Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[ButterMeister]

I have entered the wrong thread.

But on a more observational note. Perhaps if auto L-cancel becomes popular enough, it will become opt out instead of opt in?

 

[Narpas_sword]

I already did, And you countered with press l a b or get punished.

O, and when someone asks to have the thread closed, they butthurt bud.

Edit: if the opponent has to manually lcancel, you could try to mess them up( ex: m2k shooting needles at opponent. FoD platforms might be tricky to lcanceling where auto just does the work). Auto lcanceling is like reward with no work. Manual is work with reward. If u don't work, you are slower. That's all I got bud.

And from what i remember, you did not answer follow up questions.

So.

am I correct in understanding that you think L-Cancelling Manually adds value to the game by providing a small bit of lag as punishment for failing to Press L while you are landing during an aerial attack?

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

And from what i remember, you did not answer follow up questions.

So.

am I correct in understanding that you think L-Cancelling Manually adds value to the game by providing a small bit of lag as punishment for failing to Press L while you are landing during an aerial attack?

Yes. It is a convienent button press that rewards you with a faster getup time from your aerial attacks.

 

[Rawkobo]

Yes. It is a convienent button press that rewards you with a faster getup time from your aerial attacks.

Okay. Explain why it is a convenient button press.

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

Okay. Explain why it is a convenient button press.

It just involves pressing 1 button at the right time, like teching.

 

[Kurri ★]

Could you possibly give us a well thought out post on why you think manual L-Cancel is beneficial so we don't have to ask you bit by bit?

 

[Narpas_sword]

Yes. It is a convienent button press that rewards you with a faster getup time from your aerial attacks.

Ok.

And do you think this would be a good value to add elswhere in the game?

For instance, when landing from special moves?

Please explain your answer.

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

Lcanceling is like equipment load. You never want to be over encumbered, just like you never want to miss an lcancel. Sometimes you pick up too much, and are punished with having to throw stuff away, and if you miss an lcancel, you have more landing lag.

Lcanceling is work with pay, auto is pay with no work

This one is 100% subjective, but auto l canceling just sounds sloppy. Lcanceling forces you to react to when and where you are landing to respond accordingly, while auto allows you to not worry about that as much, except for spacing purposes.

Like I said before, some things can mess up your timing as well ( needles, fod, opponent reactions, etc.). Auto cancels these things out.


All I got.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Lcanceling is like equipment load. You never want to be over encumbered, just like you never want to miss an lcancel. Sometimes you pick up too much, and are punished with having to throw stuff away, and if you miss an lcancel, you have more landing lag.

Lcanceling is work with pay, auto is pay with no work

This one is 100% subjective, but auto l canceling just sounds sloppy. Lcanceling forces you to react to when and where you are landing to respond accordingly, while auto allows you to not worry about that as much, except for spacing purposes.

Like I said before, some things can mess up your timing as well ( needles, fod, opponent reactions, etc.). Auto cancels these things out.


All I got.

Please answer my questions above this post.

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

Ok.

And do you think this would be a good value to add elswhere in the game?

For instance, when landing from special moves?

Please explain your answer.

Interesting but I don't think so because you can do special moves on the ground. Aerials are the only moves that you can only do while in air, therefore, lcanceling should only apply to those moves

 

[Kurri ★]

Lcanceling is like equipment load. You never want to be over encumbered, just like you never want to miss an lcancel. Sometimes you pick up too much, and are punished with having to throw stuff away, and if you miss an lcancel, you have more landing lag.

What?

Lcanceling is work with pay, auto is pay with no work

I don't think analogies are your forte...

Like I said before, some things can mess up your timing as well ( needles, fod, opponent reactions, etc.). Auto cancels these things out.

Like I said before, those are all separate from L-Cancel.

 

[Rawkobo]

Lcanceling is like equipment load. You never want to be over encumbered, just like you never want to miss an lcancel. Sometimes you pick up too much, and are punished with having to throw stuff away, and if you miss an lcancel, you have more landing lag.

Lcanceling is work with pay, auto is pay with no work

This one is 100% subjective, but auto l canceling just sounds sloppy. Lcanceling forces you to react to when and where you are landing to respond accordingly, while auto allows you to not worry about that as much, except for spacing purposes.

Like I said before, some things can mess up your timing as well ( needles, fod, opponent reactions, etc.). Auto cancels these things out.


All I got.

Okay. Now, here is a honest critique of this post's argument as a whole.

Both of these analogies are flawed. The first analogy, the equipment load analogy, is flawed because being overencumbered in any game has had more than a minimal effect on gameplay. I go from being able to move at any steady pace I desire to becoming very slowed. That effect is not replicated by missing a L-cancel.

The second analogy puts an overemphasis on L-cancelling's value. If it's simple enough to become a natural reaction in the first place, and as you established in the first place a while back, that "it's not hard" (which no one has actually argued that it is in this thread as of yet to my knowledge, and I don't think would), then why make a comparison to work? It's not work, it's imbuing a natural reaction, a reflex, to a particular instance happening. If it were real work, people would note L-cancelling as having a more serious effect on gameplay when performing commentary. And yet, rarely ever, at any level of play including top level, regardless of the professionalism or knowledge of the commentators involved, do you hear things about this as if they're truly significant to the level of play that this is occurring. One might note that if this is at all levels of play, then perhaps its significance is potentially brought into question.

If you can explain that second analogy in a bit more detail than the one line, then perhaps I can see the picture you're trying to paint without having to make these broad assumptions backed by countless viewing hours worth of research.

In regards to L-cancelling forcing you to react, that is, again, producing a natural reflex to flick a trigger on a controller to something unconsciously. You must agree that if I'm spending time in a game against someone focusing my attention on hitting a particular button, regardless of its simplicity, I'm overlooking factors much more worth my time at that very moment.

Spacing is universally significant regardless of L-cancelling. You can L-cancel all you want, but if you do an aerial on shield and you're too close in range? You're going to get grabbed or punished for not spacing correctly.

You are correct that these projectiles can mess up timing, but these things you listed mess you up regardless of hitting a L-cancel. It is, to refer to previous points, the significance of fundamentals and mental play that makes the difference in results and not the press of one button, but many over the course of a match. Reducing the number of presses by the number of aerials you perform by switching on auto is theorized (not proven, but theorized) to have no effect on the overall outcome of the match in the first place.

On top of that, having automatic cancels does not make you untouchable.

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

What?

I don't think analogies are your forte...


Like I said before, those are all separate from L-Cancel.

Both mechanics work where you never want to be punished but your reward is more speed.

Lcanceling manually awards you with less landing lag, auto just gives it to you for free

They are related because with auto enabled you will never mess up an lcancel due to those things, while manually you might.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Interesting but I don't think so because you can do special moves on the ground. Aerials are the only moves that you can only do while in air, therefore, lcanceling should only apply to those moves

That aside (and the fact that some specials act differently).

Why would it not add value in the same way having to L-Cancel an aerial would?

Ok, and even though the over encumbered analogy doesn't quite align, let me ask you this:
Imagine this Scenario:

You are playing an RPG.
You have near full capacity.
There is an item on the ground you don't need, but is worth a little and you may as well take it if you can.

Game option 1:

You press 'pick up'
The game says "you cannot carry this item"
The item stays on the ground.

Game Option 2:

You press 'pick up'
The item goes into your inventory
You Press 'Walk'
The game says 'you are over encumbered and cannot walk' (and for arguments sake, you cant fast travel, or mount a horse or anything either)
You must now open your inventory and remove an item.


Which option do you prefer? And why?

 

[Rawkobo]

Both mechanics work where you never want to be punished but your reward is more speed.

Upon further consideration of your first analogy, it isn't actually that bad an analogy, but unfortunately it doesn't serve the purpose you wanted it to.

The equipment load analogy is that you are normally unencumbered and capable of moving around at a natural pace of your choosing as long as you are within the prerequisite load limit. Likewise, before there is a requirement for you to L-cancel your aerial, you are able to move as naturally as you desire because of this game's attention to movement as an important detail.

Being overencumbered punishes you by restricting you instead of maintaining normalcy. If we are to follow your comparison of L-cancelling, it punishes you for not pushing a button to maintain the natural state you were in before.

Perhaps our idea of what a "reward" is differs. I don't consider a reward to be keeping the status quo, because there's nothing to gain from things staying the same; it keeps me in the same indefinite position that I was before. As a result, it seems, if we follow logically from this point, that L-cancelling does not in fact reward you, but not doing it is very clearly a punishment from what we are led to believe from you saying, and that much we can at least allow to be true.

If that is the case, then how does L-cancelling actually reward a player with something to gain if that gain is nonexistent in the first place? And from this, would this not make L-cancelling a bad technical mechanic by nature of design, simply because it can only then serve to punish rather than provide?

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

Upon further consideration of your first analogy, it isn't actually that bad an analogy, but unfortunately it doesn't serve the purpose you wanted it to.

The equipment load analogy is that you are normally unencumbered and capable of moving around at a natural pace of your choosing as long as you are within the prerequisite load limit. Likewise, before there is a requirement for you to L-cancel your aerial, you are able to move as naturally as you desire because of this game's attention to movement as an important detail.

Being overencumbered punishes you by restricting you instead of maintaining normalcy. If we are to follow your comparison of L-cancelling, it punishes you for not pushing a button to maintain the natural state you were in before.

Perhaps our idea of what a "reward" is differs. I don't consider a reward to be keeping the status quo, because there's nothing to gain from things staying the same; it keeps me in the same indefinite position that I was before. As a result, it seems, if we follow logically from this point, that L-cancelling does not in fact reward you, but not doing it is very clearly a punishment from what we are led to believe from you saying, and that much we can at least allow to be true.

If that is the case, then how does L-cancelling actually reward a player with something to gain if that gain is nonexistent in the first place? And from this, would this not make L-cancelling a bad technical mechanic by nature of design, simply because it can only then serve to punish rather than provide?

I think the main point I was trying to make is that they both boil down to the same thing. Both being over encumbered and missing an lcancel are never wanted. With auto l-canceling it is more convenient because there is no punishment in landing lag. Removing equipment load limit allows for more convience by allowing the player to pick up any item he wants with no penalty.

The second analogy was that manually lcanceling rewards you with less landing lag, while auto gives it to you for free. The word "Work" was not meant to imply "hard work," or "tons of work," but just doing an action and getting something in return.

Your third paragraph, first sentence really hits the difference between sides. If i'm observing correctly, those in favor of auto see lcanceling as being just a punishment for missing it with more landing lag, while people in favor of manual see lcanceling as being rewarded for hitting it with less landing lag.

Like I have stated before, I do not care about it being for casual purposes only, but competitive just wouldn't work out too well. Yea, maybe locals will be okay, but the bigger the tournament, the more resistant for auto you will receive. The farthest I can see auto going in competitive is gentleman's agreement, and that only encourages you to learn to l-cancel so you aren't relying on your opponent to need it/be nice and say yes. We all know there are people out there that would say no to get a slight advantage. This, IMO, cancels out the main reason for auto existing in competitive play in the first place.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I think the main point I was trying to make is that they both boil down to the same thing. Both being over encumbered and missing an lcancel are never wanted. With auto l-canceling it is more convenient because there is no punishment in landing lag. Removing equipment load limit allows for more convience by allowing the player to pick up any item he wants with no penalty.

The second analogy was that manually lcanceling rewards you with less landing lag, while auto gives it to you for free. The word "Work" was not meant to imply "hard work," or "tons of work," but just doing an action and getting something in return.

Your third paragraph, first sentence really hits the difference between sides. If i'm observing correctly, those in favor of auto see lcanceling as being just a punishment for missing it with more landing lag, while people in favor of manual see lcanceling as being rewarded for hitting it with less landing lag.

Like I have stated before, I do not care about it being for casual purposes only, but competitive just wouldn't work out too well. Yea, maybe locals will be okay, but the bigger the tournament, the more resistant for auto you will receive. The farthest I can see auto going in competitive is gentleman's agreement, and that only encourages you to learn to l-cancel so you aren't relying on your opponent to need it/be nice and say yes. We all know there are people out there that would say no to get a slight advantage. This, IMO, cancels out the main reason for auto existing in competitive play in the first place.

Nice to see your posts leaning more towards discussion =)

are you able to answer the questions i posted? (2 posts above)

 

[Rawkobo]

I think the main point I was trying to make is that they both boil down to the same thing. Both being over encumbered and missing an lcancel are never wanted. With auto l-canceling it is more convenient because there is no punishment in landing lag. Removing equipment load limit allows for more convience by allowing the player to pick up any item he wants with no penalty.

The second analogy was that manually lcanceling rewards you with less landing lag, while auto gives it to you for free. The word "Work" was not meant to imply "hard work," or "tons of work," but just doing an action and getting something in return.

Your third paragraph, first sentence really hits the difference between sides. If i'm observing correctly, those in favor of auto see lcanceling as being just a punishment for missing it with more landing lag, while people in favor of manual see lcanceling as being rewarded for hitting it with less landing lag.

Like I have stated before, I do not care about it being for casual purposes only, but competitive just wouldn't work out too well. Yea, maybe locals will be okay, but the bigger the tournament, the more resistant for auto you will receive. The farthest I can see auto going in competitive is gentleman's agreement, and that only encourages you to learn to l-cancel so you aren't relying on your opponent to need it/be nice and say yes. We all know there are people out there that would say no to get a slight advantage. This, IMO, cancels out the main reason for auto existing in competitive play in the first place.

In order:

1) They don't boil down to the same thing, though. What's the issue with picking up items without penalty? Picking up items mindlessly? So then having limited space more sense, right? But that would imply, as @ Narpas_sword was asking, that there is a decision tree associated with whether or not you pick up items. Yet we've already established that there is no decision tree with L-cancelling. Therefore, it doesn't "boil down" to a yes or no. It never did in the first place.

2) Then why use "work" as an analogy in the first place? A natural reflex requires no point of effort, as I said above.

3) This is what I can agree with you the most on, agreeing to disagree. One of the actual problems with the entire argument, and not just one side, is the half-empty/half-full factor; one person will tell you that there are only benefits and positive things to L-cancelling, whereas someone else will say that there are only punishments for not doing so. It's a very tricky discussion because of that in particular. The only problem with this argument being at a standstill is that the side in favor of L-cancelling is unfortunately tasked with the burden of proof here, because the anti-side has a whole list of issues with a sweeping statement of that variety

4) That is a subjective claim, just as pushing for auto-L-cancelling in all tournaments is a subjective claim. The current tournament scene is rigid in mindset, but change is progressive and eventually accepted as more people opt to experiment with said options. It's like the stagelist discussion, honestly: it's primarily TO-driven to begin with, even with a "norm" to follow, and those who want to do their own thing are perfectly allowed to run a tournament outside the normal standards of the community and use that data to make future decisions.

A good example of this sort of thing coming to light in Melee was Juggleguy with The Big House, aka one of the biggest nationals in the US, in regards to Wobbling. He only recently made the decision to allow it; prior to that, he banned Wobbling as part of his tournament rules because he did not approve of it. One would say that does not necessarily coincide with a majority opinion of the Melee community, but he still received massive support from an enormous amount of players, including Icies mains. It's entirely possible for any level of tournament to run this, but again, from the gate, we claimed this was at TO discretion.

 

[Sieghart]

Edit: if the opponent has to manually lcancel, you could try to mess them up( ex: m2k shooting needles at opponent. FoD platforms might be tricky to lcanceling where auto just does the work). Auto lcanceling is like reward with no work. Manual is work with reward. If u don't work, you are slower. That's all I got bud.

I already adressed this earlier so here you go:

The very idea that some of you think the fact that missing it giving opponents a punish window is a defense has me shocked. The point is that you shouldn't have missed it in the first place. There was no reason you shouldn't have gotten the l-cancel. Someone angling their shield in some farfetched attempt to change the timing is not a good excuse. It's a john being pulled out of thin air.
...
L-canceling in PM is a nod to melee, the older brother it idolizes, and nothing more. Once again, if l-canceling had not been in melee no one in their right mind would have added it to PM. They'd have lowered landing lag universally if anything and been done with it.

To further the point I'll take a look at the examples you yourself use and apply what I've already said. You use M2K shooting needles and FoD platforms as reasons you might screw up an l-cancel. I completely agree. Those of us who aren't as aware at any given moment for whatever reason, maybe pressure from the match, can slip up like that. The premise of such a thing is undeniable. I'm not challenging that. I'm challenging the idea of l-canceling as a mechanic in the first place.

I'm not saying we should switch to auto-lcancel right this second because l-cancel is garbage. I'm saying the very premise of such a mechanic purposely being added to the game is plain stupid. Punishing missed tech skill isn't a respectable or legitimate means of winning from the PoV of a dev. I believe the misunderstanding here may be that you're thinking of things after the fact as if the existence of l-canceling is assumed. On the other hand, I'm challenging that l-cancel shouldn't have existed in the first place. If Sakurai had meant this as a competitive game or at least had more foresight towards his vision, as he did with Brawl and Smash 4 (regardless of how disappointing they are imo), it would not have existed.

No Dev in their right mind would do such a thing seriously. As a Dev I can attest to this myself. No teacher, colleague, book, piece of advice, etc. would ever suggest such a thing. The reason for that is that it's an entirely arbitrary mechanic. In other words, just about every logical alternative is better for the players and the games adoptability. This is why l-canceling and all other equally arbitrary mechanics are being phased out of today's market. Most of it wasn't made with the average player, or any player really, in mind.

Edit::: I will say though that I appreciate you trying to argue this in a more logical manner now and I do respect that. Personally I could care less whether or not PM has l-canceling because it's already implemented and considered the standard. Not to mention I personally find them harder to mess up than they are to do successfully at this point.

 

[Narpas_sword]

No Dev in their right mind would do such a thing seriously. .

lol.

I'm a Test analyst.
And the **** i see the devs do thinking it makes sense boggle me =p

 

[Sieghart]

lol.

I'm a Test analyst.
And the **** i see the devs do thinking it makes sense boggle me =p

I know what you mean, lol. I was specifically referring to a Dev that legitimately had everyone's best interests at heart. Though I will admit that some definitely remove the need to wonder why the planning and testing phases for good games take so long.

 

[Zoa]

I'm so late to this discussion that everything against L-canceling I was going to say has been said. This community is too damn smart.

 

[ButterMeister]

I'm so late to this discussion that everything against L-canceling I was going to say has been said. This community is too damn smart.

Nah, we just yell a lot until there's nothing left to yell about

 

[Zarkdion]

Nah, we just yell a lot until there's nothing left to yell about

Isn't that most arguments on the internet? Well, without the "nothing left to yell about" part, anyway.

 

[ButterMeister]

Isn't that most arguments on the internet? Well, without the "nothing left to yell about" part, anyway.

More money match threats

 

[Narpas_sword]

let's not derail the discussion guys.

L-Cancel threads dont have a high survival rate. Best to keep it on topic.

 

[Zoa]

Nah, we just yell a lot until there's nothing left to yell about

Oh that's right. Forgot about .

 

[Stryker]

So you want to live in a world where anyone who picks up a spacie can break your shield? That's terrifying no thank you.

 

[Kurri ★]

So you want to live in a world where anyone who picks up a spacie can break your shield? That's terrifying no thank you.

Well luckily with PM we don't have to live in such a world. It's called patches, and patches balance.

 

[JOE!]

So you want to live in a world where anyone who picks up a spacie can break your shield? That's terrifying no thank you.

isnt it assumed at the least that they arent going to mess up when facing that scenario, in terms of finding counterplay?

 

[Narpas_sword]

So you want to live in a world where anyone who picks up a spacie can break your shield? That's terrifying no thank you.

As was mentioned before.

If someone new is beating you, it's not the auto l-cancelling that's at fault.

 

[Sieghart]

So you want to live in a world where anyone who picks up a spacie can break your shield? That's terrifying no thank you.

If a lack of l-canceling would produce such a scenario please explain why it has yet to happen at any level in current smash? Top players rarely if ever miss an l-cancel, and most definitely not in a shield pressure situation. Players like Westballz, Hax, and even Leffen have all proven that they're more than capable of pressuring shields as well as we as humans can manage and they aren't even considered Gods as of yet. But you, oh wise one that can predict the future, would beg to differ? Please, educate us.

 

[Stryker]

isnt it assumed at the least that they arent going to mess up when facing that scenario, in terms of finding counterplay?

No! Not even pros have perfect execution. We have the mewtwoking robot joke, but there is no pro in the history of melee that plays without execution error. We see azen dashs and failed ledgedashs steal souls all the time. Even at Ceo a few days ago.

And at my level, maybe the spacies get their pressure right 80-90%% of the time, but I pray on that %10 to get my punishes. Playing a spacie is hard work.
Armada puts it very well here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU-YGIzb6gw
Yes, in theory in the year 20xx, spacies will have perfect executions, but as it stands, spacies are difficult to play characters without a skill ceiling. The tradeoff for infinite power is the pressure that if they mess up once, they are very easy to zero to death due to their weight and fall speed.
Non spacies use those execution failures as a punishment method. Yes, there is counterplay that gets you out of the situation, but preying on an execution error converts to advantage where any other option keeps you on the defensive.
L cancels allow for human error which in turn allows for the more consistent and practiced player to win. It gives the defending player an opportunity to regain momentum of a match when otherwise all they can do is defend. I think taking away those kind of options takes some of the depth out of the game.

If a lack of l-canceling would produce such a scenario please explain why it has yet to happen at any level in current smash? Top players rarely if evermiss an l-cancel, and most definitely not in a shield pressure situation. Players like Westballz, Hax, and even Leffen have all proven that they're more than capable of pressuring shields as well as we as humans can manage and they aren't even considered Gods as of yet. But you, oh wise one that can predict the future, would beg to differ? Please, educate us.

https://youtu.be/QggeYcLPszI?t=3m11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpxEMEEge4o
Except players like westballz have shown us what shine shieldpressure can do. Why hasn't it happened yet? It has, but only the top few spacies can do it because of how difficult it is. With auto lcancelling, this kind of thing becomes common. There are answers yes, but that doesn't mean that that situation should happen more frequently.

 

[Kurri ★]

So in other words, spacies are overpowered and are in need of proper nerfs.

 

[Stryker]

So in other words, spacies are overpowered and are in need of proper nerfs.

If you believe that one day human error will not exist, then yes. But that's kind of optimistic.
Spacies get glimpses of godhood, but thats about it. They are too technically demanding to be played to their skill ceiling 100%time, and that's what lets other characters beat them. Their design lends itself to being a unreachable skill ceiling glass cannon.

 

[4tlas]

If you believe that one day human error will not exist, then yes. But that's kind of optimistic.
Spacies get glimpses of godhood, but thats about it. They are too technically demanding to be played to their skill ceiling 100%time, and that's what lets other characters beat them. Their design lends itself to being a unreachable skill ceiling glass cannon.

I think that's poor design, but I think you worded it accurately and respectably.

 

[Kurri ★]

If you believe that one day human error will not exist, then yes. But that's kind of optimistic.
Spacies get glimpses of godhood, but thats about it. They are too technically demanding to be played to their skill ceiling 100%time, and that's what lets other characters beat them. Their design lends itself to being a unreachable skill ceiling glass cannon.

If the only reason they're beat is because they're incapable of reaching their full potential, that's just bad design. It's a cool thought, but that just means they're overpowered and are in need of balancing.

 

[Stryker]

I think that's poor design, but I think you worded it accurately and respectably.

I appreciate that.
You may think it's poor. I can understand the perspective.
As a designer, I find it beautiful. There is this thing in games called flow or "being in the zone" which sounds very bland and indescript, but as a designer, it's an interesting challenge to design for and there has been a lot of psychology based reseach into the matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
It's most common in rhythm games. If you've played guitar hero, you know what it's like to be perfectly in the zone and hit a string of notes on an expert song that you didn't think you could hit. It feels amazing.
To have something so complex that players need to reach a zen state to play it perfectly. To have something that pushes the demands of humans past what we believe is possible and we must have a deep understanding of the system and iron mentality in order to even have hopes of playing the character to it's full potential. That's an amazing thing to do with design. It's something I admire.

 

[4tlas]

I appreciate that.
You may think it's poor. I can understand the perspective.
As a designer, I find it beautiful. There is this thing in games called flow or "being in the zone" which sounds very bland and indescript, but as a designer, it's an interesting challenge to design for and there has been a lot of psychology based reseach into the matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
It's most common in rhythm games. If you've played guitar hero, you know what it's like to be perfectly in the zone and hit a string of notes on an expert song that you didn't think you could hit. It feels amazing.
To have something so complex that players need to reach a zen state to play it perfectly. To have something that pushes the demands of humans past what we believe is possible and we must have a deep understanding of the system and iron mentality in order to even have hopes of playing the character to it's full potential. That's an amazing thing to do with design. It's something I admire.

As a designer, I agree and disagree. The thought of having limitless potential is wonderful, and lets the players feel good about always pushing their own limits, always getting better, and never hitting the skillcap. They know they always have something to improve on, and they know that they can win if they just play better. That's a wonderful feeling for that player. Unfortunately, this is a multiplayer game, and limitless potential doesn't just mean that a TAS Fox will beat me, but that that player is probably getting more bang for his buck each step along the way. Not only would ACTUALLY getting such an advantage be obnoxious, but just the thought that they sincerely could be is irritating.

Some characters will have to have a higher skillcap than others, it just simply isn't possible to balance everything properly. But the opponent has to have a chance. And honestly, all characters have an infinite skillcap because you can always get better at reading and mindgaming your opponent, so why should Fox get to be more powerful each step along the way? Why is he being balanced assuming players will screw up with tech instead of getting outread or losing to pure RPS fundamentals?

But this is sorta getting off-topic. To bring it back, I would say that if L-cancel were removed (which I think it should be), then characters that get better without having to perform that tech should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[Reidlos Toof]

Playing with automatic L canceling takes me back to the days of Brawl+. It's a small thing, but it really makes it feel like a completely different game.