Not going to respond to the rest because this isn't my internet fight to the death. Competitive players want the game great for them. They want to be pandered to. There is nothing wrong with that. Their statement that the game being great for them isn't harmful to anyone else is correct, though. Hell, people complain so much about Melee, look at what Melee's done. It has a thriving competitive scene and everybody and their mother played it casually for years and had so much ****ing fun with it. Their favorite game is an example as to why this works. Why is it bad that some people want a game that they want to play competitively? Since when is wanting a deeper gameplay experience ever been a negative? How would anyone be harmed with another Melee? (not literally of course, but something that fits the same duality of casual and competitive playability).
Unless you're going to say some revisionist history bull**** that nobody liked Melee because it was too hard.
This is the part I hate about these debates with people who want the game to replicate Melee with literally no other creative ideas of their own.
You always play the victim card.
What's wrong with wanting a game we can both like?
What's wrong with wanting to have more options?
These are false-positive questions because their answers are ultimately irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with wanting a game both camps can like. There's nothing wrong with wanting more options.
You know what is wrong?
Whining and complaining that the options you want aren't there.
Whining and complaining that the game will fail to appease your camp if it doesn't have X feature/mechanics, and
that is ultimately what the Melee turbo-fans do. The ultimate point being, Smash doesn't need said mechanics to succeed as a competitive game. It also doesn't need any random number of your randomly generated complaint requests in order to succeed. Innovation is possible when Sakurai (the man who made Melee) is making your game.
Play the game. See where it notches up after it has a chance to brew its own competitive scene (which it will, even Brawl did). When it's all said and done, only then can you rightfully contest Smash 4's success or lack there-of as a competitive game due to lacking features/mechanics/etc. Until then, criticisms are best made as constructively as possible, while approaching the subject with an open mind. You have to think "Okay, so this game doesn't have Wavedashing...how can the game
benefit from this?". There are ways in which the game does benefit, but you need to assess them before jumping to conclusions.
It's not that it would affect casual players in any
harmful way, but depending on the kind of mechanics, you can actually
stifle or
hinder the inviting qualities to competitive play. Street Fighter is actually a great example. That whole game is played defensively. Lots of camping, footsies, blocking, spacing. It's the literal anti-thesis to Melee gameplay, and yet it pulls almost double the entrants of Melee and UMVC3 at this years EVO. It is legitimately hype to watch (apparently for a lot of people).
Unfortunately, I think at the very root, a lot of this is a sign of the Smash communities average age. Smash players tend to be...younger. This means the overall way in which opinions are doled out on this very forum, and how Smash events are carried out in general are a pretty good reflection of the "young" demographic. I think the general way in which Melee players approach their flaming of any games not Melee is a sign of immaturity, to be quite honest.
I'm just going to reply to you since I really don't have the time to fight to the death in angry forum posts. Much less write an essay wall of text to somebody who is so mad and is full of salt.
What you said. The ability to play competitive has never hindered other ways of playing. And many competitive players are fine with simplification of some tech if it means they get substitutes. No L cancelling, no auto cancelling from brawl, just change it so landing lag is low across the board. Auto cancelling punishes you for speeding up, hence it is worse than L cancelling in terms of accessibility.
Like this. Oh, I disagree with you so I must be "salty". Like really, grow up.
People are citing landing lag up and down as a big hinge for Smash 4, and yet I fail to actually see this in consistency from all the Smash 4 footage we have available. There are many instances for many characters where you can see obviously
little amounts of landing lag, and many (intelligent) posters have already postulated that it seems to differ between characters and certain attacks even. Watch the Mario move analysis, his landing lag is near non-existent!
That is excellent for us. That means he's not simply blanketing all characters with a specified amount of landing lag. He's actually making landing lag a balance point. Certain moves on certain characters have landing lag, certain moves do not. Now you have more choices to make. You have more things to consider in your approach and your aerial offensives.
I'm really not concerned about landing lag at all, based on the extensive amount of footage I've seen.
Glad to have you on SWF. 
