Automatic L-Cancelling Discussion

[noboruplaysgames]

• Game and Watch doesn't lose anything with L-cancel. His down air still hits L-cancel or not, and if L-cancel really affects something then that can be solved through PSA.
  
• Fox doesn't get anything with auto L-cancel. He does exactly the same things he can do by pressing L on landing lag when having it on auto.
• What's wrong with lowering the skill floor?

It doesn't change meta at all. You're doing the exact same things you can do with L-cancel but without having to press a button. It doesn't give characters more options or any other thing.

Yeah I mean it doesent change what you can do with it, but it does make it easier. By making it easier you are in turn lowering the skill level even if it's not by much. And the problem with the lowering is that in high level tournament play, the more skilled the player the better the competition right?

 

[Draco_The]

Yeah I mean it doesent change what you can do with it, but it does make it easier. By making it easier you are in turn lowering the skill level even if it's not by much. And the problem with the lowering is that in high level tournament play, the more skilled the player the better the competition right?

You're lowering the skill floor. It doesn't affect the most skilled players. It just makes it easier for newcomers.

 

[Candypants]

• Game and Watch doesn't lose anything with L-cancel. His down air still hits L-cancel or not, and if L-cancel really affects something then that can be solved through PSA.
  
• Fox doesn't get anything with auto L-cancel. He does exactly the same things he can do by pressing L on landing lag when having it on auto.
• What's wrong with lowering the skill floor?

It doesn't change meta at all. You're doing the exact same things you can do with L-cancel but without having to press a button. It doesn't give characters more options or any other thing.

GnW gets more hitboxes on his down aerial if he doesn't l-cancel giving him a mixup. There may be more examples of this that I don't know yet.

Fox's shield pressure 'may' be a lot easier to perform with ALC, since the characters limits depend on how well he can be played.

I haven't expressed an opinion on lowering the skill floor.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

You're lowering the skill floor. It doesn't affect the most skilled players. It just makes it easier for newcomers.

It affects the skilled players because it makes it that much easier for the people who aren't willing to practice it therefore essentially giving a handout. It also affects the skill ceiling as well because in order to get close to that ceiling that is something you must practice. It's like how melee's mechanics have made it much more successful competitively than brawl, except on a smaller scale.

 

[Rawkobo]

i'm really tired and it's 8 in the morning and i should've gone to bed several hours ago, so pardon my lack of using traditional capitalization that i've tended to do throughout most of this thread, but i kind of wanted to make a compilation of some things i've been thinking about as i've responded to posts and whatnot over the course of this entire thread

maybe it'll help clear some things up a bit for the collective arguments at hand

• so to begin with, when talking about whether or not auto-l-cancelling should be a viable switch-on choice for tournaments, it's the nature of saying yes or no that then raises the question of "why," which in turn leads to talking about the significance of l-cancelling; it is also always going to matter in the nature of discussing l-cancelling in general because it has been a subject of contention for months now, maybe even years
• using SHFFL as an argument for why auto-l-cancel is bad is flawed because l-cancelling is the easiest element of SHFFLing to begin with and nobody here is questioning that
  
• in relation to the above point, nobody is questioning that l-cancelling is hard; significance =/= difficulty and this has been constantly misunderstood in this entire thread
• many of the people who are against the use of auto-l-cancelling overvalue its significance in competitive play alongside other basic techs because basic tech is not how you improve in a competitive environment; basic tech is how you improve by yourself
• l-cancelling's "value" has been mistaken for spacing's value on numerous occasions and it's really bugging me because in any fighting game you get punished for overextending, and l-cancelling changes nothing about overextension in the first place
• people need to stop using analogies as a whole in this thread on both sides because they're so very bad
• lowering the skill floor of a competitive game makes it easier to pick up but does not necessarily change anything about the skill ceiling itself
• the fact that project m to begin with has a much lower tech entry makes it so that arguments of maintaining any sort of tech complexity outside of character-specific technology seems rather silly (note: somewhat subjective opinion based on educated fact)
• top play is defined by mental fortitude because it's automatically assumed that these players have strong basic technical foundations, and removing a tech requirement does not change this fact at all, nor has it made it different for any other competitive fighting game, including games like street fighter and marvel
• bash on smash 4/brawl all you want, but you can't say that you'd be better than people who devoted themselves to being top players in those games; coincidentally, fighting game fundamentals also apply fairly well in both of those games despite the glaring flaws of balance issues
• this isn't a casual argument because we're trying to get casuals to come out to tournaments and maintain this scene, which casuals, by nature, are not likely to do

i can't think of anything else right now so i'll edit it when i do but

really i'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over again to people because they refuse to go back and read through why every point they bring up has already been addressed

the only other thing i can think of adding to this list atm is that the verdict that has made the most sense is that as far as we're aware and okay with, it will be up to TO discretion as it should be; it's just that it's an interesting subject to discuss, as it has proven to be time and time again until things like this happen after a few pages

 

[noboruplaysgames]

i'm really tired and it's 8 in the morning and i should've gone to bed several hours ago, so pardon my lack of using traditional capitalization that i've tended to do throughout most of this thread, but i kind of wanted to make a compilation of some things i've been thinking about as i've responded to posts and whatnot over the course of this entire thread

maybe it'll help clear some things up a bit for the collective arguments at hand

• so to begin with, when talking about whether or not auto-l-cancelling should be a viable switch-on choice for tournaments, it's the nature of saying yes or no that then raises the question of "why," which in turn leads to talking about the significance of l-cancelling; it is also always going to matter in the nature of discussing l-cancelling in general because it has been a subject of contention for months now, maybe even years
• using SHFFL as an argument for why auto-l-cancel is bad is flawed because l-cancelling is the easiest element of SHFFLing to begin with and nobody here is questioning that
  
• in relation to the above point, nobody is questioning that l-cancelling is hard; significance =/= difficulty and this has been constantly misunderstood in this entire thread
• many of the people who are against the use of auto-l-cancelling overvalue its significance in competitive play alongside other basic techs because basic tech is not how you improve in a competitive environment; basic tech is how you improve by yourself
• l-cancelling's "value" has been mistaken for spacing's value on numerous occasions and it's really bugging me because in any fighting game you get punished for overextending, and l-cancelling changes nothing about overextension in the first place
• people need to stop using analogies as a whole in this thread on both sides because they're so very bad
• lowering the skill floor of a competitive game makes it easier to pick up but does not necessarily change anything about the skill ceiling itself
• the fact that project m to begin with has a much lower tech entry makes it so that arguments of maintaining any sort of tech complexity outside of character-specific technology seems rather silly (note: somewhat subjective opinion based on educated fact)
• top play is defined by mental fortitude because it's automatically assumed that these players have strong basic technical foundations, and removing a tech requirement does not change this fact at all, nor has it made it different for any other competitive fighting game, including games like street fighter and marvel
• bash on smash 4/brawl all you want, but you can't say that you'd be better than people who devoted themselves to being top players in those games; coincidentally, fighting game fundamentals also apply fairly well in both of those games despite the glaring flaws of balance issues
• this isn't a casual argument because we're trying to get casuals to come out to tournaments and maintain this scene, which casuals, by nature, are not likely to do

i can't think of anything else right now so i'll edit it when i do but

really i'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over again to people because they refuse to go back and read through why every point they bring up has already been addressed

the only other thing i can think of adding to this list atm is that the verdict that has made the most sense is that as far as we're aware and okay with, it will be up to TO discretion as it should be; it's just that it's an interesting subject to discuss, as it has proven to be time and time again until things like this happen after a few pages

I like the way youre presenting this a lot better than before. I of course agree with there being other things necessary to preform well, but lowering the skill ceiling just isn't a good thing no matter how it's looked at. As for the TO's choice, that's all well in locals. But if two places with conflicting rules are to meet up, then what should happen? That is essentially what I am trying to discuss. If we leave it up to the TO in those situation it just leads to arguments like the smash 4 customs. There just is no reason to lower any aspect of skill. Things are pretty good the way they are now and taking away from the game in any quantity + the possibility of a split community isn't really worth it

 

[Rawkobo]

I like the way youre presenting this a lot better than before. I of course agree with there being other things necessary to preform well, but lowering the skill ceiling just isn't a good thing no matter how it's looked at. As for the TO's choice, that's all well in locals. But if two places with conflicting rules are to meet up, then what should happen? That is essentially what I am trying to discuss. If we leave it up to the TO in those situation it just leads to arguments like the smash 4 customs. There just is no reason to lower any aspect of skill. Things are pretty good the way they are now and taking away from the game in any quantity + the possibility of a split community isn't really worth it

the skill floor is not equivalent to the skill ceiling, i'm pretty sure somebody just pointed that out

i can somewhat see what you mean about the smash 4 customs thing, because this discussion is constantly going to have these two sides butting heads, but the difference here is that i would argue (i don't know about anybody else) that the difference having and not having landing lag that needs to be dealt with is not comparable to custom moves that very directly change the game as a whole

additionally, the head TO of the event has the last word; members of the community have full right to refuse to come if they don't want to due to a decision, but even smash 4 with this rift of customs tends to go to and perform in tournaments regardless of the ruleset to maintain the livelihood of the game

i would imagine project m would feel that highly necessary given its recent pressures

 

[noboruplaysgames]

the skill floor is not equivalent to the skill ceiling, i'm pretty sure somebody just pointed that out

i can somewhat see what you mean about the smash 4 customs thing, because this discussion is constantly going to have these two sides butting heads, but the difference here is that i would argue (i don't know about anybody else) that the difference having and not having landing lag that needs to be dealt with is not comparable to custom moves that very directly change the game as a whole

Oh yeah in no way is it on the level of the customs lol. Avoiding conflict I think we all can agree is a good thing. Keeping rules the same means nobody is affected by anything and people who are just starting smash now have a new tool to practice with at home and yeah I mean people would still probably go regardless. But yeah with all the stuff affecting pm, we really should avoid something that may split the community

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

"Does L-Canceling Add Depth to the Game?" This debate has been going on for so many years in the Smash community and people are just regurgitating the same talking points while no one from either side is trying to understand the other opposing side's position. Usually, when people disagree about things like this to this extent for this long, there are very predictable reasons, one of the most common I've noticed being disagreement on the definitions of key words. In this case, what is "L-Canceling", "auto L-canceling", "manual L-canceling", "depth", "skill", "skill ceiling", "skill floor", "objective game design", etc. Another common area of disagreement is the relevance, significance, and degree of influence of all these terms in the grand scheme. And finally, another major predictor is people's personal and emotional attachments to certain aspects of the argument, for example, "I've been doing this for years, why should I have to stop to help out noobs who don't want to put in the work?" People have these things mixed up in their heads and it just leads into everyone getting caught in an endless cycle of regurgitation and cyclical logic that never ends and people just end up falling back to tradition because the feeling of "that's what has always worked, so why change?" seems ever more persuasive.

If the truth and the pursuit of truth is what you're interested in, then both sides need to solve their grievances and agree on what all the terms mean, how important they are, and to cast all emotional arguments aside as they are not relevant in a topic that can be discussed objectively. And most important of all, it has to be agreed upon that this topic can be talked about objectively, which I would argue it can. Otherwise, then no true or most probable answer can be obtained with a topic that is inherently subjective. When such things become agreed upon and understood, then discussing the topic and deriving logical conclusions becomes significantly more easier and less stress-inducing and doesn't take years of people saying the same things over and over again.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

"Does L-Canceling Add Depth to the Game?" This debate has been going on for so many years in the Smash community and people are just regurgitating the same talking points while no one from either side is trying to understand the other opposing side's position. Usually, when people disagree about things like this to this extent for this long, there are very predictable reasons, one of the most common I've noticed being disagreement on the definitions of key words. In this case, what is "L-Canceling", "auto L-canceling", "manual L-canceling", "depth", "skill", "skill ceiling", "skill floor", "objective game design", etc. Another common area of disagreement is the relevance, significance, and degree of influence of all these terms in the grand scheme. And finally, another major predictor is people's personal and emotional attachments to certain aspects of the argument, for example, "I've been doing this for years, why should I have to stop to help out noobs who don't want to put in the work?" People have these things mixed up in their heads and it just leads into everyone getting caught in an endless cycle of regurgitation and cyclical logic that never ends and people just end up falling back to tradition because the feeling of "that's what has always worked, so why change?" seems ever more persuasive.

If the truth and the pursuit of truth is what you're interested in, then both sides need to solve their grievances and agree on what all the terms mean, how important they are, and to cast all emotional arguments aside as they are not relevant in a topic that can be discussed objectively. And most important of all, it has to be agreed upon that this topic can be talked about objectively, which I would argue it can. Otherwise, then no true or most probable answer can be obtained with a topic that is inherently subjective. When such things become agreed upon and understood, then discussing the topic and deriving logical conclusions becomes significantly more easier and less stress-inducing and doesn't take years of people saying the same things over and over again.

I like the way you address things, but where do you stand on the matter and why? I am just legitimately interested. (and tbh I kinda just also want to see you address another argument lol)

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

To hype and atlas, you guys aren't looking at l canceling for what it is.

I dunno why you guys let him drag along this far. Should've ended right here:

L-canceling (an abbreviation of lag cancelingor L button canceling, also called smooth landing on the official Super Smash Bros.website) is a technique in Super Smash Bros.and Super Smash Bros. Melee that allows characters to act faster than usual when landing in the middle of an aerial attack. L-cancelling is done by pressing a shield button 11 frames or fewer before landing during an aerial attack in Smash 64 (the grab button also works because of its unique properties), or by pressing the shield button 1 to 7 frames before landing in Melee.

Only regular aerial attacks can be L-cancelled; special moves that have landing lag cannot. If an attack is auto-cancelled then L-cancelling has no effect. All aerials can be cancelled except Mr. Game & Watch's nair,bair and uair.

All you're doing is glorifying it. Talk about what's actually there.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

I dunno why you guys let him drag along this far. Should've ended right here:

All you're doing is glorifying it. Talk about what's actually there.

Lol what are you even talking about? Like legit what r u even talking about? All you did was quote what an l cancel was and then tell me to see what's actually there. Last time I checked we are all talking about the same thing lol.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

I like the way you address things, but where do you stand on the matter and why? I am just legitimately interested. (and tbh I kinda just also want to see you address another argument lol)

Sure, I can answer to this.

Depth is one of the core determinants that makes fighting games fun, challenging, memorable, and rewarding. It is undeniable that L-canceling adds significant depth to the game. Without it, then many combos and follow-up extensions would not be possible due to increased landing lag. However, what the argument is about (or what it should be about) is whether the manual execution of this mechanic adds any depth to a significant degree in order to support having the mechanic in the game expressed manually as opposed to an automatic execution of it (or as opposed to some other variant of the mechanic).

To answer this question can depend on the perspective in which you look at this issue and the things you value as the most important. I choose to look at this from the perspective of a game design standpoint because initially, L-canceling is a game design decision and I look at how this decision affects potential players and cross-reference this between other alternatives (auto-L-canceling, no L-canceling, etc.) and after doing this, it's extremely clear that manual L-canceling adds absolutely no depth into the game. Just simply ask yourself what depth is being added if it did add depth? From a game design standpoint, it forces the player to press an additional button to achieve an effect that they want to have happen 100% of the time anyway. Imagine if this was done for anything else. Imagine that anytime you wanted Fox/Falco's shine to come out on frame 1, you had to press an additional button, otherwise it would come out on frame 2. Imagine if you had to manually L-cancel every spacie short hop laser, otherwise you'd get significant lag from each attempt. Imagine that you had to press an additional button to make Falcon's Knee come out on frame 14 and if you didn't, it comes out on frame 28. In what situation would a player ever want the alternative? When designing a game, you want to be able to give the player reasonable options that can be used to their benefit in order to enhance the gaming experience. You also want such options to be reasonably accessible to the large majority of players and to only increase difficulty when the reward increases also, proportionally. This is why having a good skill floor is important for making sure the most number of players play and enjoy the gaming experience. When you set up a manual mechanic such as this where there is no reason not to do it, you limit the decision tree of possible options to one, singular option at the cost of increasing the skill floor with no measurable benefit to provide for it in-game as opposed to an automatic variant of the mechanic. Unless increased difficulty only for its own sake is used as a metric to add value to a game (which from a game design standpoint, it isn't due to artificially increased skill floor), that is the definition of bad game design. If you value game design as a way to measure the importance and degree of experiences that a game can provide, such as depth, then it logically follows that that which is bad game design is bad (or non-beneficial) for the game in question. Therefor manual L-canceling is a bad mechanic from a game design perspective.

Now, if you look at the topic from a perspective that puts more value on hard work, individual skill, and high skill floor and if you believe such things determine the worth of a game, then manual L-canceling becomes a very appealing mechanic that can be very easily argued to be a beneficial, positive one. When you artificially increase the skill floor, you instantly separate the men from the boys. You set up a scenario where in order to even participate in the higher levels of the game, you have to get over a technical hurdle that requires a lot of hard work and training for some. But once you get over that hurdle, it's as if one has climbed to the peak of a mountain or finished a long race and can then, from that point onward, reap the benefits of that accomplishment. It is very similar to the mindset involved in sports, which some people would argue that video games is a part of. The best of the best can only be determined (or is usually determined) by how much hard work and effort someone put into their sport and is summed up by all the hours of training, practice, repetitive exercises, etc. in order to achieve the end product which is the ability to even have a chance (even if it's a tiny one) to compete with the best of the best. Many people find much more value in this compared to some discussion about objective game design or something. Some people would even define such experiences as what it means to have a game with depth: A game that can provided these feelings of accomplishment through hard work, effort, and practice. Having such a mechanic automated is a kick in the face to such people and it seems like it automatically devalues all the hard work that they put in just to appease some "noobs".

I completely understand the latter perspective and understand how this makes people feel. However, when you make the value of a game mechanic dependent on things such as the value of hard work and individual effort, the discussion becomes subjective very quickly because emotions start to enter the discussion and are used as justifications for permanent changes in a game. The problem with introducing emotions as a way to objectively measure the value in a game is that emotions differ from person to person. Not everyone feels the same way about hard work and effort and overcoming a high skill floor. Some people value other means of judging the worth of a game, some that are just as subjective, some that are more objective (like game design), and perhaps a mix of both. And so people just end up bickering over the same things because they end up having different values at the end of the day.

But the original question to the topic still remains: "Does manual L-canceling add depth to the game?" And I think that if one wants to answer this question as objectively as possible, they need an objective method of doing this. I think game design theory is the best means of doing this (though I understand there are differences in opinion on how to best design a game, but there are consistent elements that still make it useful to use as a objective model), and as such I would have to put aside any emotional ties I have with the topic such as the personal satisfaction of L-canceling in order to reach more closely to the truth, which is what I ultimately care about in the end.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Lol what are you even talking about? Like legit what r u even talking about? All you did was quote what an l cancel was and then tell me to see what's actually there. Last time I checked we are all talking about the same thing lol.

You made a statement, claiming we aren't looking at this mechanic for what it is. We do know what it is (literally) and all you did write small essays about what it is ideally in your point of view (like many others before you have). You're not being objective about the argument and it doesn't serve as concrete evidence as my peers are trying to explain to you (I hope).

We're not getting anywhere fast arguing with terms as depth, skill, hard work.

Edit: I got ninja'd. Guess I'm the TL;DR version

 

[Quillion]

SI think game design theory is the best means of doing this (though I understand there are differences in opinion on how to best design a game, but there are consistent elements that still make it useful to use as a objective model), and as such I would have to put aside any emotional ties I have with the topic such as the personal satisfaction of L-canceling in order to reach more closely to the truth, which is what I ultimately care about in the end.

And yes, I do think L-canceling adds depth. Hell, I think PMDev has actually been reducing depth ever since people complained about 3.02 being "broken".

I also legitimately think that L-canceling should be brought to special moves too, which would add a bit more consistency to the game.

 

[wiiztec]

IIf professional bicyclists were suddenly allowed to use training wheels, all of a sudden all that practice of turning, balance, ect automatically becomes a waste. Training wheels are a crutch used to first learn how to ride a bike and then once learned, they are removed.

Training wheels offer no advantage to people who already know how to balance themselves on a bike. All they do is restrict you from leaning into sharp turns.

 

[OSCA MIKE]

Think of auto l canceling as a crutch while practicing. A bit silly but true analogy I came up with puts auto l canceling into a simple perspective. If professional bicyclists were suddenly allowed to use training wheels, all of a sudden all that practice of turning, balance, ect automatically becomes a waste.

i know that this was a page ago, and the point im going to make has been said already, but this part seriously bugs me

a crutch is understood as something that lowers both the skill floor AND skill ceiling to coincide with how crutches are used in real life. a crutch gives someone who is unable to walk the ability to walk (lowering the skill floor), whereas someone who is entirely capable of walking will have no use for a crutch, and instead will be hampered by a crutch (lowering the skill ceiling).

auto l-canceling does not limit top competitors, as auto l-canceling gives them the exact same options they had when they were manually l-canceling. something that would actually be a crutch would be an auto ledge dash whenever you grab the ledge. while less skilled players would get some benefit out of this, more skilled players, being that they can reliable ledge dash at this point, would have probably wanted to go with a more appropriate option rather than a ledge dash. this is probably a bad analogy

while your training wheels analogy is spot on when referring to crutches, professional bicyclists aren't going to feel like their practice went to waste. training wheels will instead limit their bikes' abilites and restrict them from performing certain actions.

EDIT: goddammit wizztec, the second i decide to reply to that specific part

 

[Kurri ★]

And yes, I do think L-canceling adds depth. Hell, I think PMDev has actually been reducing depth ever since people complained about 3.02 being "broken".

You thought a broken game was depth?

 

[Draco_The]

GnW gets more hitboxes on his down aerial if he doesn't l-cancel giving him a mixup. There may be more examples of this that I don't know yet.

Fox's shield pressure 'may' be a lot easier to perform with ALC, since the characters limits depend on how well he can be played.

I haven't expressed an opinion on lowering the skill floor.

I'll have to check that, but that sounds more like a bug than a feature. Slightly bigger area of effect for the move doesn't make up for all the landing lag. Mr Game & Watch could just get that for the L-cancelled dair.

Players wouldn't have to worry about pressing the shield button when touching the ground, but that would be all. Also I don't know why you only talked about auto making Fox easier instead of about everyone else too. I think your comment was more aimed at Fox' design than auto.

Let's say that I agree with the first two points you made. Like you said, even if they were to change meta, it would be almost nothing. Then your third point is about lowering the skill floor, which wouldn't affect current players and would only mean that the community would get bigger. By far the biggest change auto brings. Yet your final point is that you don't want it to be the norm.

 

[4tlas]

I just can't handle this thread anymore, and TheKManOfSmash said everything that needed to be said for both parties. Good job, you did an excellent job of covering all the bases and wording it intelligently. You're a better person than I, because I couldn't be bothered to be that eloquent with this topic.

And no, I still don't L-cancel. And I never will. And I still play competitively. Since for some reason saying I don't L-cancel means my argument is invalidated because I am the "noob casual" that needs the change to compete, I'll let other people argue instead.

 

[lordvaati]

The dev team gives and gives, yet people are just never happy.

Such is the way of game creation in Smash. Sakurai bears the same burden as well.

as or my stance on the issue, I'd be all for it, since 4 out of 5 people generally agree that mandatory S-Landing(yes I'm using it's official name) was just a pointless input to create unneeded complexity, and Auto fixes that. however, I can't help but wonder if it's a similar issue to when they tried to ban Meta Knight in 2012 in Brawl and that it may be too late in the game's lifecycle to try and make such a dramatic change.

I would be all for it otherwise.

 

[Rawkobo]

Such is the way of game creation in Smash. Sakurai bears the same burden as well.

as or my stance on the issue, I'd be all for it, since 4 out of 5 people generally agree that mandatory S-Landing(yes I'm using it's official name) was just a pointless input to create unneeded complexity, and Auto fixes that. however, I can't help but wonder if it's a similar issue to when they tried to ban Meta Knight in 2012 in Brawl and that it may be too late in the game's lifecycle to try and make such a dramatic change.

I would be all for it otherwise.

Except Meta Knight's design issue isn't comparable to L-cancelling.

That said, while it's subjective to say Project M is "too late" in its "lifecycle," I can agree with the sentiment behind it. It is very hard, as the Melee community has proven time and time again, to force any sort of major change on the community after years of adjustment---

Well, that's what I would say, but we've established that L-cancelling's significance is subjective between both sides, something that Meta Knight didn't really have going for him and actually damaged Brawl's turnout at majors actively.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

Training wheels offer no advantage to people who already know how to balance themselves on a bike. All they do is restrict you from leaning into sharp turns.

LOL I love how out of anything to react to its the bike reference. (Don't worry Osca you get credit for this too )

 

[Rawkobo]

LOL I love how out of anything to react to its the bike reference. (Don't worry Osca you get credit for this too )

It's because any time someone makes a comparison to some real-world thing, it's so terribly wrong it isn't even funny, which was mentioned in the huge block of text I made this morning.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

It's because any time someone makes a comparison to some real-world thing, it's so terribly wrong it isn't even funny, which was mentioned in the huge block of text I made this morning.

Actually I think it's pretty funny. Idk if u noticed but things have calmed down now so you can take your flaming on me elsewhere. Prefferably some place like KFC cause I am really hungry rn

 

[Kurri ★]

Prefferably some place like KFC cause I am really hungry rn

Well at least you tried making a joke, can't really fault you for that.

 

[Rawkobo]

Actually I think it's pretty funny. Idk if u noticed but things have calmed down now so you can take your flaming on me elsewhere. Prefferably some place like KFC cause I am really hungry rn

I'm...not flaming on you though? It was a generic statement in regards to all of the metaphors that I've seen collectively in this thread being blatantly wrong.

It's kind of funny that people think I'm passively insulting them in this thread when I say "people," when I'm being perfectly serious. If you read all nine of these pages, at some point or another someone makes a bad metaphor and people rip it apart. What I'm stating is something that is true and has happened.

 

[noboruplaysgames]

I'm...not flaming on you though? It was a generic statement in regards to all of the metaphors that I've seen collectively in this thread being blatantly wrong.

It's kind of funny that people think I'm passively insulting them in this thread when I say "people," when I'm being perfectly serious. If you read all nine of these pages, at some point or another someone makes a bad metaphor and people rip it apart. What I'm stating is something that is true and has happened.

Sorry but it seemed like you were in that post. Still hungry tho 0_o

 

[Kurri ★]

Still hungry tho 0_o

Okay, you can stop.

 

[Rawkobo]

Sorry but it seemed like you were in that post. Still hungry tho 0_o

I was not, and I apologize if it seemed that way. In general, as this has dragged on, I end up lumping things together because they keep happening and we add more metaphors to the "debunked" pile, ones from both ends.

It's like the life cycle of these threads to begin with.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Ok since you put this one much more nicely I will use paragraphs.

So to answer your first question the amount of buttons required to execute the l cancel does not matter. As long as there is at least some way to execute it, it still requires some amount of skill to use. Of course people implement different custom controls and such so I can't say that it takes less skill to press one button or the other. So no, it would not add more value with extra buttons, but it's the fact that you must execute it manually that adds the skill factor.

But it doesnt require any skill to use.
It requires knowing what L-Canceling is.
and it requires pressing a button.

There's no decision making, there's no situational awareness needed. there's not even a fail window. You can literally mash z before you land.

There is nothing involved that requires skill of any sorts.

The point is, if it adds skill, why wouldn't more button presses add more?
As you've said. it doesn't. and neither does adding a single button press.

Ok since you put this one much more nicely I will use paragraphs.

For your second question, it wouldn't really be doing much of anything. Now I realize that by making it harder, it does technically raise the skill floor meaning it is for sure not a negative thing. However, because l canceling is already something in the game, it is a tool that players utilize to get better results. The difference between the current l cancel situation and the l canceling for specials is that landing lag otherwise would be doubled. If you are required to l cancel specials without the added landing lag, moves like rest, falcon punch, ect could get a bit rediculous. L canceling as it is can't really make the game unfair. However implementing it into other moves causes imbalance and as for recovering on stage im not quite sure what you mean.

Forget balance. it wouldn't change in this hypothetical situation.
You're not halving what is there now. you're doubling what is there now in order to halve it with a button press (bringing it back to normal)

examples:

Now when you Short Hop Blaster with falco, you get 8 frames landing lag instead of 4.
L cancel the B move to get it back to it's usual 4.

Now when you land on stage with Firefox it has 14 frames landing lag.
Press L before you land to get it back to the 7 it is usually.

Understand?

Would this create a better game?
Why or why not?

 

[Plebiscuit]

I still don't L-cancel. And I never will. And I still play competitively.

BORP?

 

[noboruplaysgames]

It

But it doesnt require any skill to use.
It requires knowing what L-Canceling is.
and it requires pressing a button.

There's no decision making, there's no situational awareness needed. there's not even a fail window. You can literally mash z before you land.

There is nothing involved that requires skill of any sorts.

The point is, if it adds skill, why wouldn't more button presses add more?
As you've said. it doesn't. and neither does adding a single button press.




Forget balance. it wouldn't change in this hypothetical situation.
You're not halving what is there now. you're doubling what is there now in order to halve it with a button press (bringing it back to normal)

examples:

Now when you Short Hop Blaster with falco, you get 8 frames landing lag instead of 4.
L cancel the B move to get it back to it's usual 4.

Now when you land on stage with Firefox it has 14 frames landing lag.
Press L before you land to get it back to the 7 it is usually.

Understand?

Would this create a better game?
Why or why not?

it won't. I'm not sure who I responded to exactly but I said that those examples would be making things harder then they are currently. On the other hand, l canceling is already a part of the game and adds benifit. Making the l canceled specials have the same as now only when executed properly is just adding something harmful. On the other hand adding auto l cancel makes it easier and is therefore only taking away

 

[Narpas_sword]

It

it won't. I'm not sure who I responded to exactly but I said that those examples would be making things harder then they are currently. On the other hand, l canceling is already a part of the game and adds benifit. Making the l canceled specials have the same as now only when executed properly is just adding something harmful. On the other hand adding auto l cancel makes it easier and is therefore only taking away

If you cant provide a good reason to add L canceling to Special moves (and infact, your'e saying it would be harmful), how can you believe it's good for normal aerials?

it's exactly the same concept.
The only difference is, as you pointed out, one already exists.

That's not arguing the mechanic, that's just appealing to tradition.

Your supporting evidence for L canceling being a good mechanic is "it's in the game already"

Can you not see how flawed that is?

 

[StylesUponStyles]

As a fairly new player, I have to say that I really like the Auto L-Cancelling. I always thought that, since L cancelling was always optimal and was difficult to execute, it put an unnecessary barrier towards the kind of play which is most rewarding in this engine. I may eventually learn how to do L cancelling on my own, but the auto mode makes me a lot more excited to play. Making PM more fun and less intimidating is fine by me.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

And yes, I do think L-canceling adds depth. Hell, I think PMDev has actually been reducing depth ever since people complained about 3.02 being "broken".

I also legitimately think that L-canceling should be brought to special moves too, which would add a bit more consistency to the game.

I can handle the truth. I care more about the truth than I do being right. If I am wrong, then challenge the things I have said. Give me an objective explanation of the depth and the degree of depth that is being added to the game with manual L-canceling and how it's significant enough to warrant its inclusion in the game. If it's subjective, explain why your subjective point of view is so important and significant enough to invalidate all others to the point of the mechanic's legitimate inclusion in the game. You can't just quote me, tell me that I can't handle the truth, and then tell me I'm wrong without telling me why. The "why" part is the truth (or at least an attempt at it). Show me the truth which I supposedly cannot handle. Once I am shown the truth and it makes logical sense, I will change my position almost immediately.

Also, you're right. Having L-canceling on special moves would make things more consistent. But when you make a bad mechanic (bad, based on what I've argued) consistent for other moves, you are making the game even worse by arbitrarily raising the skill floor even more with no objectively measurable benefit in return.


Edit: Also, something that doesn't seem to have been discussed much is the real life health/medical complications involved with L-canceling. For some people (including myself), I would argue that manual L-canceling makes people at a heighten risk for complications such as carpal tunnel, tendinitis, and/or arthritis, all of which are very bad things and can be induced by the repetitive motion of certain button presses such as an L-cancel button. Even if you can make a successful argument in favor for manual L-canceling in theory, how do you justify it in practice when some people are exposed to increased risk of injury?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Such is the way of game creation in Smash. Sakurai bears the same burden as well.

as or my stance on the issue, I'd be all for it, since 4 out of 5 people generally agree that mandatory S-Landing(yes I'm using it's official name) was just a pointless input to create unneeded complexity, and Auto fixes that. however, I can't help but wonder if it's a similar issue to when they tried to ban Meta Knight in 2012 in Brawl and that it may be too late in the game's lifecycle to try and make such a dramatic change.

I would be all for it otherwise.

Metaknight ban is not even comparable.

A clearly busted character needed to be banned but APEX strong armed the country to not banning him.

That was an issue with a character not a factor of gane design that can be changed.

 

[Candypants]

I'll have to check that, but that sounds more like a bug than a feature. Slightly bigger area of effect for the move doesn't make up for all the landing lag. Mr Game & Watch could just get that for the L-cancelled dair.

Players wouldn't have to worry about pressing the shield button when touching the ground, but that would be all. Also I don't know why you only talked about auto making Fox easier instead of about everyone else too. I think your comment was more aimed at Fox' design than auto.

Let's say that I agree with the first two points you made. Like you said, even if they were to change meta, it would be almost nothing. Then your third point is about lowering the skill floor, which wouldn't affect current players and would only mean that the community would get bigger. By far the biggest change auto brings. Yet your final point is that you don't want it to be the norm.

GnW is an example brought up earlier in the thread. From what I understand It works like this because the animation is shorter on LC, therefore less hitboxes.

Also brought up earlier was how this change would make it easier for Fox to use shield pressure, there may be more examples but I don't know them.

Meta was probably the wrong word to use here.

I believe that the game would be different enough to warrant concern in the options lost from character/s and that characters who's limits are unreachable due to human limitations would become easier / more consistent.

 

[Rawkobo]

GnW is an example brought up earlier in the thread. From what I understand It works like this because the animation is shorter on LC, therefore less hitboxes.

Also brought up earlier was how this change would make it easier for Fox to use shield pressure, there may be more examples but I don't know them.

Meta was probably the wrong word to use here.

I believe that the game would be different enough to warrant concern in the options lost from character/s and that characters who's limits are unreachable due to human limitations would become easier / more consistent.

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

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

 

[4tlas]

BORP?

I have been called the PM Borp before. Spending more time and effort on mindgames and reads while also making it more difficult to screw up because you don't pick complicated technical options is quite effective, I find. Both would probably be better, but I don't care to bother with the tech practice.