Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[Quillion]

Stopped right there. "I thought you people were..." If you're going to have the audacity to call people dumb, at least have the courtesy to use proper grammar.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Snip.

Going for the bait.

1) Okay
2) Cool
3) Not really, but the second sub point could be said for other games as well.
4) I see where you're coming from, but that would remove a key feature of what makes Smash unique from other games. It also doesn't match up with the PMDT's goals.

See, you like comparing different fruit to each other and think you're making a point. I may like oranges and you don't; you might like apples more. Do I think oranges are the superior fruit? Yea, but I'm not going around calling other fruit the worst thing to come off trees.

 

[Bleck]

No firetrucking commands by twisting the stick and pressing a button. None of that frustration of getting a fireball when you want a dragon punch or vice versa (I'm exaggerating a beginners problem, but still). In Smash, you press a button, hold a direction, and that's it. Every action you take is a single press of button and I like that.

a game isn't bad because you're bad at it

It combines the best parts of the best platforming games and fighters. You can change your momentum's direction in midair Mario style and you can jump to reach higher ground on other platforms. How great is that!?

a game isn't good because you like it

It can double as a physical sport. There's just so much mechanics and inputs to work around that human limitations are hit first instead of the game's own skill cap.

a game isn't good because it's hard to play

No two top-tier players play alike. Ideally, every fragile speedster, and then, every character plays according to the personal style of the player in question.

a game isn't good because people play it differently

 

[Rawkobo]

Which is why I've taken up the standing that Melee is one of the few video games that can pass for a physical sport and every other fighter is inferior.

Street Fighter 4 is slower than Brawl while MvC is a broken mess. Project M leans towards the latter while not letting it be broken while giving it enough depth that ideally every playstyle for every character is unique to the player.

So like...should I bring up the fact that in other threads regarding character design and whatnot, you brought up the prospect of bringing every character to Fox's level, aka a design philosophy that turned out to be the worst decision even from the perspective of Melee players? And yet here you are claiming MvC is a broken mess?

I...what. It's like I step away from the thread from a second and come back to the most hypocritical claim I've ever seen made in a long time.

There's no relevance to the topic itself, but I'll address it since I'm befuddled by this claim right now.

MvC doesn't look balanced because it's not homogenized, but at the same time, balancing a game doesn't necessarily mean homogenization is the way to go. Not every character in Marvel is designed to be a point character, and that's okay. Not every character has decent qualities to fit on every team as an anchor, and that's okay. To go out of your way to say that these games are inferior in every way shows a very narrow mindset without much to learn from, because you actively choose to not educate yourself on the mental aspect of games despite praising "varied playstyles" in another post.

You must really suck at chess.

Anyway.

To somewhat tie it into the original discussion, I think at one point @ kinje brought up how removing L-cancelling/going with ALR would affect balance. I think that game balance has more to do with the nature of intricate character design once mechanics are in place and not necessarily changing something with theoretically questionable significance. That said, under the assumption there was real significance, then yes, it would result in the need for a considerable amount of changes to make characters less unfair, since they suddenly would appear so.

I would theorize a damage reduction that would more than likely result in a more ground-based game unless the aerials had combo implications that were safe more often than not. It would more than likely not go over well with some slight comparisons being made to Smash 4's mechanical design, which I'll admit I'm not 100% fond of because aerial play does affect a large amount of games, including major titles in the FGC.

That is, if that actually had significance, which again, based on this thread, is very clearly debatable.

 

[kinje]

[Apology for accidental double-post]

 

[kinje]

So like...should I bring up the fact that in other threads regarding character design and whatnot, you brought up the prospect of bringing every character to Fox's level, aka a design philosophy that turned out to be the worst decision even from the perspective of Melee players? And yet here you are claiming MvC is a broken mess?

I...what. It's like I step away from the thread from a second and come back to the most hypocritical claim I've ever seen made in a long time.

There's no relevance to the topic itself, but I'll address it since I'm befuddled by this claim right now.

MvC doesn't look balanced because it's not homogenized, but at the same time, balancing a game doesn't necessarily mean homogenization is the way to go. Not every character in Marvel is designed to be a point character, and that's okay. Not every character has decent qualities to fit on every team as an anchor, and that's okay. To go out of your way to say that these games are inferior in every way shows a very narrow mindset without much to learn from, because you actively choose to not educate yourself on the mental aspect of games despite praising "varied playstyles" in another post.

You must really suck at chess.

Anyway.

To somewhat tie it into the original discussion, I think at one point @ kinje brought up how removing L-cancelling/going with ALR would affect balance. I think that game balance has more to do with the nature of intricate character design once mechanics are in place and not necessarily changing something with theoretically questionable significance. That said, under the assumption there was real significance, then yes, it would result in the need for a considerable amount of changes to make characters less unfair, since they suddenly would appear so.

I would theorize a damage reduction that would more than likely result in a more ground-based game unless the aerials had combo implications that were safe more often than not. It would more than likely not go over well with some slight comparisons being made to Smash 4's mechanical design, which I'll admit I'm not 100% fond of because aerial play does affect a large amount of games, including major titles in the FGC.

That is, if that actually had significance, which again, based on this thread, is very clearly debatable.

Well, my assumption is that everything currently in the game has some effect on how the game is played, and that whether or not it has an effect is not in question, but how big of an effect it has is.
On some level, I think it plays an important role as an execution limiter. It puts in a kind of tech skill that is easy to do reliably, but nearly impossible to do perfectly, and so it encourages these good offensive options with little risk that aren't completely safe no matter how you play the game.

a game isn't good because people play it differently

I also disagree with his other points, but the fact that the game allows people to play it in visibly different ways and still maintain the viability to compete at the highest levels definitely contributes to its inherent entertainment value to both players and spectators.

 

[4tlas]

Well, my assumption is that everything currently in the game has some effect on how the game is played, and that whether or not it has an effect is not in question, but how big of an effect it has is.
On some level, I think it plays an important role as an execution limiter. It puts in a kind of tech skill that is easy to do reliably, but nearly impossible to do perfectly, and so it encourages these good offensive options with little risk that aren't completely safe no matter how you play the game.

I suppose that's a fair opinion. I think L-cancel isn't usually the thing that gets screwed up, but I understand the PoV that L-cancelling can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I'd still rather a game that's about quick thinking rather than quick execution + quick thinking because it inherently takes away from the effectiveness of the thinking part. I still think its fair to argue that if you want quick execution + quick thinking there are plenty of other fighters.

 

[JOE!]

as far as human reaction time is concerned I'm just going to say this

Plup landed 9 grabs on Leffen last night over the course of 3 games. Samus grab comes out on frame 19 in Melee. Fox spotdodge comes out on frame 3. So theoretically, if Leffen has a reaction time of less than 17 frames, he should have been able to spotdodge every grab on reaction. But in reality, he didn't, and Plup usually caught him shielding.

Leffen is arguably the best reaction-based player in the world and he managed to get grabbed by frame 19 grab a bunch of times. So, to those saying "you definitely can react in 14 frames", that seems somewhat dubious to me. you might be able to pull it off sometimes but I doubt you could get very consistent.

 

[4tlas]

You lost me, Joe. Wrong thread?

 

[JOE!]

Its relevant to all the reaction time talk earlier in this thread.

 

[4tlas]

Its relevant to all the reaction time talk earlier in this thread.

Did I miss that part? Actually don't tell me, I stopped caring once I got sick of the flaming, and then very promptly everyone started discussion amicably, and we seem to have a vague understanding among the active participants of the thread. So I don't care again because we're happy lol

 

[Bleck]

yeah, we were talking about whether or not "you can punish a missed l-cancel on reaction" is actually possible (hint: it's not)

 

[4tlas]

yeah, we were talking about whether or not "you can punish a missed l-cancel on reaction" is actually possible (hint: it's not)

Ah I remember that part. It seemed so obviously undoable that I forgot it was a point of debate.

 

[Kurri ★]

Attention @ kinje you have that sort of reaction time right?

 

[Bleck]

kinje's argument was that "on reaction" doesn't exist, and that literally every movement is according to his keikaku

(translator's note: keikaku means plan)

 

[kinje]

Attention @ kinje you have that sort of reaction time right?

I'm pretty sure we talked about before how being prepared to react to a specific stimuli results in a different speed of reaction than being surprised and trying to change what you're about to do at the last second.
Also, you've played Chris way too many times to legitimately believe people can't spot dodge on reaction.

kinje's argument was that "on reaction" doesn't exist, and that literally every movement is according to his keikaku

(translator's note: keikaku means plan)

Lol, Bleck, please stop trying so hard to discredit people by deliberately misunderstanding what they are saying.
Once again: no, that's not what I said. What I said was that in order to react quickly, you have to know what you want to do in response to the opponent's action before it comes down to the reaction.
It's like the difference between doing flash cards and responding 4 as soon as you see 2+2 because you've added those numbers before and counting out the answer on your fingers when you see 2+2 because you've never memorized the answer to 2+2.
Both are in reaction to seeing what's on the flash card, but one is much quicker than the other, because you already know the answer to the problem you read on the flash card.

 

[Kurri ★]

I'm pretty sure we talked about before how being prepared to react to a specific stimuli results in a different speed of reaction than being surprised and trying to change what you're about to do at the last second.
Also, you've played Chris way too many times to legitimately believe people can't spot dodge on reaction.

I'm pretty sure he was reading not reacting. I have a very predictable playstyle remember?

 

[kinje]

I'm pretty sure he was reading not reacting. I have a very predictable playstyle remember?

Lolno, we talked through what he was thinking when I played against him. The closest thing he does to a read is attacking the direction he hopes you'll go because it puts you in the worst situation afterwards.
His playstyle is good spacing and use of tools combined with godlike reaction speeds.
That's why Steven would still lose to him relatively frequently, but not to me, even once I started beating Chris +80% of the time. Because Chris can still play in reaction to Steven, while I have to rely mostly on reads and being careful because of my character.

 

[Bleck]

Lol, Bleck, please stop trying so hard to discredit people by deliberately misunderstanding what they are saying.

No, because I'm picking two options beforehand, and I commit to one or the other on reaction.

Choosing an option isn't the same as committing to said option.

 

[kinje]

Yeah, you're deliberately misunderstanding what I said in that quote. It was a little poorly phrased, but anyone who knows how to use context clues can easily figure out what that meant.
By "picking two options", I was referring to the line of thinking "if he l-cancels this nair/dair, I tilt shield to avoid getting poked by shine, if he doesn't l-cancel, I press a to grab him."
And by "committing to options" I'm referring to the act of starting the inputs to said options.

 

[Bleck]

yes, that is what you're saying, in an argument about whether or not it's possible to react to whiffed l-cancels

so your argument is that reacting to whiffed l-cancels is possible because you've planned it out beforehand and are actually working off of a read

so you're essentially saying that reaction doesn't exist, because all things are reads, and therefore it must be possible to react (read) to a whiffed l-cancel

the problem isn't that I'm "misunderstanding" your argument, it's that your argument is a lot dumber than you think it is

 

[kinje]

yes, that is what you're saying, in an argument about whether or not it's possible to react to whiffed l-cancels

so your argument is that reacting to whiffed l-cancels is possible because you've planned it out beforehand and are actually working off of a read

so you're essentially saying that reaction doesn't exist, because all things are reads, and therefore it must be possible to react (read) to a whiffed l-cancel

the problem isn't that I'm "misunderstanding" your argument, it's that your argument is a lot dumber than you think it is

No. Planning at all beforehand is not the same as making a read.
Making a read is guessing what your opponent is going to do based on intuition or your opponent's habits and starting to act before you've seen what they are doing.
A reaction is waiting to see what your opponent is doing (waiting for them to make a move), then executing an appropriate response. The thing is, you can know what the appropriate responses are to the things your opponent might do, without knowing exactly what they are going to do.

I don't know what they're going to do. I know what I'm going to do if they do something.

 

[GP&B]

Yeah, but going in with a battle plan in response to a situation where someone misses an L-cancel is only going to be worth the energy if the player in question is bad. There are substantially more important things to be looking out for at high level play.

 

[JOE!]

Expecting something is a read, not a reaction IMO, which is where all this confusion is coming from.

 

[Bleck]

^ that's what I'm saying, yes

 

[kinje]

Yeah, but going in with a battle plan in response to a situation where someone misses an L-cancel is only going to be worth the energy if the player in question is bad. There are substantially more important things to be looking out for at high level play.

It's not like it's some complicated plan that you have to carefully think through beforehand. If they miss an l-cancel after throwing an aerial on my shield, they can be punished by a shield grab. It's a free punish for me, and everyone misses l-cancels every once in a while, so there's no reason for me not to be ready for it.

Expecting something is a read, not a reaction IMO, which is where all this confusion is coming from.

I'm not expecting it. I just see it when it happens. I never said I was expecting it. It's just one of the many things they can do in that situation, and you should be ready to respond to anything that can happen.

Think of it in the same way as them accidentally air dodging off of a platform when they try to wavedash off of it. You aren't expecting it, but you can react to it as soon as you see it, and you know you should attack them since they're in a helpless state.

 

[GP&B]

The point is that you're going to be more strictly making decisions based off of fundamentals, not the rare technical error. Anyone thinking L-cancels have any more than a fraction to do with the punishes that occur in response aren't actually watching what happens in matches. If you're going to choose to shield grab, it's because someone spaces poorly and is playing a character that doesn't have any good options at close range to frametrap the grab response (basically not-spacies).

In essence, you're wildly overvaluing how much reading L-canceling success/failure plays into a match between competent players.

 

[kinje]

Anything that can give one player a punish on another player is valuable, regardless of how frequently it occurs.

Most misspacings are also the result of minor technical errors, and bad spacing accounts for most punishes in the game.

 

[GP&B]

Right but if we are to substantiate and justify L-Canceling as a mechanic based on that, then what it offers is underwhelming. It's a technical barrier that's an upfront nuisance to new players and a negligible button press for the experienced offering no comparably expansive options like other execution-based techniques and is also easily substituted for with an automatic option. What it provides in human error is rarely reactable and not reliably readable either (as it's so incredibly uncommon).

The whole point being made against L-Canceling is that while it can't be denied that it offers something - literally anything - to the game in some ways, it's not considered valuable enough to have as an arbitrary button press that raises the skill floor with little tangible justification.

Most misspacings are also the result of minor technical errors

That is patently false. The only reason I could see why you would say this would come from a lack of understanding how the neutral works.

 

[kinje]

That is patently false. The only reason I could see why you would say this would come from a lack of understanding how the neutral works.

Sorry, you're right about that, I over-exaggerated when I said most. Most are the result of misevaluating where the opponent is going or what they are trying to do. But many are simply the result of the player holding the control stick slightly farther or shorter or for a longer or briefer period of time than they should have to accomplish what they were trying to.

Right but if we are to substantiate and justify L-Canceling as a mechanic based on that, then what it offers is underwhelming. It's a technical barrier that's an upfront nuisance to new players and a negligible button press for the experienced offering no comparably expansive options like other execution-based techniques and is also easily substituted for with an automatic option. What it provides in human error is rarely reactable and not reliably readable either (as it's so incredibly uncommon).

The whole point being made against L-Canceling is that while it can't be denied that it offers something - literally anything - to the game in some ways, it's not considered valuable enough to have as an arbitrary button press that raises the skill floor with little tangible justification.

My main disagreement with this point, though, is that ALC is almost entirely untested in the meta, and yet you guys all believe without any doubt that the current implementation of MLC is negligible or detrimental to the experience of the game and how it is played at the top level. There's no data to support your ideas as of yet (other than standards of play and fundamentals originating in other games which we've applied to this game largely for the sake of convenience of discussion and understanding), and you don't show any kind of acknowledgement of that fact.
Everyone here is repeatedly discussing unexplored ideas as if they are indisputable facts.

 

[GP&B]

I won't deny that we'll never by any stretch achieve pixel perfect control. It's unreasonable and from that, it does to some degree play a part in whether moves end up landing, trading, or get beaten out. Street Fighter's a great game to watch for that as it's incredibly apparent there.

The main idea I'm getting at is that players won't strictly plan around that. They'll refine their spacing to a tee in order to reduce those possibilities but ultimately the goal is to alter your opponent's mindset on how they choose to interact with you in such a way as to force a bad decision (like a hasty poke or a risky move that can really put them in trouble) and thus move from out of neutral and into punish. This, at the core, is what fighting games revolve around.

The human element is irremovable, but it's also the most appealing part. Being technically sound shouldn't be undermined as an important quality and Smash on the basis of being a fighter already has lots in that department before even touching the more execution-heavy aspects. I just don't personally feel that L-Canceling does anything for this piece of the game that isn't already accomplished by the base game as a fighter and it doesn't provide anything compared to the game's more rigorous techniques.

 

[PubstarJones]

Lucas' Nair and Dair both have windows where you want to mix up when you l-cancel. Nair having less knockback if l canceled early for combos, but if you wait for the strong hit at the end you send them much farther and can even kill. Dair can be l-canceled early for a small stun, or you can wait til the last meteor hit and pop them up for a combo.

When I use ALC Lucas (my main) it actually messes me up sometimes.

My personal opinion though is while it doesn't provide as much/any gameplay depth, it does provide a sense of feeling/impact when you hit the ground. It's something you don't get in any other fighter, and for me is a very satisying. I'm not even good very good at it, so I'm not someone who's angry they've learned something that would become useless.

It's like a manual transmission in a car, while they have automatic transmissions that shift faster than you can blink, but it's not as engaging or fun. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Kurri ★]

Just turn on rumble then

 

[mimgrim]

Lucas' Nair and Dair both have windows where you want to mix up when you l-cancel. Nair having less knockback if l canceled early for combos, but if you wait for the strong hit at the end you send them much farther and can even kill. Dair can be l-canceled early for a small stun, or you can wait til the last meteor hit and pop them up for a combo.

When I use ALC Lucas (my main) it actually messes me up sometimes.

This isn't a case of mixing up your L-cancels but rather mixing up when you fast falling during the attacks. ALC shouldn't actually mess with any of that unless their final hits happen on the ground (which I am pretty isn't the case for Dair and I'm pretty sure isn't the case for Nair either).

There are, however, moves the ALC could potentially mess up (like GnW's Dair for example which I believe has a hitbox when landed on the ground and not L-canceled) or certain stuff for a character (Ice Climbers, though I'm really aware of the exact intricacies, but I think @Hylian could go into that).

Of course rather or not these fringe instances are worth the keeping MLC is another argument of of L-canceling (And like with the rest of the L-cancel argument I don't really care either way).

 

[DMG]

Auto l cancel is the law

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

Haven't really kept up with this thread, but after skimming through it, I enjoyed @ kinje 's responses to the thread. However, from what I'e seen, you keep making the same arguments that other opponents to ALC have made and have already been rebutted by ALC supporters without providing any counter-points to those rebuttals.

Your position on MLC (or at least a large part of it) seems to be based on the fact that new opportunities in the game open up when a player misses an L-cancel, and if a player can react to these missed opportunities, then by definition this adds in-game depth that otherwise would not exist if ALC was implemented. I actually agree with this in its entirety. However, this is a complete straw man argument. If the fundamental question at the end of the day is "how does DOING manual L-canceling add depth to the game" it makes no sense to answer this question by using an example where you DON'T do it via human error or for any other reason. We want to know when you successfully input the L-cancel command (assuming it's done correctly 100% of the time, meaning there is no discussion of human error or missed L-cancels), where is the depth in-game being added? How are option pools and decision trees being affected? What opportunities open up for doing a successful MLC that would not occur for an ALC? Based upon our arguments, we've shown that it does not add any depth and I argued that it did not based on a game design standpoint. Would you mind trying to counter these points and argument in detail?

Also, if you think that my analysis of your argument is incorrect and is not indicative of a strawman argument, could you explain this as well? Or maybe you think I'm making a strawman of the fundamental topic? I'd love to hear what you have to say!

 

[DMG]

Manual L cancel with a fail window might be interesting, bout all I have to say or think on the topic. Automatic L cancel, along with L cancel removal + naturally halving aerial attack landing lag, probably aren't preferred

(To clarify, my definition of auto L cancel would be that you still need an L press, but that you effectively would not have to time it or have a narrow window of opportunity. From pressing or holding L at any time, landing from attack will give l cancel.

What the majority of people would define or consider to be auto L cancel, would require no L cancel input and just automatic lag reduction implemented. The two are different, but in practice would be almost 99% the same)

 

[JOE!]

In defense of Lcanceling, it is sort of like a tempo for when you are playing where it does feel good, sort of like revving your hands up for fast play by keeping them moving. In that regard, if you could just press L at any point during an aerial and get the cancel as @ DMG said, that'd be swell.

I also wholeheartedly agree with @ TheKmanOfSmash with his explanation of how Lcancel sorta does/doesn't add depth to the game in response to @kinje.Yes, if the player misses an Lcancel you could punish them but as I have shown before with my numbers with a slow/med/fast aerial, only the slow landing lag one really gave enough time for the majority of players to do something about, whereas super fast players could react to medium, and fast moves were sort of a wash anyway. So for the majority of players, not only do they have to deal with the low chance that their opponent misses an Lcancel in the first place, they then can only react to the fact that they miss depending on the move in question (hell, my slow example was Ganon's Dair which does so much shield stun that it may even be harder to punish!). So in a sense it is almost two rolls of the dice whether they actually mess up, and then whether it was a move you can feasibly react to being messed up that IMO leads to a very small amount of depth (if PM is a mile deep, this would be a Foot's worth), but after all this conversation I admit it is there.

To reiterate, while missed Lcancels do happen and do get punished, either via raw reaction time (rare) or via a read/guess (shield-grabbing an aerial they happen to mess up let's say), it is a relatively rare event compared to other tech errors or spacing mistakes. For example, Ganon Fair's your shield. At a certain distance, against most characters this is actually really safe even if Ganon doesn't Lcancel due to a combination of distance, shield push and shield stun whereas if he messes up the spacing he can get shield-grabbed even if he Lcancels. These kinds of mistakes/flubs are far more common and interactive compared to missing an Lcancel, and for that reason I don't think I would mind at all if it were Auto. That said, the motion does feel good and keeps your hands moving which is a sort of unquantifiable aspect to it.

 

[DMG]

I'd probably only be a fan of auto L cancel if we also go the route of auto shield grab/auto defensive option. Not having to "time" your offense, while asking defensive player to usually time his defense, probably doesn't slant in a healthy way. Hold A during shielding, even during shield stun, = buffer shield grab every time. Stuff like that would make auto l cancel more fair and fitting

We already have C-stick buffering, but I'm talking about like auto Usmash OOS, auto shield grab, etc. Auto in defensive cases meaning you still have to input something obv

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

I suppose that's a fair opinion. I think L-cancel isn't usually the thing that gets screwed up, but I understand the PoV that L-cancelling can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I'd still rather a game that's about quick thinking rather than quick execution + quick thinking because it inherently takes away from the effectiveness of the thinking part. I still think its fair to argue that if you want quick execution + quick thinking there are plenty of other fighters.

No, that isn't a fair argument considering smash is already a fighter with quick execution + quick thinking. I think the more fair argument is for YOU to find another game to play instead of changing this one to suit your own "needs."

Sounded pretty mean didn't it? Do you still think your argument is "fair?" Come on man.