I know about less landing lag, but having a manual L-Canceling mode would be sweet

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#1
I know that they made a conscious decision to have low landing lag on all moves reminiscient of automatic L-Canceling, but something is still missing. There's still less of an incentive to pay attention to the environment and engage with the flow of offense. Controlling your fighter just feels less kinetic without well-timed presses.

That's why I feel that there should be an optional manual L-Canceling mode. By turning this on, your landing lag would be doubled for all attacks by default, but as in Melee, hitting a shield button 7 frames before hitting the ground would give you the normal landing lag. With Ultimate really upping the potential of aggression as far as we know, having a manual L-Canceling mode would complete what they are going for: adding a greater element of physicality to controlling your character and giving an additional reason for players to engage with the environment.

They could even improve the L-Cancel further by making it so that a missed L-Cancel doubles your landing lag even further. It would make it so that you can't mash an L-Cancel (which takes part of the skill out of the action) and there would be a risk-skill-reward triumvirate that lets the player determine whether or not they want to L-Cancel, and the action would decrease in risk and increase in reward as the player gets better at it.

And yes, this should be an option to have manual L-Canceling, meaning you can turn it on or off. Unlike Project M, manual L-Canceling would be off by default so that casual players could be aggressive without an extra button if they want to. For tournament setups, there could be a rule so that if one player wants manual L-Canceling, they can turn it on. The only way to turn it off is so that both players agree to have it off (which probably would include most players anyway). There could even be tournaments where the organizer forces manual L-Canceling on.

I'm not saying that this is an absolute must for the game, but it could really enhance the technicality of play and give a limitation that can be overcome with practice, whether that be for fun or if it is imposed in tournaments at the organizer and/or players' behest.
 

Red Ryu

#ZardGang
Moderator
Premium
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
26,378
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
#2
The reason players like Armada, M2K and PPMD came out with ultimate saying they aren’t a fan of L-Canceling or is a bad mechanic is due to the fact there is zero reason to never do it.

This has been my biggest problem with the mechanic, what is it adding to the game and does it add something meaningful over just cutting lag in half or setting it right.

Unlike wavedashing, there isn’t ever a good reason to not do it. You don’t want to dash into a charged fsmash or use it to where it gives up stage control. There is choice and reasons to do it or not. So in this case, why would I want more lag? So this seems to make the game harder, but not adding much to the game in terms of choice of gameplay. Yes hitting shields and such can mix it up slightly but at higher levels of play it’s not a factor.

Sure it makes the game harder to learn, but are you adding enough to justify it? I’d argue it doesn’t.

I’ve seen it posed to Rivals of Aether and Street Fighters players about the mechanic. They seem incredibly against it, asking why is it messed over normalized landing lag?

So if so as a fun mode could it work? Maybe but I don’t see it being wanted outside of die hard supports of it who want it.

So we are left with a question, if we add it, is it worth the time to implement it over other changes and would it be worth a new setting? I don’t think so.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#3
I am honestly baffled that you of all people are advocating for L-Canceling, the absolute worst mechanic to ever be introduced into a fighting game that I've ever seen. And like Red Ryu just stated, the main reason is the lack of choice. It's not an option, it's mandatory.

Now granted, having an option where your baseline landing lag is doubled and L-Cancel will turn it back to normal is technically fine, but who would ever use it? It's a pointless handicap to put on yourself and I highly doubt ANY pro player would do it in tournaments. And if somehow it becomes the default in tournaments, well then we go to the second reason L-Canceling is terrible: increased skill floor for no discernible reason.

It manufactures a skill gap between pro and lower competitive/higher casual players for literally no reason other than just for the sake of making one. I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to add it. Skill gap will happen anyway, let it happen normally. Why do we need to try and create a bigger gap when the game, just off the basis of being a combination of strategy and speed, is going to do the job for you in that regard?

Sorry if I seem a little heated, but you've been discussing stuff about easier wavedashing, and I like wavedashing because it avoids these problems. Why you do me like this? :sadeyes:
 

Makai Wars

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
277
Location
Deepsea Metro
#4
There's no reason for L-Canceling to return, there was no reason for it to exist in the first place because there was never a reason NOT to L Cancel, at that point it's a pointless button press. Universally low landing lag is good for all levels of play and increasing it for the sake of adding an extra execution is absurd.
 

Kopy

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
18
#5
So, you want advanced techniques for the sake of advanced techniques. to make the game more complicated.

I agree with Red Ryu.
Wavedashing gives you options to work with, l-canceling is something you never don't want to input. You have no disadvantages by doing it, it's never a bad option, it's a no-brainer.

Just give universally low ending-lag, I can't understand people who want l-canceling back. It doesn't make sense.


Maybe Smash should go in a direction where you have to input all of the character's muscles manually. That would feel kinetic.
 

lordvaati

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,864
Location
Seattle, WA
3DS FC
1307-0830-2387
#6
Everyone pretty much said what I came to say: complexity for the sake of complexity is not logical design, much less for a Nintendo game which always follow the mantra of approchability.

Adding that is almost the gaming equivalent of a tobacco pad for smokers just because a small section have been crutched to using it for so many years.
 

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#8
This has been my biggest problem with the mechanic, what is it adding to the game and does it add something meaningful over just cutting lag in half or setting it right.
Well maybe adding a limitation to the game that can be overcome with practice is exactly what some people want.

Maybe it gives some fans more of a reason to be more attentive towards their surroundings and like how it makes them think of multiple factors including timing and positioning relative to the opponent.

Maybe people like the appeal of doing something in response to how the environment changes, how attacks connect with opponents and the terrain,

How would you feel if the Mario RPGs didn't have the Action Commands mechanic and you just selected an attack from a menu and called it a turn? How would you feel if in Breath of the Wild or Skyward Sword, Link would parry every single attack that his shield makes contact with? How would you feel if in God of War, Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta, the cinematic QTE attacks were simple seconds-long cutscenes? How would you feel if in Street Fighter 3, you parry every attack just by walking forward?

Sometimes adding that "arbitrary button press" goes a long way in engaging the player.

Maybe Smash should go in a direction where you have to input all of the character's muscles manually. That would feel kinetic.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
 
Last edited:

Teeb147

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,924
#9
There's so many things you can train to get better that you really don't need to add more complexity just so that you have extra and unnecessary technicality as a reason to pay attention to your environment and button presses.

Just pay attention to your environment. It's that simple. And if you liked how something made you pay attention to your attacks (by training l-cancelling), then just do it in your head. Play as if you would time to do something like it on your landing attacks. And you can even do it for regular attacks too, you don't need l-cancelling for the outcome you're looking for.

You'll be rewarded by your higher ability to pay attention, and that should be good enough. Else you're just attached to the training wheels. Get what I'm saying?
 
Last edited:

Kopy

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
18
#10
Well maybe adding a limitation to the game that can be overcome with practice is exactly what some people want.

Maybe it gives some fans more of a reason to be more attentive towards their surroundings and like how it makes them think of multiple factors including timing and positioning relative to the opponent.

Maybe people like the appeal of doing something in response to how the environment changes, how attacks connect with opponents and the terrain,

How would you feel if the Mario RPGs didn't have the Action Commands mechanic and you just selected an attack from a menu and called it a turn? How would you feel if in Breath of the Wild or Skyward Sword, Link would parry every single attack that his shield makes contact with? How would you feel if in God of War, Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta, the cinematic QTE attacks were simple seconds-long cutscenes? How would you feel if in Street Fighter 3, you parry every attack just by walking forward?

Sometimes adding that "arbitrary button press" goes a long way in engaging the player.



https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
The thing is, nothing you said (being more attentive towards opponents, doing something in response to the environment etc etc) actually defends l-canceling. L-canceling has nothing to do with your opponent. It is 0% reactionary, you have no reason EVER not to do it. It is an input you memorize after every aerial. How is that being attentive or responding to the environment?

For example, if they had removed perfect shielding people would be on the fence because it is an integral part of the game and actually rewards timing (skill). You'd have options to play safe (normal shield) or take the risk of perfect shielding.


You're comparing deliberate design choices which the games revolve around (blocking, extra damage) to something that artificially increases the skill ceiling in a MP game.
Increase skill ceiling and competitiveness by giving options, not by shoehorning in inputs you don't have to think about.

Interesting to see just one of the games you listed is an actual MP game by the way.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
7,782
Location
Buried under 990+ weapons
3DS FC
1504-5709-4054
#11
Your argument for L-canceling itself is slippery...

Comparing it to parries in Zelda does not work. Parries require actual timing and effort. L-canceling can be done every time without fail by mashing like a monkey. It’s more like KH:BBS dodges where by repeatedly pressing the button you become totally invincible. There’s a reason why that died right then and there...
 

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#12
I am honestly baffled that you of all people are advocating for L-Canceling, the absolute worst mechanic to ever be introduced into a fighting game that I've ever seen. And like Red Ryu just stated, the main reason is the lack of choice. It's not an option, it's mandatory.

Now granted, having an option where your baseline landing lag is doubled and L-Cancel will turn it back to normal is technically fine, but who would ever use it? It's a pointless handicap to put on yourself and I highly doubt ANY pro player would do it in tournaments. And if somehow it becomes the default in tournaments, well then we go to the second reason L-Canceling is terrible: increased skill floor for no discernible reason.

It manufactures a skill gap between pro and lower competitive/higher casual players for literally no reason other than just for the sake of making one. I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to add it. Skill gap will happen anyway, let it happen normally. Why do we need to try and create a bigger gap when the game, just off the basis of being a combination of strategy and speed, is going to do the job for you in that regard?

Sorry if I seem a little heated, but you've been discussing stuff about easier wavedashing, and I like wavedashing because it avoids these problems. Why you do me like this? :sadeyes:
Just letting you know: I don't want easier wavedashing; I want more developed wavedashing, with being easier as a side effect.

The thing is, nothing you said (being more attentive towards opponents, doing something in response to the environment etc etc) actually defends l-canceling. L-canceling has nothing to do with your opponent. It is 0% reactionary, you have no reason EVER not to do it. It is an input you memorize after every aerial. How is that being attentive or responding to the environment?
Well, maybe I wasn't being detailed enough. I'll post something that Praxis Praxis posted on Reddit quite some time ago:

People keep saying L-cancelling is a bad mechanic because it's just a routine. To repeat their argument: "You never want not to L-cancel, so there's no point in having a mechanic that amounts to an extra button push". This is something I once argued when I was a Brawl-only player, but I now believe that this is a misconception and I am not sure I agree.

L-cancelling rewards the skill of situational awareness. Your timing changes depending on whether you hit your opponent, hit your opponent's shield, hit a light shield, hit a projectile and opponent, or hit nothing, because these change the timing of when you hit the ground at the last possible second.

These things change your timing a lot, and knowing whether you are going to hit a shield at the last minute or not is required to L-cancel properly.

If you trade L-cancelling for halving all aerial reduction, what happens is that knowing whether you are going to hit your opponent's shield or not no longer matters. So people who are situationally aware (i.e. know whether the hit is guaranteed or is going to hit a shield) no longer have an advantage over people who are just throwing the move out blindly. No L-cancelling thus massively reduces the skill gap between low and medium level players, but in a way that they wouldn't be able to put their finger on. The player who is being situationally aware does not have as large of an advantage over a player who is doing a scripted series of bread-n-butter attacks. A player spamming Fox nairs brainlessly in Melee will do exceptionally well if the game auto-L-cancels, whereas if he has to pay attention and change his timing if the opponent holds their shield, he has to be a lot more aware of what is going on and what options his opponent has.

Situational awareness is a major skill that Smash tests (because combos are so fluid and improv, and you never see the same thing twice), so you can argue that this actually does increase the game's depth, and making it automatic reduces the thought required, not just tech skill, to shield pressure and combo.

I think when people complain that removing L-cancelling makes the game "too easy", they're not actually talking about the button inputs becoming too easy, but the fact that thought processes become easier when you don't have to judge what you are going to hit on the way down.

However, people often have a hard time articulating why they feel the game is now "too easy", and people who don't get it think they're just being elitist because they're good at hitting buttons.
Smash tests situational awareness a lot more than its traditional cousins. Environment and where the opponent is flying off to in a combo are all factors in adapting to the situation. L-Canceling helps engage people with the situation more than just low landing lag.

Your argument for L-canceling itself is slippery...

Comparing it to parries in Zelda does not work. Parries require actual timing and effort. L-canceling can be done every time without fail by mashing like a monkey. It’s more like KH:BBS dodges where by repeatedly pressing the button you become totally invincible. There’s a reason why that died right then and there...
Then they can improve it by making L-Canceling non-mashable. They did it with Teching, which operates on similar principles; they can do it with L-Canceling.

I even said: why not make a missed L-Cancel further increase your landing lag? People have modded both PM and Melee to do just that, and find that L-Canceling is more fun for both players in a 1v1 when that happens.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
7,782
Location
Buried under 990+ weapons
3DS FC
1504-5709-4054
#13
Then they can improve it by making L-Canceling non-mashable. They did it with Teching, which operates on similar principles; they can do it with L-Canceling.

I even said: why not make a missed L-Cancel further increase your landing lag? People have modded both PM and Melee to do just that, and find that L-Canceling is more fun for both players in a 1v1 when that happens.
Nobody actually wants that. Honestly I’ve seen better arguments to remove manual teching...
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#14
Well, maybe I wasn't being detailed enough. I'll post something that Praxis Praxis posted on Reddit quite some time ago:
Oh THAT post. Honestly, it doesn't really mention any sort of actual downside for L-Canceling, just a danger of failing it, which, again, is not a meaningful choice. Also, this whole deal with situational awareness is really reaching to defend an objectively poorly designed mechanic, which honestly I don't say lightly, but I will go this far. Melee alone has a MUCH better way of testing situational awareness without removing choices from the player, and one that I advocate, and it involves the use of DI and high hitstun to have dynamic combos while also having player interaction even during a combo.

This honestly feels like a case of Praxis wanting way too much of something, in this case situational awareness, that he'd rather compromise the integrity of the game's design to get more of something the game wasn't lacking at all.


Smash tests situational awareness a lot more than its traditional cousins. Environment and where the opponent is flying off to in a combo are all factors in adapting to the situation. L-Canceling helps engage people with the situation more than just low landing lag.
Again, this seems to be an overblown concern. I'm not sure how adding L-Cancelling will somehow bring in some situational awareness in the form of a mechanic that literally is not a choice, but mandatory, as a needless penalty towards "unaware" players, when the game will naturally do it anyway in the form of intrinsic weaknesses in the form of lag on moves/movement?

This is the same deal with the whole "it makes high-level players more separate from low-level players". The only arguments I've ever seen in favor of L-Cancelling involve adding competitive aspects to the game that would naturally already be there with its absence, just because of the nature of the game. Is it really worth a poorly thought out execution test to somehow add something the game was not going to lack in its absence? I don't think so.
 

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#15
Oh THAT post. Honestly, it doesn't really mention any sort of actual downside for L-Canceling, just a danger of failing it, which, again, is not a meaningful choice. Also, this whole deal with situational awareness is really reaching to defend an objectively poorly designed mechanic, which honestly I don't say lightly, but I will go this far. Melee alone has a MUCH better way of testing situational awareness without removing choices from the player, and one that I advocate, and it involves the use of DI and high hitstun to have dynamic combos while also having player interaction even during a combo.

This honestly feels like a case of Praxis wanting way too much of something, in this case situational awareness, that he'd rather compromise the integrity of the game's design to get more of something the game wasn't lacking at all.

Again, this seems to be an overblown concern. I'm not sure how adding L-Cancelling will somehow bring in some situational awareness in the form of a mechanic that literally is not a choice, but mandatory, as a needless penalty towards "unaware" players, when the game will naturally do it anyway in the form of intrinsic weaknesses in the form of lag on moves/movement?

This is the same deal with the whole "it makes high-level players more separate from low-level players". The only arguments I've ever seen in favor of L-Cancelling involve adding competitive aspects to the game that would naturally already be there with its absence, just because of the nature of the game. Is it really worth a poorly thought out execution test to somehow add something the game was not going to lack in its absence? I don't think so.
Giving players something as simple as L-Canceling provides a basic limitation that can be overcome with practice. It's only one button press that provides the player with something they can consistently practice to get better at.

Sure, combos exist as the main test of execution and all, but those are incredibly complex involving many factors such as spacing, doing the right attack, DI, and predicting the knockback values. Combos have a huge barrier to overcome because of this, and the vast majority of players won't be able to get into the higher levels because of this.

L-Canceling actually helps the competitive community by giving players a simple-in-theory, fairly challenging-in-execution motivation to get better. When they master this, the practice they get from L-Canceling encourages them to think more about how they react to the environment, distance from the opponent, and how they make contact with the opponent. The vast majority of players may still be turned away by competitive, but L-Canceling will encourage more players to get into higher levels than ordinary low landing lag.

Adding a sense of difficulty through balanced-yet-simple ways increases the health of a community and life of a game, and this isn't limited to Smash at all. Would the entire Soulsborne fandom be as dedicated and meticulous about how they play and document each individual game if the player had tons of health while enemies were weak and had next to no health? Nope, because the fact that both you and the enemies die quickly help people think about how they manage their build and associated playstyle.
 

spinalwolf

Smash Apprentice
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
92
#16
Like everyone else said, l-cancelling doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. Coming from someone who plays both Melee and Pm competetively, I think L-cancelling is the single most inconsequential tech in any fighting game period. Why don't we add L-cancelling to other fighting games while were at it. Ask the Street Fighter or Tekken community if they want L-cancelling in their game. They'll likely have negative opinions on it and for good reason. Now you might make the argument that smash isn't like other fighting games, and you're right, it isn't like other fighting games, but so what? What makes smash different that still justifies the implementation of L-cancelling compared to other fighting games?
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#17
Looks like I will be going on some tangent on L-Cancelling... again. I hate repeating myself, but I guess you specifically haven't heard it, so, I guess I'll do it again lol.

Giving players something as simple as L-Canceling provides a basic limitation that can be overcome with practice. It's only one button press that provides the player with something they can consistently practice to get better at.
Okay, but why not just have them get better at the game in more organic ways than just a mindless amount of repetition? Why not have the difficulty of the game be less about execution and more about strategizing? After all, the best competitive games I've seen don't really balance around execution level, but strategic value of options. This is because execution means little in terms of balancing a competitive game, because to balance a game at a competitive level, you assume every player at the high-level can execute your game at peak performance, so what's the point in an execution test? The answer may not surprise you: none.

Not even at the highest level of play is an execution test, purely for the sake of hard to execute mechanics, a good design decision in a competitive esport, because it means nothing in terms of the viability and differences made at the highest level, at least if the competitive game is balanced in a correct manner. Meanwhile, if added in, it can potentially turn an entirely balanced and well designed game into a complete mess with its cascading effects on balance at high level.

I'm sure you would then say, "well why not balance the game around L-Canceling?" At that point, you would be assuming your competitive player cannot use your tools you've given them to the fullest, since, once again, L-Canceling is not a strategic choice whatsoever. And when you have this mentality, you will inevitably be balancing your game around only the lowest level players, since you take into account the ability to even use the tools the game gives you rather than it being a given. Overwatch does this to its detriment. I'd rather we not shoehorn our way into that position.

L-Canceling actually helps the competitive community by giving players a simple-in-theory, fairly challenging-in-execution motivation to get better. When they master this, the practice they get from L-Canceling encourages them to think more about how they react to the environment, distance from the opponent, and how they make contact with the opponent.
Again, if there is not a position where a player can safely say "I shouldn't L-Cancel here and should just land normally" and be right on that assumption, then there is no strategic choice involved. It's an empty thing to get better via L-Cancelling. You aren't adding a tool to your arsenal of tricks, you're making tools in the game functional to begin with. It's like if you go to the hardware store, buy a hammer, but oops, turns out the handle is separated from it like Lego, and you need to manually put it together for it to function as a hammer. Why wouldn't you just want the hammer to build your house? Why didn't the manufacturer just put it together for convenience?

The vast majority of players may still be turned away by competitive, but L-Canceling will encourage more players to get into higher levels than ordinary low landing lag.
It really won't. And this harkens back to what high-level players actually want out of the newer Smash games: OPTIONS! However, if you have this execution test where the only viable option is to do this thing, else you will be at an objective disadvantage, then there is no "option" to speak of. It's a mandatory action. It adds no depth to the game.

And note that I didn't even mention the problems involving the casual scene that actually want to get better. Creating a mandatory action where you have to do mindless repetition will only strengthen the divide between up and coming competitive players and the top players for literally no reason other than to do this. What is the purpose of a higher skill gap? What does it add to a competitive game exactly? I've only seen this mentality in the Smash community about this, and I still haven't figured out why people want this when the downsides of it are much worse.

When the average casual player reaches a point where they are required to do mindless repetition in a sort of lab environment, in other words, they aren't playing the game like it was designed (in the case of competitive Smash, 1v1 stock), then the average person will not really care to even go much further, even if they want to, because so few people even have the time to do this. When someone wants to get better at Smash, they should be able to get better WHILE playing Smash as it's meant to be played. They shouldn't be required to learn some weird timing mechanic that is not optional, else they are objectively worse than someone who does.

Video games are not real-life sports. People who want to get good at video games expect to be playing the game, because they have time constraints, or at least a vast majority of these players do. Watch this video on why the general idea of how casual players work is outdated and needs to be approached differently. I use this video as a source, because not only am I one of those "core, but not hardcore" gamers they speak of, but a lot of my friends also are. It is anecdotal, yes, but considering the human behavior of competition combined with lower time that can be sunk into a video game, the hypothesis of this being the case for a LOT of gamers is honestly rather sound.


Adding a sense of difficulty through balanced-yet-simple ways increases the health of a community and life of a game, and this isn't limited to Smash at all. Would the entire Soulsborne fandom be as dedicated and meticulous about how they play and document each individual game if the player had tons of health while enemies were weak and had next to no health? Nope, because the fact that both you and the enemies die quickly help people think about how they manage their build and associated playstyle.
Terrible comparison, because not only is Smash specifically advertised as an "easy to learn, hard to master" game (and adding L-Canceling would only raise the skill floor without touching the skill ceiling in a meaningful way, as I mentioned in my first part) while the Souls series is most certainly not, but those games aren't multiplayer PvP games, so their design philosophies differ tremendously. For example, in that game, it's fine to have intentionally hard to input commands, because that's what you asked for. Even then, I don't even think Dark Souls has this sort of thing to begin with, because those games are actually well designed for what they are while L-Cancelling is an objectively poor design decision no matter what genre, because it necessitates execution without adding depth.

Hoo boy that was a lot of stuff.

EDIT: Note that I'm not trying to be rude in my first sentence to you. I don't want to come across as rude. I like discussion... just hate having to type out the long form responses because of how many things are wrong with L-Cancelling lol. However, if I come across as confrontational, I'm not trying to be. I really have this problem where people misinterpret my intentions to be negative. :c
 
Last edited:

lordvaati

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,864
Location
Seattle, WA
3DS FC
1307-0830-2387
#18
The closest comparison in a Nintendo game I can think on hand akin to the L-Cancelling/Smooth Land system is IVs in Pokemon. But with Pokemon it's at least woven into the gameplay and world due to representing different statistical values of individual Pokemon, having different variables of use for competition(ex. A Ferrothorn with 0 IVs in Speed benefits the most in getting a power boost to Gyro Ball) and has a bridge of approchability due to Hyper Training and Bottle caps. L-Cancel on the other hand does not fit any natural weave to the gameplay and is arbitrary, has no variability beyond "you do or you don't" and only notable bridge crosser is the Smooth Landing perk....on Custom badges which are banned in competitive play.
 

Red Ryu

#ZardGang
Moderator
Premium
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
26,378
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
#19
Well maybe adding a limitation to the game that can be overcome with practice is exactly what some people want.
I don't value stuff that makes the game harder just to make it harder without adding anything or much at all. This isn't a way I would engague or make a game more interesting where as new mechanics with dashes, DI and such do for Smash.

Maybe it gives some fans more of a reason to be more attentive towards their surroundings and like how it makes them think of multiple factors including timing and positioning relative to the opponent.

Maybe people like the appeal of doing something in response to how the environment changes, how attacks connect with opponents and the terrain,
This doesn't matter much in higher level melee. The closest person to make this argument sound good has been Praxis from people I have talked to on this subject but I never could agree with him on it. Because it leads back to the design problem of, why would I want more lag? you don't care what your opponent is doing outside of the timing with shields, which you can bypass with stricter timing of it anyways. If it added to the game just something more outside of what is essentially just a single player skill check 95% of the time but not one that adds to gameplay like things like Wavedashing, combos and such do.

How would you feel if the Mario RPGs didn't have the Action Commands mechanic and you just selected an attack from a menu and called it a turn? How would you feel if in Breath of the Wild or Skyward Sword, Link would parry every single attack that his shield makes contact with? How would you feel if in God of War, Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta, the cinematic QTE attacks were simple seconds-long cutscenes? How would you feel if in Street Fighter 3, you parry every attack just by walking forward?

Sometimes adding that "arbitrary button press" goes a long way in engaging the player.
These mechanics are fine in an RPG or action game where it is just a single player experience, that makes you feel more like your actions matter.

In a fighting game/platform fighter/smash you are adding something that doesn't really engage in gameplay from a PvP standpoint outside of raising the skill floor but not moving the skill ceiling. Perfect shielding and Parries need you to interact with your opponent and know what they will do, know about their characters and knowing when to let go to punish. It's a tool for defense but one that is good for the genre.

Making a game harder is fine, but making it harder to where it's not really adding much to the game isn't one I support.
 

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#20
Okay, but why not just have them get better at the game in more organic ways than just a mindless amount of repetition? Why not have the difficulty of the game be less about execution and more about strategizing? After all, the best competitive games I've seen don't really balance around execution level, but strategic value of options. This is because execution means little in terms of balancing a competitive game, because to balance a game at a competitive level, you assume every player at the high-level can execute your game at peak performance, so what's the point in an execution test? The answer may not surprise you: none.
This doesn't matter much in higher level melee. The closest person to make this argument sound good has been Praxis from people I have talked to on this subject but I never could agree with him on it. Because it leads back to the design problem of, why would I want more lag? you don't care what your opponent is doing outside of the timing with shields, which you can bypass with stricter timing of it anyways. If it added to the game just something more outside of what is essentially just a single player skill check 95% of the time but not one that adds to gameplay like things like Wavedashing, combos and such do.
There you all go again about "fighting games should be about strategy and not execution." No, it should be about both. Strategy will always be a thing depending on the game, but too little execution is boring, while too much execution is tiring.

And yes, there are several games that go to extremes on either side. On the too little execution side, there's ARMS. Great game with a surprising amount of depth and nuance such as dashing after a block for a nice counter or using Rush defensively to defend from a punish. But there's just nothing to improve beyond punching, meaning it had no chance as an eSport to begin with. On the too much execution side, there's Virtua Fighter and the Street Fighter 3 subseries. Both are considered among the most balanced fighting games ever, but even among those who could get past issues like lack of visual flash or lack of iconic characters respectively, many were turned away by the execution requirements for either.

Then there are games like Melee and DBFZ that hit the sweet spot. Both games have fairly simple controls so that beginners know what they're doing, but enough execution to keep players wanting to learn more and improve.

Even though Smash 4 tried to correct Brawl's near-lack of technicality, it ultimately couldn't last even half as long as Melee or even Project M has competitively because it's just too straightforward. It doesn't help that Smash 4 had a very WYSIWYG attitude towards technicality, as everything that wasn't in the loading tips would be patched out. It's like the fighting game equivalent of Fi railroading you into doing only what she tells you.

You next line will be, "Sashimi Wiggle," right? By the time that was discovered, it was just too late for Smash 4.

But okay, maybe there are other ways to add depth to the game. I'm actually an advocate of adding the ability to "waveshine" (cancel a move by jumping then airdodging/airdashing into the ground) for more characters' moves than just Fox and Falco's Down-B. It's just that L-Canceling has been a proven method of adding engagement to the game in a simple yet balanced way, providing an easy method of training your awareness in relation to the environment, yet being challenging enough that it requires practice and is impossible to be perfect in the heat of competition.

And besides, they can still implement a switch to turn off manual L-Canceling. I've already said that manual L-Canceling should be off by default.
 
Last edited:

Teeb147

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,924
#21
I can't believe you're still going at it.. Do you actually want a harder execution to get better at, for that synthetic feeling of getting better? It takes a very particular person to want that, because the point of fighting games is how you respond to others, and ..

I understand that you want, for some reason, to have a barrier as means to motivate improving execution, but this is personal, and not many people 'need' that in order to be motivated to improve what they can, if they like the game and the competitive side. and it's crazy that you think other people would want what you want at the expense of simplicity (and being able to focus more on what actually counts in facing and adapting to fighting styles).

Anyway, I'd suggest keep playing melee if you like it, because melee ain't gonna go away, and you have what you like there. When and if you move on to ultimate, try to take your tools with you and focus your energy on what counts the most.

Just saying that cuz I do want you to enjoy yourself in whichever game. And not a lot of people are gonna want artificial skill barriers, even with the pros you're trying to bring up.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#22
Just saying that cuz I do want you to enjoy yourself in whichever game. And not a lot of people are gonna want artificial skill barriers, even with the pros you're trying to bring up.
Cheers.
Is a simple switch, one which changes landing lag in a simple way, will likely require simple coding, and can be turned on to make character control more kinetic or off to focus more on other things, really too much to ask for?
 

Teeb147

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,924
#23
Is a simple switch, one which changes landing lag in a simple way, will likely require simple coding, and can be turned on to make character control more kinetic or off to focus more on other things, really too much to ask for?
Ideally, you'd be able to get this especially if it's meaningful to you. I could see it as a kind of handicap/training option. But I wouldn't practice with it, and I definitely wouldn't like tournaments that would impose it. I think most people would feel the same, it'd just make a weird division in the community.

And I still play melee, so it's not because I don't already l-cancel. I appreciate it to some degree, but I really prefer having the weight (of always having to do it) off so that I can focus all of my energy into the other aspects of the game. Which include technical aspects. I feel characters have enough to master in the nuances, than making an addition reward system for timing correctly.
It's already rewarding to time things well, and space correctly, and know the environment and where things stand.. etc..
 

VodkaHaze

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
256
NNID
VodkaHaze58
#24
There you all go again about "fighting games should be about strategy and not execution." No, it should be about both. Strategy will always be a thing depending on the game, but too little execution is boring, while too much execution is tiring.

And yes, there are several games that go to extremes on either side. On the too little execution side, there's ARMS. Great game with a surprising amount of depth and nuance such as dashing after a block for a nice counter or using Rush defensively to defend from a punish. But there's just nothing to improve beyond punching, meaning it had no chance as an eSport to begin with. On the too much execution side, there's Virtua Fighter and the Street Fighter 3 subseries. Both are considered among the most balanced fighting games ever, but even among those who could get past issues like lack of visual flash or lack of iconic characters respectively, many were turned away by the execution requirements for either.

Then there are games like Melee and DBFZ that hit the sweet spot. Both games have fairly simple controls so that beginners know what they're doing, but enough execution to keep players wanting to learn more and improve.

Even though Smash 4 tried to correct Brawl's near-lack of technicality, it ultimately couldn't last even half as long as Melee or even Project M has competitively because it's just too straightforward. It doesn't help that Smash 4 had a very WYSIWYG attitude towards technicality, as everything that wasn't in the loading tips would be patched out. It's like the fighting game equivalent of Fi railroading you into doing only what she tells you.

You next line will be, "Sashimi Wiggle," right? By the time that was discovered, it was just too late for Smash 4.

But okay, maybe there are other ways to add depth to the game. I'm actually an advocate of adding the ability to "waveshine" (cancel a move by jumping then airdodging/airdashing into the ground) for more characters' moves than just Fox and Falco's Down-B. It's just that L-Canceling has been a proven method of adding engagement to the game in a simple yet balanced way, providing an easy method of training your awareness in relation to the environment, yet being challenging enough that it requires practice and is impossible to be perfect in the heat of competition.

And besides, they can still implement a switch to turn off manual L-Canceling. I've already said that manual L-Canceling should be off by default.
OK, I get what you're saying, but what if the reason why Melee has had a far more flourishing competitive scene than say Brawl or 64 is due to the higher tech skill required overall? Perhaps think of it this way: if L-cancelling was never in Melee, and every character has the landing lag of their aerials halfed (even G&W) so that it feels like they L-cancel, do you think Melee would still have a flourishing competitive scene? Do you also think in this scenario Melee players would want aerial landing lag doubled so that they can press L or R in order to bring the lag back to normal? Here's another hypothetical: suppose I modded Melee so that all dash attacks have twice as much end lag. However, by pushing the B button at the right time, it's end lag is now back to normal. Do you think Melee players would like this mod?

I'm not against adding advanced techniques into Ultimate, because I feel that doing so will make the game more interesting to spectate as well as play, and could attract a thriving competitive scene. But the techniques need to also have some sense of being situational. With many techniques from past games, like wavedashing or DACUS, even if you get the technical execution down, you still need to be mindful when you use them, otherwise you can get punished. With L-cancelling, you will rarely, if ever get punished for it. If anything, you'll get punished for using an aerial, not because you L-cancelled.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,274
Location
Long Beach,California
#25
I wouldn’t mind L-canceling, as long as there is more reward to it than halting landing lag again (assuming landing lag for characters is already halfed, it would cut it to a fourth).

maybe if you can buffer a movement option out of it immediately (IASA) it would be a great instinctive and allow for more true follow ups. Not sure.

I’m cool with it being gone because we have the reduced landing lag, but it could be interesting.

dang y’all really drilling in on OP. Chill y’all.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#26
There you all go again about "fighting games should be about strategy and not execution." No, it should be about both. Strategy will always be a thing depending on the game, but too little execution is boring, while too much execution is tiring.
I'm a bit shocked that you took my explanation of balancing a competitive game, and came out with an idea that I'm somehow against execution in games. That wasn't my position, and I didn't even really say it. The reason I brought up execution not being important was strictly in the balancing of the game. This doesn't mean you remove execution, this means when you design and balance a game, execution is not a huge factor to the actual depth of the game, the options given to the player are. If those options happen to be hard to execute, yet are still well designed, then okay, can't fault them for that. Wavedashing is, at its core, a rather weirdly hard to execute mechanic, at least compared to what it could be, but it's also, at its core, a well designed mechanic that (I think, in Melee at least) has a few balance problems, which can easily be addressed. L-Cancels are not this.

And yes, there are several games that go to extremes on either side. On the too little execution side, there's ARMS. Great game with a surprising amount of depth and nuance such as dashing after a block for a nice counter or using Rush defensively to defend from a punish. But there's just nothing to improve beyond punching, meaning it had no chance as an eSport to begin with.
Oh no, you mentioned ARMS as not viable as an esport...

I feel you have a very warped view of how a game is a viable competitive esport. First off, ARMS is a viable esport, full stop. It's not the most popular, but really, that has little to do with the game itself and more to do with widespread opinion of it in general. Secondly, the real big deal of esports is actually not really the execution of the game, but the spectator value of it, with depth coming in a close second for longevity. This is why MOBAs have been FAR more successful than fighters and first person shooters have, because a good competitive esport has highs and lows, lulls and action. MOBAs naturally do this while the other two don't, barring a few exceptions. On top of that, they are much easier to follow for the untrained eye, which also brings up having good announcers and whatnot, but I'm going on a tangent here.

The point is that spectator value is FAR more important to the popularity of an esport than really anything else. Depth obviously is very important in the longevity of a game, but admitting ARMS is a deep, nuanced game, yet also isn't viable as an esport shows that you value execution over depth in terms of what makes an esport great, and I'm here to tell you that it's probably the least important thing.

Even though Smash 4 tried to correct Brawl's near-lack of technicality, it ultimately couldn't last even half as long as Melee or even Project M has competitively because it's just too straightforward. It doesn't help that Smash 4 had a very WYSIWYG attitude towards technicality, as everything that wasn't in the loading tips would be patched out. It's like the fighting game equivalent of Fi railroading you into doing only what she tells you.
Seems you also are advocating for hidden mechanics here. I honestly don't get why anyone would want very fundamental tools of a game to be hidden from the average player other than as a sort of gatekeeping exercise to say, "I am more obsessed with this game, therefore I deserve to have more tools to use than you". Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for hidden secrets, but not when it's a multiplayer competitive game. This isn't the right design philosophy for this genre.

It's just that L-Canceling has been a proven method of adding engagement to the game in a simple yet balanced way, providing an easy method of training your awareness in relation to the environment, yet being challenging enough that it requires practice and is impossible to be perfect in the heat of competition.
Proven to do what exactly? Because all I've seen from it is that it adds no depth to the game, no spectator value to it, and only ends up dividing the community. At least other Melee techs avoid the first two problems, even if they split the community, but with Ultimate's dev team seeming to want feedback, we could potentially solve the third problem.

And again, all of the stuff that you say L-Cancelling can do is either not really important, or is already something the game does naturally. There still is no point to it I can see here, meanwhile all I can see changing are negative things in the long run.

And besides, they can still implement a switch to turn off manual L-Canceling. I've already said that manual L-Canceling should be off by default.
Well about that...

dang y’all really drilling in on OP. Chill y’all.
...I admit we might be taking his specific request a bit too broadly, but honestly, even disregarding specific problems of L-Cancelling, this would still be a bad idea to have simply because of it causing a divide in the community that doesn't need to happen.

Imagine this option was implemented. The inevitable thing that will happen is that only some tournaments, not all, but some, will require the L-Cancelling option on, and their reasoning will be the same as it's always been: "This makes sure the 'best' players can be even better than the players who aren't as good." Obviously this won't fly with a vast majority of people, and they'll simply not allow L-Canceling at all, because let's be honest, absolutely no one is going to intentionally handicap themselves in a competitive environment if the other player doesn't either. And now because of this, we have two different tournament types playing in different rulesets, which is not conducive to a cooperative community. And lo and behold, the inclusion of this mechanic that makes skill for its own sake rather than actually make the game deeper has still created a divide in the competitive community, even when it's optional.

EDIT: Made my position on the importance of depth in esports a bit more clear.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,274
Location
Long Beach,California
#27
I'm a bit shocked that you took my explanation of balancing a competitive game, and came out with an idea that I'm somehow against execution in games. That wasn't my position, and I didn't even really say it. The reason I brought up execution not being important was strictly in the balancing of the game. This doesn't mean you remove execution, this means when you design and balance a game, execution is not a huge factor to the actual depth of the game, the options given to the player are. If those options happen to be hard to execute, yet are still well designed, then okay, can't fault them for that. Wavedashing is, at its core, a rather weirdly hard to execute mechanic, at least compared to what it could be, but it's also, at its core, a well designed mechanic that (I think, in Melee at least) has a few balance problems, which can easily be addressed. L-Cancels are not this.



Oh no, you mentioned ARMS as not viable as an esport...

I feel you have a very warped view of how a game is a viable competitive esport. First off, ARMS is a viable esport, full stop. It's not the most popular, but really, that has little to do with the game itself and more to do with widespread opinion of it in general. Secondly, the real big deal of esports is actually not really the execution of the game, but the spectator value of it, with depth coming in a close second for longevity. This is why MOBAs have been FAR more successful than fighters and first person shooters have, because a good competitive esport has highs and lows, lulls and action. MOBAs naturally do this while the other two don't, barring a few exceptions. On top of that, they are much easier to follow for the untrained eye, which also brings up having good announcers and whatnot, but I'm going on a tangent here.

The point is that spectator value is FAR more important to the popularity of an esport than really anything else. Depth obviously is very important in the longevity of a game, but admitting ARMS is a deep, nuanced game, yet also isn't viable as an esport shows that you value execution over depth in terms of what makes an esport great, and I'm here to tell you that it's probably the least important thing.



Seems you also are advocating for hidden mechanics here. I honestly don't get why anyone would want very fundamental tools of a game to be hidden from the average player other than as a sort of gatekeeping exercise to say, "I am more obsessed with this game, therefore I deserve to have more tools to use than you". Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for hidden secrets, but not when it's a multiplayer competitive game. This isn't the right design philosophy for this genre.



Proven to do what exactly? Because all I've seen from it is that it adds no depth to the game, no spectator value to it, and only ends up dividing the community. At least other Melee techs avoid the first two problems, even if they split the community, but with Ultimate's dev team seeming to want feedback, we could potentially solve the third problem.

And again, all of the stuff that you say L-Cancelling can do is either not really important, or is already something the game does naturally. There still is no point to it I can see here, meanwhile all I can see changing are negative things in the long run.



Well about that...



...I admit we might be taking his specific request a bit too broadly, but honestly, even disregarding specific problems of L-Cancelling, this would still be a bad idea to have simply because of it causing a divide in the community that doesn't need to happen.

Imagine this option was implemented. The inevitable thing that will happen is that only some tournaments, not all, but some, will require the L-Cancelling option on, and their reasoning will be the same as it's always been: "This makes sure the 'best' players can be even better than the players who aren't as good." Obviously this won't fly with a vast majority of people, and they'll simply not allow L-Canceling at all, because let's be honest, absolutely no one is going to intentionally handicap themselves in a competitive environment if the other player doesn't either. And now because of this, we have two different tournament types playing in different rulesets, which is not conducive to a cooperative community. And lo and behold, the inclusion of this mechanic that makes skill for its own sake rather than actually make the game deeper has still created a divide in the competitive community, even when it's optional.

EDIT: Made my position on the importance of depth in esports a bit more clear.
I was talking about having an L-Cancel switch. That’s odd.

And yes, the best players are supposed to be better. Because they put in the time and effort to understand character specific match ups, combos, percentages, and the foundation of fundamentals that carry over from game to game. Simply learning L-Canceling will not make you better, and I can guarantee you that a player like MK Leo can stomp you without perfect pivoting or using any tech that’s out of the ordinary. Masashi, a Japanese Melee player would beat players without wavedashing, granted this was way before the meta evolved into what it is.

I don’t like how people act like they have all of these barriers that keep them from being good when what they simply lack is the dedication to improve with the tools they have lauded out in front of them, instead, they wine and then we get Brawl, then they STILL get bodied.

If you’re complaining about L-Cancelings supposed overwhelming entry barrier then show me your rankings in both Brawl and Smash 4. If you aren’t top 50 then L-Canceling isn’t the problem. Look at the common denominator between your success in the game and it’s design, and you’ll find that it’s you one-hundred percent of the time.

Having autocanceling and L-Canceling to me is beneficial because you still have access to something good, but having the option pushes you to improve. If it’s in, it should be modified to have more benefits than reduced landing lag.

And ARMS sucks.
 
Last edited:

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#28
I was talking about having an L-Cancel switch. That’s odd.
I was too. I'm not sure how you missed that in that particular reply to your comment specifically.

And yes, the best players are supposed to be better. Because they put in the time and effort to understand character specific match ups, combos, percentages, and the foundation of fundamentals that carry over from game to game. Simply learning L-Canceling will not make you better, and I can guarantee you that a player like MK Leo can stomp you without perfect pivoting or using any tech that’s out of the ordinary. Masashi, a Japanese Melee player would beat players without wavedashing, granted this was way before the meta evolved into what it is.

I don’t like how people act like they have all of these barriers that keep them from being good when what they simply lack is the dedication to improve with the tools they have lauded out in front of them, instead, they wine and then we get Brawl, then they STILL get bodied.
This right here actually proves my point on why these execution tests are worthless design prospects. Because of course the game rewards dedication. Why would you wish to manufacture it using a mechanic that adds no depth and no strategy for something that the game will naturally do?

And considering your clear method of simply insulting my skill, I need to inform you that none of my points were ever about individual player skill on my part. Pretty much all of my arguments have been about proven and usually followed tenets of competitive game design. You're going down an avenue that makes it seem like you have no actual counterargument to what I'm saying against L-Cancelling and have resorted to blatant ad hominem.

If you’re complaining about L-Cancelings supposed overwhelming entry barrier then show me your rankings in both Brawl and Smash 4. If you aren’t top 50 then L-Canceling isn’t the problem. Look at the common denominator between your success in the game and it’s design, and you’ll find that it’s you one-hundred percent of the time.
I hate to break this to you, but sometimes, even in a competitive multiplayer game, you can blame the game for poor design choices. It seems like you're saying that going after a game's blatantly poor design choices is something that shouldn't be done, because there's some unspoken rule that the game's design is infallible. It's not. No game's design is infallible, and whether or not an individual happens to be good at the game means anything when it comes to this, or at least not usually. Now granted, sometimes people who are bad overreact to things and blame the game itself for things it hasn't done wrong, but the problem in this particular case is that you haven't actually addressed anything I've said. You simply resorted to the tired trope of "git gud" and are going backwards in assumptions. You assume that I must be bad because I'm criticizing this one specific thing.

News flash, I can't wavedash in Melee either. I can't dash-dance very well, and I'm bad at teching in general, and yet, you won't see me complaining about the very existence of those things being in Melee, because from a design perspective, they either are totally fine, or have unmasked potential if polished up.

So now that you know my rough skill level, does this mean that my assessment of the values of the good mechanics of the game mean nothing too?

Having autocanceling and L-Canceling to me is beneficial because you still have access to something good, but having the option pushes you to improve. If it’s in, it should be modified to have more benefits than reduced landing lag.
So you want the non-choice to be even MORE imbalanced and have even more of an upside, even though it still has no actual, strategic downside?

Again, another obvious attempt at some form of insult towards me (since it's clear that I like the game) that means nothing to this discussion, or even what I said about ARMS being a viable esport. Why is this remark even here?
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,274
Location
Long Beach,California
#30
I was too. I'm not sure how you missed that in that particular reply to your comment specifically.



This right here actually proves my point on why these execution tests are worthless design prospects. Because of course the game rewards dedication. Why would you wish to manufacture it using a mechanic that adds no depth and no strategy for something that the game will naturally do?

And considering your clear method of simply insulting my skill, I need to inform you that none of my points were ever about individual player skill on my part. Pretty much all of my arguments have been about proven and usually followed tenets of competitive game design. You're going down an avenue that makes it seem like you have no actual counterargument to what I'm saying against L-Cancelling and have resorted to blatant ad hominem.



I hate to break this to you, but sometimes, even in a competitive multiplayer game, you can blame the game for poor design choices. It seems like you're saying that going after a game's blatantly poor design choices is something that shouldn't be done, because there's some unspoken rule that the game's design is infallible. It's not. No game's design is infallible, and whether or not an individual happens to be good at the game means anything when it comes to this, or at least not usually. Now granted, sometimes people who are bad overreact to things and blame the game itself for things it hasn't done wrong, but the problem in this particular case is that you haven't actually addressed anything I've said. You simply resorted to the tired trope of "git gud" and are going backwards in assumptions. You assume that I must be bad because I'm criticizing this one specific thing.

News flash, I can't wavedash in Melee either. I can't dash-dance very well, and I'm bad at teching in general, and yet, you won't see me complaining about the very existence of those things being in Melee, because from a design perspective, they either are totally fine, or have unmasked potential if polished up.

So now that you know my rough skill level, does this mean that my assessment of the values of the good mechanics of the game mean nothing too?



So you want the non-choice to be even MORE imbalanced and have even more of an upside, even though it still has no actual, strategic downside?



Again, another obvious attempt at some form of insult towards me (since it's clear that I like the game) that means nothing to this discussion, or even what I said about ARMS being a viable esport. Why is this remark even here?
first I’m gonna ask you not to do what you just did. Don’t break my post into chunks, that’s skewing what I’m saying out of context. very basic trick to make your argument sound infallible instead of addressing it as a whole. I respect your posts by addressing the whole thing, and you should do the same.

I wasn’t trying to get personal at all; you took it there, but now I am when I say this: you sound like you’re whining.

I don’t know who the hell you are, man. I was speaking rhetorically, and it’s not like it was incorrect information: you aren’t a ranked player. I’m staying facts. If you don’t have the experience to back it up then that’s that.

please don’t play the victim card, stating that you can’t do this or that. well how much effort have you put into learning? If it’s not a lot then I don’t feel bad just stating the obvious. Being a good player requires time and dedication no matter what you have to learn. Please don’t put words in my mouth and use “git gud” to play down what I’m saying, that’s very disrespectful as I do my best to articulate what I say in concise sentences. Just because you took it personally doesn’t give you the right to tarnish what I’ve said. If you can’t win, it’s your fault. These people who are “exploiting” the game took the time to learn that, and if you don’t want to that’s fine; don’t.

And you clearly aren’t reading, as I said that I wouldn’t accept L-Canceling as it is. There is nothing wrong with having auto canceling as well as having something else to give you incentive to learn.

And please don’t throw out the ad hominem bs as if that somehow invalidates anything that I said, because besides what I said with “ARMS Sucks”, nothing I said was directed towards YOU. You can argue what I said about ARMS wasn’t even personal, because I don’t know if you play it wtf. It’s literally just my opinion, granted it was one forged from attending 2GG events with ARMS tournaments along with smash and watching people clamor for the game to end unanimously. ARMS won’t close out tournaments because even though it has its depth, it’s not fun to watch. I can’t name a single person who’ve I met in the smash community that speaks about ARMS with excitement in their voice—if at all. Just saying, man.

I’m not sure what it is with the internet now a days but it seems as if no one can take any thing that can be seen negative without going ballistic of fear of them being seen in a different light then what they inciminate themselves to be via public forum. I’m not saying this is the case with you, but by telling me what you can’t do, you’re already admitting defeat. Don’t complain and hold yourself accountable for what you can’t do. Move forward.

Like I said, I don’t know you, or your skill level, but I do know that you aren’t in the top 50 rankings in any respective smash game, or fighting game. I know this not merely based on names but the fact that your response to of a technical barrier implies you believe that a game is screwing you over when there are far more pressing variables: Tournament experience; nerves, player counters, momentum. These are critical. Stage counters, fundamentals like reading, DI mix ups, neutral game. If you would have use concrete information about how L-Canceling should function in these scenarios then maybe one would believe you have some understanding of how competitive fighting games work, but instead you focus on how I’m attacking you personally. If you want what you say to have weight, then show it.

I’ve already spent a lot more time than I wanted typing this, so I’m going to say it this: if you don’t address my post as a whole and digest it, I will dismiss it, or not respond. don’t take it personally, I just believe that respect shouldn’t be given unilaterally.

Why do you believe that L-Cenceling is an artificial tech barrier? Can you compare it to other technical aspects of other fighting games, and if so, how would you implement L-Canceling in the game to where it has actual benefits / can be integrated organically?

This is just my question to you, as not to make this any more about personal attacks.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#31
first I’m gonna ask you not to do what you just did. Don’t break my post into chunks, that’s skewing what I’m saying out of context. very basic trick to make your argument sound infallible instead of addressing it as a whole. I respect your posts by addressing the whole thing, and you should do the same.

I wasn’t trying to get personal at all; you took it there, but now I am when I say this: you sound like you’re whining.

I don’t know who the hell you are, man. I was speaking rhetorically, and it’s not like it was incorrect information: you aren’t a ranked player. I’m staying facts. If you don’t have the experience to back it up then that’s that.

please don’t play the victim card, stating that you can’t do this or that. well how much effort have you put into learning? If it’s not a lot then I don’t feel bad just stating the obvious. Being a good player requires time and dedication no matter what you have to learn. Please don’t put words in my mouth and use “git gud” to play down what I’m saying, that’s very disrespectful as I do my best to articulate what I say in concise sentences. Just because you took it personally doesn’t give you the right to tarnish what I’ve said. If you can’t win, it’s your fault. These people who are “exploiting” the game took the time to learn that, and if you don’t want to that’s fine; don’t.

And you clearly aren’t reading, as I said that I wouldn’t accept L-Canceling as it is. There is nothing wrong with having auto canceling as well as having something else to give you incentive to learn.

And please don’t throw out the ad hominem bs as if that somehow invalidates anything that I said, because besides what I said with “ARMS Sucks”, nothing I said was directed towards YOU. You can argue what I said about ARMS wasn’t even personal, because I don’t know if you play it wtf. It’s literally just my opinion, granted it was one forged from attending 2GG events with ARMS tournaments along with smash and watching people clamor for the game to end unanimously. ARMS won’t close out tournaments because even though it has its depth, it’s not fun to watch. I can’t name a single person who’ve I met in the smash community that speaks about ARMS with excitement in their voice—if at all. Just saying, man.

I’m not sure what it is with the internet now a days but it seems as if no one can take any thing that can be seen negative without going ballistic of fear of them being seen in a different light then what they inciminate themselves to be via public forum. I’m not saying this is the case with you, but by telling me what you can’t do, you’re already admitting defeat. Don’t complain and hold yourself accountable for what you can’t do. Move forward.

Like I said, I don’t know you, or your skill level, but I do know that you aren’t in the top 50 rankings in any respective smash game, or fighting game. I know this not merely based on names but the fact that your response to of a technical barrier implies you believe that a game is screwing you over when there are far more pressing variables: Tournament experience; nerves, player counters, momentum. These are critical. Stage counters, fundamentals like reading, DI mix ups, neutral game. If you would have use concrete information about how L-Canceling should function in these scenarios then maybe one would believe you have some understanding of how competitive fighting games work, but instead you focus on how I’m attacking you personally. If you want what you say to have weight, then show it.

I’ve already spent a lot more time than I wanted typing this, so I’m going to say it this: if you don’t address my post as a whole and digest it, I will dismiss it, or not respond. don’t take it personally, I just believe that respect shouldn’t be given unilaterally.

Why do you believe that L-Cenceling is an artificial tech barrier? Can you compare it to other technical aspects of other fighting games, and if so, how would you implement L-Canceling in the game to where it has actual benefits / can be integrated organically?

This is just my question to you, as not to make this any more about personal attacks.
First off, sorry if I seemed to misunderstand your intentions. It's just when someone brings up anything involving skill of an individual in a game when the discussion has to do with the design of one, it raises the red flags immediately. I wished to cut through that quickly, because I've been on the receiving end of it FAR too many times in the past in this community specifically. Call it an overreaction.

Secondly, I reply in chunks because I have trouble articulating things nebulously, and putting things in chunks helps me break down points. It also makes it easier for myself, and probably others to follow.

Thirdly, I'm far too tired. It's 1 where I am, so I will answer your question in a more specific manner tomorrow, but in terms of a general answer on the basic problems with it from both a competitive and casual perspective, I refer you to this post I did in just this thread here:

Looks like I will be going on some tangent on L-Cancelling... again. I hate repeating myself, but I guess you specifically haven't heard it, so, I guess I'll do it again lol.

Giving players something as simple as L-Canceling provides a basic limitation that can be overcome with practice. It's only one button press that provides the player with something they can consistently practice to get better at.
Okay, but why not just have them get better at the game in more organic ways than just a mindless amount of repetition? Why not have the difficulty of the game be less about execution and more about strategizing? After all, the best competitive games I've seen don't really balance around execution level, but strategic value of options. This is because execution means little in terms of balancing a competitive game, because to balance a game at a competitive level, you assume every player at the high-level can execute your game at peak performance, so what's the point in an execution test? The answer may not surprise you: none.

Not even at the highest level of play is an execution test, purely for the sake of hard to execute mechanics, a good design decision in a competitive esport, because it means nothing in terms of the viability and differences made at the highest level, at least if the competitive game is balanced in a correct manner. Meanwhile, if added in, it can potentially turn an entirely balanced and well designed game into a complete mess with its cascading effects on balance at high level.

I'm sure you would then say, "well why not balance the game around L-Canceling?" At that point, you would be assuming your competitive player cannot use your tools you've given them to the fullest, since, once again, L-Canceling is not a strategic choice whatsoever. And when you have this mentality, you will inevitably be balancing your game around only the lowest level players, since you take into account the ability to even use the tools the game gives you rather than it being a given. Overwatch does this to its detriment. I'd rather we not shoehorn our way into that position.

L-Canceling actually helps the competitive community by giving players a simple-in-theory, fairly challenging-in-execution motivation to get better. When they master this, the practice they get from L-Canceling encourages them to think more about how they react to the environment, distance from the opponent, and how they make contact with the opponent.
Again, if there is not a position where a player can safely say "I shouldn't L-Cancel here and should just land normally" and be right on that assumption, then there is no strategic choice involved. It's an empty thing to get better via L-Cancelling. You aren't adding a tool to your arsenal of tricks, you're making tools in the game functional to begin with. It's like if you go to the hardware store, buy a hammer, but oops, turns out the handle is separated from it like Lego, and you need to manually put it together for it to function as a hammer. Why wouldn't you just want the hammer to build your house? Why didn't the manufacturer just put it together for convenience?

The vast majority of players may still be turned away by competitive, but L-Canceling will encourage more players to get into higher levels than ordinary low landing lag.
It really won't. And this harkens back to what high-level players actually want out of the newer Smash games: OPTIONS! However, if you have this execution test where the only viable option is to do this thing, else you will be at an objective disadvantage, then there is no "option" to speak of. It's a mandatory action. It adds no depth to the game.

And note that I didn't even mention the problems involving the casual scene that actually want to get better. Creating a mandatory action where you have to do mindless repetition will only strengthen the divide between up and coming competitive players and the top players for literally no reason other than to do this. What is the purpose of a higher skill gap? What does it add to a competitive game exactly? I've only seen this mentality in the Smash community about this, and I still haven't figured out why people want this when the downsides of it are much worse.

When the average casual player reaches a point where they are required to do mindless repetition in a sort of lab environment, in other words, they aren't playing the game like it was designed (in the case of competitive Smash, 1v1 stock), then the average person will not really care to even go much further, even if they want to, because so few people even have the time to do this. When someone wants to get better at Smash, they should be able to get better WHILE playing Smash as it's meant to be played. They shouldn't be required to learn some weird timing mechanic that is not optional, else they are objectively worse than someone who does.

Video games are not real-life sports. People who want to get good at video games expect to be playing the game, because they have time constraints, or at least a vast majority of these players do. Watch this video on why the general idea of how casual players work is outdated and needs to be approached differently. I use this video as a source, because not only am I one of those "core, but not hardcore" gamers they speak of, but a lot of my friends also are. It is anecdotal, yes, but considering the human behavior of competition combined with lower time that can be sunk into a video game, the hypothesis of this being the case for a LOT of gamers is honestly rather sound.


Adding a sense of difficulty through balanced-yet-simple ways increases the health of a community and life of a game, and this isn't limited to Smash at all. Would the entire Soulsborne fandom be as dedicated and meticulous about how they play and document each individual game if the player had tons of health while enemies were weak and had next to no health? Nope, because the fact that both you and the enemies die quickly help people think about how they manage their build and associated playstyle.
Terrible comparison, because not only is Smash specifically advertised as an "easy to learn, hard to master" game (and adding L-Canceling would only raise the skill floor without touching the skill ceiling in a meaningful way, as I mentioned in my first part) while the Souls series is most certainly not, but those games aren't multiplayer PvP games, so their design philosophies differ tremendously. For example, in that game, it's fine to have intentionally hard to input commands, because that's what you asked for. Even then, I don't even think Dark Souls has this sort of thing to begin with, because those games are actually well designed for what they are while L-Cancelling is an objectively poor design decision no matter what genre, because it necessitates execution without adding depth.

Hoo boy that was a lot of stuff.

EDIT: Note that I'm not trying to be rude in my first sentence to you. I don't want to come across as rude. I like discussion... just hate having to type out the long form responses because of how many things are wrong with L-Cancelling lol. However, if I come across as confrontational, I'm not trying to be. I really have this problem where people misinterpret my intentions to be negative. :c
 

Flowen231

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
81
#32
I'd say bringing back l canceling is a waste of time. Personally speaking I wouldn't mind it, and I'm sure this has probably been said before since I've seen this debate quite a bit in brawl and smash 4, but bringing in L canceling would not benefit the game as it is now, and that's kinda how it's always been since brawl.

If you just want a switch to either use it or not, I wouldn't be against that at all assuming that turning it on wouldn't give you any kind of special advantage and that every player has the individual choice of using it or not, but at that point theres really no reason to even waste energy implementing it.

As for the whole thing about making tourneys more technical, you are 100% correct sir. It would require players to up their skill thresholds to compete just like we did back in melee and 64. However it would either have to be all off or all on, if turning manual l canceling off is a 2 person agreement and one person doesn't play with it normally because they prefer the simple route, it'd be a pretty unfair fight at that point. You could say that the whole point of a tournament is for the person who plays best to win, but spastic L canceling rule wouldn't do a very good job at doing that in the sense that you have 2 people who play with different game mechanics being bound to one, it would just split the community. On that subject though, L canceling is not in this game and making up rules about the setting of an optional mechanic that doesn't exist is about as constructive as the depth that adding l canceling would bring. And that essentially is; If you don't do it every time, you're not playing the game right.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that L canceling won't be back period though, they've strayed away from it the last 2 games, and they specifically reduced lag on everything so it's purpose is pretty much covered by default. Bringing that back would just be dated at this point.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,274
Location
Long Beach,California
#33
First off, sorry if I seemed to misunderstand your intentions. It's just when someone brings up anything involving skill of an individual in a game when the discussion has to do with the design of one, it raises the red flags immediately. I wished to cut through that quickly, because I've been on the receiving end of it FAR too many times in the past in this community specifically. Call it an overreaction.

Secondly, I reply in chunks because I have trouble articulating things nebulously, and putting things in chunks helps me break down points. It also makes it easier for myself, and probably others to follow.

Thirdly, I'm far too tired. It's 1 where I am, so I will answer your question in a more specific manner tomorrow, but in terms of a general answer on the basic problems with it from both a competitive and casual perspective, I refer you to this post I did in just this thread here:
Thank you for responding honestly. I know sometimes I can be quiet abrasive when what I say. So yeah, no hard feelings.

I will wait until later to read all of this as the 4th of July food coma is settling in lol.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#35
Why do you believe that L-Cenceling is an artificial tech barrier? Can you compare it to other technical aspects of other fighting games, and if so, how would you implement L-Canceling in the game to where it has actual benefits / can be integrated organically?
Okay, to answer your questions stated here, one by one (again, this is how I do things, not trying to get something out of context):

Why do you believe that L-Cenceling is an artificial tech barrier?
I believe it fills this because it involves a strict timing on a button press while at the same time offering no downside to the act of it being used. Basically, it has no strategic value due to not being a choice the player makes to play optimally, so the only value it has is giving the player a propensity to mess up even easier. This makes it only have an effect on the skill floor, aka, the baseline ability to play the game using all the tools the developer gives you, while not effecting the skill ceiling too much, since a designer should expect people at high levels to L-Cancel regardless, and thus will balance the game as if it wasn't there, because there is nothing to balance for, since there is no strategic value to it.

This is why it feels artificial, because it offers almost nothing to high level players, absolutely nothing to developers, and the majority of the problems involved with it are left to go to the casual players who at least wish to play the game with the tools given in the game in an easily done manner.

Can you compare it to other technical aspects of other fighting games, and if so, how would you implement L-Canceling in the game to where it has actual benefits / can be integrated organically?
I'm not sure what you mean by "technical aspects" because no fighting game I've ever played does this sort of thing, though I guess a close equivalent would be the pointlessly complex inputs on moves in traditional fighters like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Why not just have your system be like Smash and have a two-button system?

But I've never played those types of games because of that needless increasing of the skill floor when there are other games that don't do this. The technical aspect of fighting games for me is less often from the ability to even do something and more using the tools given in a timely and quick manner, as well as the concept of yomi, or countering the opponent. The execution in this comes more from the game's baseline properties itself.

As for L-Canceling being integrated organically, I've honestly tried but can't succeed on this front. The idea is to create a skill-independent downside, something that no amount of skill on the players part can circumvent. Examples of this in other genres include bullet spread, damage falloff, and projectile speed in first person shooters, mana costs and cooldowns in MOBA's, resource cost in RTS's, and in fighting games, stuff like startup, endlag, blockstun, etc. And right there you can see the problem. L-Cancelling's entire purpose is to mess with the skill-independent self balancing design of fighting games where doing a move is a commitment, no matter how small, compared to not doing one.

This is why L-Cancelling is not like wavedashing or dash dancing, because at least those are emergent properties of things that have natural downsides, or at least a non-zero amount. I still believe they aren't the most balanced mechanics, but they at least have potential to be because they are well designed from the outset. L-Cancelling's raison d'etre from a design perspective is specifically centered around ruining the natural skill-independent downsides of the design of game, which is the exact thing that makes a game deep at a high competitive level in the first place.
 

Quillion

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
2,466
#36
I believe it fills this because it involves a strict timing on a button press while at the same time offering no downside to the act of it being used. Basically, it has no strategic value due to not being a choice the player makes to play optimally, so the only value it has is giving the player a propensity to mess up even easier. This makes it only have an effect on the skill floor, aka, the baseline ability to play the game using all the tools the developer gives you, while not effecting the skill ceiling too much, since a designer should expect people at high levels to L-Cancel regardless, and thus will balance the game as if it wasn't there, because there is nothing to balance for, since there is no strategic value to it.
My response to having "no strategic value" still stands though:

How would you feel if the Mario RPGs didn't have the Action Commands mechanic and you just selected an attack from a menu and called it a turn? How would you feel if in Breath of the Wild or Skyward Sword, Link would parry every single attack that his shield makes contact with? How would you feel if in God of War, Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta, the cinematic QTE attacks were simple seconds-long cutscenes? How would you feel if in Street Fighter 3, you parry every attack just by walking forward?

Sometimes adding that "arbitrary button press" goes a long way in engaging the player.
Now, I know what you're going to say: "But those are single player games, something like this doesn't need to be in a multiplayer game," right?

I feel like people say this just to apply a needless double standard towards Smash. People say it's fine in single-player games because it feels like you're doing something more with your moves, but why can't I also feel like I'm doing something more with my moves in a fighting game?

And for your information, L-Canceling is just another form of Action Commands, a concept that transcends RPGs and are present in nearly every video game genre. TVTropes has an extensive list of Action Commands, but I'll just list the ones from fighters alone:

  • Dissidia: Final Fantasy has Action Commands for all twenty-two of the game's EX-Bursts, each one unique though sometimes heroes and villains from the same game will have similarly styled ones. (Squall and Ultimecia, for example, both utilize the Trigger command described above, only difference being that Ultimecia uses the O button instead of R.) There are also miniature Action Command sequences integrated into some of the aerial battle segments. Doing this well can result in kicking your opponent from one side of the battlefield to the other and possibly back again.
  • Super Smash Bros:
    • The first two installments in the series had an unusual form officially known as "Smooth Landing", but universally referred to by the fanbase as "L-cancelling". By pressing the shield button in the middle of an aerial normal attack right before hitting the ground, the landing lag would be reduced (to a constant 4 frames in Smash 64 or halved in Melee). Among other things, it was removed from Brawl onwards due to the creator's belief that it made the gap between skilled and casual players too high.
    • Donkey Kong's Final Smash in Brawl, Konga Beat, gives a high damage/range bonus for pressing "A" with the beat. This is made much easier in the 3DS and Wii U installments with a rhythm bar appearing over DK.
  • In SmackDown vs. Raw 2010 and 2011, during the Royal Rumble match, if you throw an opponent into the turnbuckle, then grapple, it's a minigame like this. And if you get thrown into the turnbuckle, then get grappled, it becomes Press X to Not be Eliminated.
  • Used in the Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi games. Whenever a character does one of their Blast 2 or Ultimate Blast moves, the player can input an action command (varies depending on character and move) for extra damage.
    • They've been doing this as early as Dragon Ball Z Budokai 2, with moves requiring the player to: spin the joystick, hit buttons in order, spin the joystick faster than the opponent, hit a different button than the opponent, etc. to make "ultimate" moves do more damage or not blow up in the user's face.
  • In Tekken, these moves are referred to as "Just Frames". For these, you have to hit a button at the precise moment when a move connects (during its active frames) to get special enhanced moves, usually signified by blue sparks. In online movelists, these are denoted by a colon, e.g. Paul Phoenix's f,f+2:1 (the 1 is pressed just as the 2 connects).
 

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#37
Now, I know what you're going to say: "But those are single player games, something like this doesn't need to be in a multiplayer game," right?

I feel like people say this just to apply a needless double standard towards Smash. People say it's fine in single-player games because it feels like you're doing something more with your moves, but why can't I also feel like I'm doing something more with my moves in a fighting game?
Because the design tenets of a multiplayer game are just different from a single-player game, because in a single player game, you aren't going against another player who is using the same overall tools as you. They go off different rules, and the concept of fairness and balance is different overall. It's not a double standard whatsoever, because you are comparing two completely different playstyles of games. A double standard would be not allowing it in Smash, but allow it in another fighting game. I can't think of any fighting game I've played with this sort of thing other than just frames in Pokken, but I don't gripe about that because even if you perform the just frame, it simply increases the upside of something, and usually makes the move behave differently, so there is a case to not use the just frames. But even despite all that, it doesn't fundamentally ruin the self-balancing aspect of those moves, at least in Pokken Tournament. It basically only increases damage slightly, increasing reward very slightly without decreasing risk. It's when you decrease risk that it becomes a problem.

If doing just frame moves decreased the endlag, startlag, or blockstun of doing the move, then I would have a problem. But I don't think just frames do this at all.

I know you downplay the single-player vs multiplayer aspect of this whole thing, but just off the basis of two or more players going against each other, there needs to be a lot more limitations on the design of the game, because it will be built as a competitive game just sort of naturally, and there is little the developer can do to stop this aspect, so they have to limit what they can do. For example, randomness needs to be MUCH stricter in a competitive environment, to the point where people will make a point that it shouldn't even happen at all. I personally disagree and think randomness has its place, but it would still have to be heavily limited compared to what a single player game could get away with.

This form of execution gratification is simply one of the many other design tenets that multiplayer games just can't abide by due to their structure.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,274
Location
Long Beach,California
#38
Okay, to answer your questions stated here, one by one (again, this is how I do things, not trying to get something out of context):



I believe it fills this because it involves a strict timing on a button press while at the same time offering no downside to the act of it being used. Basically, it has no strategic value due to not being a choice the player makes to play optimally, so the only value it has is giving the player a propensity to mess up even easier. This makes it only have an effect on the skill floor, aka, the baseline ability to play the game using all the tools the developer gives you, while not effecting the skill ceiling too much, since a designer should expect people at high levels to L-Cancel regardless, and thus will balance the game as if it wasn't there, because there is nothing to balance for, since there is no strategic value to it.

This is why it feels artificial, because it offers almost nothing to high level players, absolutely nothing to developers, and the majority of the problems involved with it are left to go to the casual players who at least wish to play the game with the tools given in the game in an easily done manner.



I'm not sure what you mean by "technical aspects" because no fighting game I've ever played does this sort of thing, though I guess a close equivalent would be the pointlessly complex inputs on moves in traditional fighters like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Why not just have your system be like Smash and have a two-button system?

But I've never played those types of games because of that needless increasing of the skill floor when there are other games that don't do this. The technical aspect of fighting games for me is less often from the ability to even do something and more using the tools given in a timely and quick manner, as well as the concept of yomi, or countering the opponent. The execution in this comes more from the game's baseline properties itself.

As for L-Canceling being integrated organically, I've honestly tried but can't succeed on this front. The idea is to create a skill-independent downside, something that no amount of skill on the players part can circumvent. Examples of this in other genres include bullet spread, damage falloff, and projectile speed in first person shooters, mana costs and cooldowns in MOBA's, resource cost in RTS's, and in fighting games, stuff like startup, endlag, blockstun, etc. And right there you can see the problem. L-Cancelling's entire purpose is to mess with the skill-independent self balancing design of fighting games where doing a move is a commitment, no matter how small, compared to not doing one.

This is why L-Cancelling is not like wavedashing or dash dancing, because at least those are emergent properties of things that have natural downsides, or at least a non-zero amount. I still believe they aren't the most balanced mechanics, but they at least have potential to be because they are well designed from the outset. L-Cancelling's raison d'etre from a design perspective is specifically centered around ruining the natural skill-independent downsides of the design of game, which is the exact thing that makes a game deep at a high competitive level in the first place.
As far as technical aspects are concerned, I was referring to mechanics in other fighting games such as Roman Canceling in Guilty Gear and Focus Attack Dash Canceling (FADC) in Street Fighter 4. Both of which cost meter, require an “arbitrary” input, and give you an advantage.

The reasons why even in a game like Smash where Ryu still retains his original Street Fighter inputs is because having a pure advantage isn’t exciting or fundamentally solid. If I knew all a player had to do to keep my opponent in a disadvantageous position is to press attack buttons without any precision, it wouldn’t be fulfilling. The inputs on traditional fighters exist so that a character can have an extended move set as well as having intuitive input windows.

For example, let’s say Ryu’s Hadouken was only forward+medium punch. Sure, it could work, but Ryu would lose is collarbone breaker (an attack he also has in smash that functions similarly to his game). If you wanted to do an incredibly basic combo like crouching medium kick to hadouken, it wouldn’t be organic as you would have to hit down then just tap forward and medium punch. Here’s the kicker though, you’re basically already doing that when you have the quarter circle input! When you hit down you buffer a command in, and then you you slide the stick up and press punch the command is already there and the combo is executed. While there are exceptions and there are some games where commands are very complex (Virtua Fighter, King of Fighters), they exist because they are fluid and allow you at add more to your character. You can enjoy the game by button mashing as well, like I did when I was younger, but when you want to take that next step, you’re gonna have to learn an input. This concept was ingrained in me when I was young, so learning how to L-Cancel wasn’t an issue, it was a necessary command I had to learn to take the next step forward in my game.

Let’s revisit Melee. If a Falco player did Dair>Shine on shield repeatedly to the point where his opponents shield breaks, it would be impressive, especially is some multishines were added in the mix. But if all Falco has to do was short hop, attack, shine, jump, attack, over and over without L-Canceling...well quiet frankly, that’s bull****; it’s free pressure on the opponent. Could you imagine if you just had to tap B to multishine? He would be completely busted. Imagine is you can do a jump in heavy attack in a game like street fighter and you receive so much block stun that you can just do whatever you want. Also, the jump in attack has a small window to anti-air. That’s a severe disbalance in risk vs reward for an input; there is no cost on meter or in this case time for a player to learn. But if an opponent is playing a character like Cammy, who has aerial commands that give the player an advantage, then it’s balanced. Cammy has a move called cannon strike, it had a quarter circle input plus kick, it’s a dive kick like attack, and can be executed very low to the ground when you do the ex-version that costs meter. The Ex cannon strike does significant shield stun to the opponent and isn’t reactable when executed properly. And while you have the option to do the move with a regular jump, you can get punished. You can also just pressure on the ground, but it isn’t as satisfying and can be predictable. Overcoming the tech barrier pushes you forward as a player. Let’s take another dive kick character, Yun in Street Fighter 4, who had a dive kick that can be executed at a very low point in a jump. It was very broken because it was essentially free pressure, and gave the same benefits of cammy’s cannon spike while minimizing execution. In his previous game, Street Fighter 3 third strike, it can only be executed at certain points in a jump, and while the character was still broken, there was at least some form of risk and reward. But that’s a balancing issue.

A lot of outside lookers don’t realize that L-Canceling has execution barriers depending on the use. The timing for L-Canceling an empty short hop aerial to control space varies from landing a short hopped aerial contacting an opponent, and that varies from a short hooped aerial contacting shield. This is where technical flubs and missed L-Cancels come from, having to be constantly prepared to shift your flow of attack’s properly. This ensures that to get the maximum benefit for your combo you need to have precise execution. If a character has the ability to just throw out aerial in Neutral and shut down your ability to zone, you get Meta Knight. If Meta Knight had to L-Cancel in Brawl, he definitely would have not been as easy to exploit.

Input barriers exists so that you have to maintain composure while pressing the advantage, as well as give you options. And while that creates room for error, it gives you the opportunity to sharpen your execution and learn to to maximize the effectiveness of your commands. L-Canceling is akin to frame links in Street Fighter and other traditional fighters, where if you press an an attack button at a precise time, you can combo a move that doesn’t normally combo into itself, creating the possibility for fresh combos, block strings, etc. it was also argued to be arbitrary and pointless, and was removed from Stree Fighter V. And look at the game now, it’s a shadow of its former self, because instead of pushing a player to move forward the development team opted for the mundane. Now the game is just releasing DLC to keep it afloat, and in my opinion, is genuinely boring to watch, as it gets redundant. Perhaps if frame links existed, we would at least be able to see some originality in players.

The reason why Melee is so great and exciting is because all of its mechanics kind of just flow together. That I’m combination with hits run and higher variable in knock back with certain attacks in combination with DI allows all the crazy things you see to happen. What if I’m ultimate I land links dash attack, and since he was holding in from a tech roll he flies straight up? What if I can short hop and up air and l-cancel it? What if he techs on a platform and I can double jump, wave land and tech chase? What if I get the read right and down throw into uptilt? What if I get another aerial and potentially kill my opponent? This is what makes games like Melee exciting. The precision in which I execute my attack. And sure, you don’t have to do all that, but the fact that I can because I took the time to learn and enhance my gameplay made all the difference. Adding these commands increases the statistical probability of some incredible things happening.

If you like me to I can explain those mechanics I mentioned earlier and their inputs and why they add to the game.
 
Last edited:

Teeb147

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,924
#39
You bring up an interesting point pheonix.
but I think you should know that at high level play, you're just expected to get near 100% of your l-cancels. It doesn't bring anything 'more' than the same as auto-cancels.

Really, it Just takes time grinding it. It's boring, and to some it can just feel like barrier to fighting on even planes.

So, back to your point.. what you're saying would make sense if l-canceling actually brought something more, but the reason most people are ok with it being gone is because there's nothing lost. It's not like smash 4, where you can't land an attack safely.

If they outright removed a combo skill from street fighter, then that's not the same thing. If you can't combo like you could before anymore, the game lost something.
 
Last edited:

Necro'lic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
226
#40
E Eternal phoenix Fire In terms of Street Fighter, I technically see what you're saying, but at the same time, it all depends on how many ways you can map all your buttons. I would only consider that sort of strange input command per move as a last resort if you simply couldn't do anymore with your buttons. I'm not sure how many buttons and moves there are in Street Fighter, but I highly doubt it's so many that they then resort to two control stick inputs and a button rather than two buttons like Pokken does.

Also, your two "technical aspect" examples in other fighters actually cost meter, which means they actually have skill-independent downsides, which means one of the main problems of L-Cancelling is already solved; those technical aspects have weaknesses that the high-level players cannot circumvent in any way.

Honestly, Teeb147 Teeb147 already points out the flaw in L-Cancelling that is still not addressed, and it's the main flaw with it, among all the others I mentioned. And all of the examples you give in the other games either are not the same thing, like the Street Fighter 4 deal, where options and choices are actually lost, or can be dealt with in a more streamlined manner with pretty much no depth to the game lost, or it's a simple balance issue, while the mechanic itself is still fine design-wise, in this case, the Yun vs Cammy dive kick example.

And even regarding the Street Fighter 4 and the frame links thing. First off, do frame links have literally no downside to doing them. Like is damage lost or is combo potential lost for some moves but gained for others? If they have a downside to doing them, then they automatically are not the same as L-Cancelling.

Secondly, even if it had a blatant downside, why would the developer bother gating those extra options to the player via a button press? It still causes an increase of the skill floor without raising the skill ceiling much at all.
 
Top