sequence where otherwise there would be none. L-canceled nairshine on shield is safe on shield, while non-l-canceled nair-shine isn't and can be punished on reaction or read (at this point it comes so naturally I can't discern between the two). If there isn't manual l-canceling, one of two things happens to the move sequence. If there is auto-l-cancel, then that sequence is always safe on shield and no one would ever challenge it, so it would never actually connect, as people have to just run away from nair respecting the nairshine. If there is no l-cancel at all, then the nairshine can always be challenged, and no longer serves any purpose on shield.
The characters' gameplay can't be judged outside of the context in the game they exist in. In its current form, the game is balanced by PMDT with the assumption that l-cancels are a given.

 

[NTHPlayr]

It doesnt affect your Manual Lcancel input having it on.

Its just me. I just prefer L-canceling manually.

 

[kinje]

Figured I should "tackle" this.

Wouldn't auto L-Cancel fix this issue then? Now you're not accidentally shielding or air-dodging.

In these specific scenarios, it is an option with risk/reward, like you guys think everything in smash should be. The mechanic is in there, and it can be punished, so it should be punished.
If I get the read once, and mess them up for the kill/punish, they have to weigh the risks each time we're in that scenario again. If they try to l-cancel the fastfalled aerial, then they risk being punished hard for it, and if they decide not to on the off chance I do it again, they can end up with a laggy aerial that I can punish.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Its just me. I just prefer L-canceling manually.

Which you can still do with Aucto Lcancel on.

Or do you mean to say that you prefer that your opponent has to L-Cancel Manually?

In these specific scenarios, it is an option with risk/reward, like you guys think everything in smash should be. The mechanic is in there, and it can be punished, so it should be punished.
If I get the read once, and mess them up for the kill/punish, they have to weigh the risks each time we're in that scenario again. If they try to l-cancel the fastfalled aerial, then they risk being punished hard for it, and if they decide not to on the off chance I do it again, they can end up with a laggy aerial that I can punish.

But if you Press L in your attack animation, you dont airdodge...
theres no buffer in play.

 

[kinje]

Which you can still do with Aucto Lcancel on.

Or do you mean to say that you prefer that your opponent has to L-Cancel Manually?

there's another option: both

 

[kinje]

What I'm understanding here is that they should've positioned themselves better.

Yeah, they're playing with human thumbs, a physical controller that can stick or slip, and another character on the stage that they aren't in control of, as this is a real game that doesn't exist in a perfect world, and there are always margins of error to account for. Weighing risks and accounting for your opponents' and your own possible mistakes is the basis of fighting games in the first place. If no one ever committed to things that weren't necessarily the right option and always spaced things perfectly, then footsies/neutral would never end unless the game glitched or a player quit, and fighting games would be about algorithms, not mind games, reads, coordination, and spacing.

 

[NTHPlayr]

Which you can still do with Aucto Lcancel on.

Or do you mean to say that you prefer that your opponent has to L-Cancel Manually

No the opponent doesn't have to l-cancel manually. If the opponent likes auto l-canceling, then there should an option that lets a specific player use the auto l-cancel option.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

No, because they are balanced with the current system, which makes their potentially safe, overpowering combos and shield pressure a little risky, as it's easy enough to mess up that even weston messed it up 5 times when I MM'd him (2 times because I tilted shield to purposefully throw off his timing), and if they do, they get shield-grabbed on reaction and chain-grabbed/up-thrown or down-thrown into combos/thrown offstage into relatively easy edge-guards. L-cancel is flawed in theory because it presumes imperfect (read human) play, but in the current game (read practically), it adds risk/reward to the move sequence where otherwise there would be none. L-canceled nairshine on shield is safe on shield, while non-l-canceled nair-shine isn't and can be punished on reaction or read (at this point it comes so naturally I can't discern between the two). If there isn't manual l-canceling, one of two things happens to the move sequence. If there is auto-l-cancel, then that sequence is always safe on shield and no one would ever challenge it, so it would never actually connect, as people have to just run away from nair respecting the nairshine. If there is no l-cancel at all, then the nairshine can always be challenged, and no longer serves any purpose on shield.
The characters' gameplay can't be judged outside of the context in the game they exist in. In its current form, the game is balanced by PMDT with the assumption that l-cancels are a given.

I can't argue with most of this, because it's true. Though, I still wouldn't attribute this to L-Cancel. It's a Fox/Falco thing, which I won't comment on here, because that deserves its own thread. I won't be offended if you dismiss this.

Yeah, they're playing with human thumbs, a physical controller that can stick or slip, and another character on the stage that they aren't in control of, as this is a real game that doesn't exist in a perfect world, and there are always margins of error to account for. Weighing risks and accounting for your opponents' and your own possible mistakes is the basis of fighting games in the first place. If no one ever committed to things that weren't necessarily the right option and always spaced things perfectly, then footsies/neutral would never end unless the game glitched or a player quit, and fighting games would be about algorithms, not mind games, reads, coordination, and spacing.

This is also true, but it exists whether or not Auto L-Cancel is on. The bolded is sooo exaggerated, let's be honest.

 

[Kurri ★]

No the opponent doesn't have to l-cancel manually. If the opponent likes auto l-canceling, then there should an option that lets a specific player use the auto l-cancel option.

I suppose I understand this for casual play, but tourney play? No, absolutely not, either both have it on, or both have it off.

 

[kinje]

It's not so much the proper timing, but the lack of decision making behind it. I know you hate when i say this, but L-Cancel is an option that isn't really an option.

The very existence of the l-cancel creates a risk/reward scenario where it can be safe or unsafe to use an aerial in a specific situation. So yes, on it's own, it's not an option, but it provides a better/more rewarding option in many scenarios that can be a bad idea in a few rare scenarios.

It might be that the difference in opinion partially lies in that you're looking at l-cancel as a separate option from the aerial itself, while I look at the shffled/l-canceled aerial as the option, since the l-cancel, in my mind, doesn't exist outside of the aerial landing lag it cuts in half.

 

[Narpas_sword]

The very existence of the l-cancel creates a risk/reward scenario where it can be safe or unsafe to use an aerial in a specific situation. So yes, on it's own, it's not an option, but it provides a better/more rewarding option in many scenarios that can be a bad idea in a few rare scenarios.

It might be that the difference in opinion partially lies in that you're looking at l-cancel as a separate option from the aerial itself, while I look at the shffled/l-canceled aerial as the option, since the l-cancel, in my mind, doesn't exist outside of the aerial landing lag it cuts in half.

but, how does MLC add value here where ALC doesnt?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

The very existence of the l-cancel creates a risk/reward scenario where it can be safe or unsafe to use an aerial in a specific situation. So yes, on it's own, it's not an option, but it provides a better/more rewarding option in many scenarios that can be a bad idea in a few rare scenarios.

It might be that the difference in opinion partially lies in that you're looking at l-cancel as a separate option from the aerial itself, while I look at the shffled/l-canceled aerial as the option, since the l-cancel, in my mind, doesn't exist outside of the aerial landing lag it cuts in half.

That's the whole point. The risk is pretty minimal as described earlier in the thread and the reward (landing on the ground safely) is always preferred. Why should something so simple be made this redundant? There's risk to committing to perform an aerial attack on someone before you even get to the point of L-Cancelling or not.

 

[kinje]

I can't argue with most of this, because it's true. Though, I still wouldn't attribute this to L-Cancel. It's a Fox/Falco thing, which I won't comment on here, because that deserves its own thread. I won't be offended if you dismiss this.



This is also true, but it exists whether or not Auto L-Cancel is on. The bolded is sooo exaggerated, let's be honest.

I mean, I guess what I'm basically trying to get at is that l-cancel is a bad mechanic in theory, but that theory assumes perfect play, and, let's be honest, that doesn't exist. Outside of perfect play, it just adds one more moderate-reward moderate-risk gamble into the mix, and I see no issues with that.


These next points have no bearing on competitive play or the viability of l-canceling, but they're some more of the many reasons I approve of the mechanic:
- In casual play (read non-tourney play), l-cancels reward knowledge of the game and coordination in a way that helps a skilled player of a slower character keep up with an unskilled player of a significantly better character. (i.e., a skilled roy can beat any fox)
- L-canceling adds one more way in which the player is involved the character's movement, keeping consistency with wall and ground techs by simulating bracing yourself for a landing with a timed button press à la parkour (mirror's edge), skating and racing games (almost all of them).

 

[Kurri ★]

I mean, I guess what I'm basically trying to get at is that l-cancel is a bad mechanic in theory, but that theory assumes perfect play, and, let's be honest, that doesn't exist. Outside of perfect play, it just adds one more moderate-reward moderate-risk gamble into the mix, and I see no issues with that.

The problem is that the risk isn't in the L-Cancel, it's in the attack.

 

[kinje]

That's the whole point. The risk is pretty minimal as described earlier in the thread and the reward (landing on the ground safely) is always preferred. Why should something so simple be made this redundant? There's risk to committing to perform an aerial attack on someone before you even get to the point of L-Cancelling or not.

Yeah, but you're making way too much out of it. It's braindead in many situations, but in those situations, you're still thinking about your other options, as there are no situations in which you press L after aerial to win. However, there still remains the few sequences that I mentioned in which l-canceling may seem like a good option, but relying on muscle memory and trying to l-cancel mindlessly can open you up to dangerous misinputs that could cost you an early stock. I'm of the opinion that any slight upper hand, however small or rare, that can be gained from cleverness or knowledge of the game and your opponent should stay in the game,as long as it doesn't dramatically harm gameplay in some concrete way. Now, if you consider the extra L press to be harming gameplay in a concrete way, then I understand your point of view, but I don't agree that pressing L is that much of a pain.

The other justification, which is also just me once again being a realist rather than an idealist, is that the characters in this game aren't designed in a way that meshes as well with non-manual l-canceling, and most likely never will be. The PMDT has made or kept numerous sequences that are only ever substantively punishable when players are forced to take that extra step to l-cancel and are expected to occasionally miss. The eventuality of messing up and missing the l-cancel can keep matches from getting stale from overuse of a quick, relatively braindead sequence of moves like repeated drillshines and make them worth challenging every once in a while when you expect the screw-up.
The prevalence of absolute pressure in a game's meta is almost invariably toxic, and, as far as PM, and for that matter, Melee, is concerned, a small number of the characters simply aren't designed in a way that acknowledges that fact, making l-canceling's additional button requirements and resulting tech errors the only real defense from a soul-crushing, all-20XX fox pressure meta.
Now, if you want PMDT to put a ridiculous amount of work into rebalancing all characters with a focus on shield pressures's offensive tools and tweaking the entire cast's defensive kits to accommodate the significantly decreased number of tech errors that would likely result from removing manual l-canceling from the game, then that's fine. If done correctly, it would undeniably produce a better game. But I personally doubt it will ever happen, and even if it does, it's unlikely it will be done well, so I'm willing to accept that l-canceling is probably what's best for the meta if we're being realistic.

 

[masterpad]

this debate again?!

I DECLARE! L-Cancel is the heart of the game!
auto-L cancel option should be remove as fast as possible !
all topic debating against l-cancel should be closed!

the mighty smash-god has spoken! obey or face his wrath!

 

[Kurri ★]

this debate again?!

I DECLARE! L-Cancel is the heart of the game!
auto-L cancel option should be remove as fast as possible !
all topic debating against l-cancel should be closed!

the mighty smash-god has spoken! obey or face his wrath!

What's a god to a non-believer?

Alright, explain why it's the heart of the game please.
And why Auto L-Cancel should be removed.

 

[masterpad]

What's a god to a non-believer?

Alright, explain why it's the heart of the game please.
And why Auto L-Cancel should be removed.

hi
no , not "the heart of the game" of course i was jocking (it would have be too easy), but i have spend so much time arguing for lcancel that all i can do now is just smile when people are debating.

i am 31 years old and i have DEEPLY played almost all 2D and 3D fighting since karaté and street fighter2.
I really understand when people exlain that "l-cancel" don't have any strategic value or "l-cancel" don't exist in any other game, "l-cancel" is just a wall for newcomers....or any others arguments.
They are not really wrong it's just, what they say are not arguments at all, they are just looking at one side of the coin and also looking at it the wrong way...

I will say only one single thing: the skill-rewards system. an action that needs skill to be performed is set in a game, and if you performed it there is a reward.
and there is a typical pleasure in getting rewarded for performing a skill in a game that people want to deny, or present as pointless , which is not because this is the first layer of entertainment in a game , strategy comes after.

MAYBE YOU CAN DEBATE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE REWARDS BUT NOT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ACTION ITSELF...

an example: i play DonkeyKong in pm, at good percentage to perfectly combo an opponent with two successive Nair, i need to succed my lcancels. I don't want to perform my double Nair combo for free,
I WANT TO PAY FOR IT, TO PAY THE SKILL PRICE... and it is so natural to me that i have to pay it.
this is a sooo old and simple thing to understand....
since the 2 hit combo has been discover in street fighter 2 (damage multiplier as reward), a so old thing that doesn't really need to be debate at all the simple : SKILL-REWARD SYSTEM...

there are so any example with so many other character. or so any other fighting games. i still wander about this debate...
but there goes the life...

 

[kinje]

What's a god to a non-believer?

Alright, explain why it's the heart of the game please.
And why Auto L-Cancel should be removed.

Human beings in a mob, but what's a mob to a kin[je]?