If some tournaments start enabling Auto L-Cancelling, how would you feel?

[Narpas_sword]

I was gonna try telling people to play one set alc, then I'd switch it off, but instead have code that keeps it enabled. And see if the feedback differed =p

 

[Scribe]

I'm going to bring in some more mainline FGC wisdom here:
Generally, any mechanic that lets you skew risk/reward dynamics without any associated cost is generally bad for your game. They're the worst kind of "you must be this tall to ride" barrier in that they do little to nothing to serve as a teaching tool, have little to no decision making process involved in actually using them, and yet have strict timing.

Whether or not we use ALC, we'll be alienating people, but if we're looking to grow our community, it's better to bring in new people at the cost of alienating some existing players in the short term than it is to potentially discourage new players in the long term in order to satisfy existing players. Relative inaccessibility for new players is a terrible thing for a community to pride itself on, and even if we have plenty of resources for new players, if gameplay mechanics that are necessary for competitive play discourage newcomers, that's going to seriously hinder our growth or even survival as a community, especially now that we have competition in Smash 4, Rivals of Aether, and whatever Wavedash Games is working on, it's no longer a given that people who are looking for a competitive platform fighter with more variety than Melee will come to PM. I'd also have to say that if we want to enforce this rule, we're going to need some strong, unified community leadership and possibly majors using the ruleset to make sure that we don't end up with another Brawl Unity Ruleset scenario.

As I mentioned before, the big reason behind the resistance to the change is the misconception that the game being easy to play and a match being easy to win are one and the same, as if ease of use for mechanics somehow mitigates the importance of the decision making process that goes into outplaying your opponent rather than emphasizing it. As CORY has said, if you're playing with ALC on and you lose to someone who can't L-cancel, that doesn't mean that they won because of ALC; it means that you were a poor player who made up for it with good tech skill. ALC isn't just a cheap mechanic that makes weak players stronger. It's something that affects good players just as much as it affects bad ones.

And if I'm going to be honest here, considering the mentality behind many of the people I've talked to who have said that they would stop playing PM if ALC was used, and their attitude towards new players, then if we're looking to grow and improve as a community, we might be better off without them.

 

[Lamesama]

Can't delete, removing all my posts for privacy.

 

[PurplishBacon]

Lol, some people are completely hostile to change newbies, new mechanics, old mechanics being done away with, ETC.

Personally, I don't care much for one or the other having not yet played in a tournament, but for that same reason, I would feel better about how goog I would do if I knew I didn't have to worry about cancelling.

 

[Lamesama]

Can't delete, removing all my posts for privacy.

 

[F. Stein]

ALC seems a lot like having Autosweetspotting. I wouldn't avoid entering a tournament because of it, I still enter Sm4sh even though I suck at it for instance. But ALC feels a lot like auto sweet spotting to me. I just don't prefer it. I guess it feels like something is being subtracted from the game that, while isn't hard to learn, was a part of becoming a smash player.

I mean should we write code that enable auto power shielding, auto wavedashing, auto short hopping for one button and auto full hopping for another? lol. Automating things just doesn't appeal to me. If it happens, it happens and it wouldn't affect my view of the game but I don't see a reason for it. If you can't L cancel, a very basic skill of the game, then isn't that akin to not being able to do guard impact on soul cailbur? Seems like a trivial thing eitherway.

 

[Bleck]

I mean should we write code that enable auto power shielding, auto wavedashing, auto short hopping for one button and auto full hopping for another? lol. Automating things just doesn't appeal to me. If it happens, it happens and it wouldn't affect my view of the game but I don't see a reason for it. If you can't L cancel, a very basic skill of the game, then isn't that akin to not being able to do guard impact on soul cailbur? Seems like a trivial thing eitherway.

people have made this argument multiple times in this thread and people have explained why it's invalid, again, several times

 

[Scribe]

ALC seems a lot like having Autosweetspotting. I wouldn't avoid entering a tournament because of it, I still enter Sm4sh even though I suck at it for instance. But ALC feels a lot like auto sweet spotting to me. I just don't prefer it. I guess it feels like something is being subtracted from the game that, while isn't hard to learn, was a part of becoming a smash player.

I mean should we write code that enable auto power shielding, auto wavedashing, auto short hopping for one button and auto full hopping for another? lol. Automating things just doesn't appeal to me. If it happens, it happens and it wouldn't affect my view of the game but I don't see a reason for it. If you can't L cancel, a very basic skill of the game, then isn't that akin to not being able to do guard impact on soul cailbur? Seems like a trivial thing eitherway.

people have made this argument multiple times in this thread and people have explained why it's invalid, again, several times

If we want to make it again, I'll explain why this is a false equivalency quite easily.

If you had an auto wavedash, that would mean your character would constantly wavedash. As in, you start the match, you spawn, and you immediately start wavedashing forward or backwards. Any time you're not in a move animation or in midair, you wavedash forward or backwards. Wavedashing is a movement option, and making it automatic would be the same as making walking or dashing automatic. That constant movement would drastically have an effect on the way the game is played due to the inability to stand still

If you had an auto power shield, then any time you got hit while in a neutral, grounded position, you would power shield. You would only be able to get hit while attacking or while airborne. You would effectively be invulnerable any time you were grounded and not attacking. The only way your opponent could land a hit on you would be through counterhits and by hitting you while you're airborne. Thus, gameplay would be drastically changed by the fact that you would thus be forced to bait unsafe attacks and aerial approaches or grab your opponent in order to start combos.

An L-cancel is neither a movement nor defensive option. It is not an offensive option, either. In fact, it is not an option at all. It is, as my FGC buddies have put it, a landing tax. Competitive play is built around the assumption that if you are able to L-cancel a move, then you have to L-cancel it. Nobody is deliberately dropping L-cancels for mixups, and outside of very niche scenarios that are so statistically unlikely as to not exist, there is no strategy to its application. It's not like wavedashes and wavelands where other movement options might be more advantageous in some scenarios, nor is it like, say for instance, Roman Canceling in Guilty Gear, which has an associated cost that forces you to question whether the benefit of using it outweighs the loss of options it incurs.

And if I'm going to be honest, dedicated short hop and full hop buttons wouldn't be a too bad of an idea. Hell, Rivals of Aether has the option to set them, and the general consensus is that they're a nice thing to have, though they have very niche application that very few players have any real need for outside of very specific playstyles, so they don't see much use.

 

[F. Stein]

*shrug* Still doesn't seem invalid. I just put an opinion is all. Not looking to really debate it ^^ I suppose that is a good point on your part. I just don't like automating things? Idk, like i said it would not interfere with my entrance in a tournament.

However, I will say that I actually do drop L-cancels for certain reasons. When you use Tipman and Fair as Ganon there are different hitbox uses for edgeguarding. That's not niche, it's bread and butter lol, needed for mixups and edge guarding scenarios. Also, full hop and short being on different buttons would be an interesting aspect of the game. Also, wavedashes and wavelands do have different applications depending on the character. Ganon = great wavelands but crap wavedashes.

Also, with ganon you don't always want to L-cancel his bair because where you want to place a hitbox on a character that is locked in get up animation, or if they are short lol and certain situations. I know that my character would suffer from auto l-canceling ^^ like i said, really doesn't matter but to say that there is no difference might disregard certain techniques used by dedicated mains. Have you consulted a high level main of each character to see if it would affect them adversely yet?

 

[Scribe]

What RoA has is three different jump inputs - A normal jump where a short input results in an SH and a long one results in an FH, and dedicated SH and FH buttons. Most people just use the normal ones,though, since, like I said, dedicated SH and FH are kinda niche.

 

[CORY]

tipman and low fair hitboxes are timing and spacing dependent. if you land, whether it's lcancelled or not, you go into your landing animation and the hitboxes go away. he doesn't have stuff like wolf and gnw on some of their aerials.

edit: same with bair. it's spacing and timing, lcancelling has nothing to do with that.

 

[Scribe]

I was gonna say, outside of Smash 64 Jiggs' d-air, I don't believe there are any moves that have hitboxes during the landing animation.

And even with moves that do have hitboxes during the landing animation, I'd have to assume that they still retain the hitboxes when L-canceled. They just don't linger as long.

 

[CORY]

I was gonna say, outside of Smash 64 Jiggs' d-air, I don't believe there are any moves that have hitboxes during the landing animation.

And even with moves that do have hitboxes during the landing animation, I'd have to assume that they still retain the hitboxes when L-canceled. They just don't linger as long.

wolf's nair, gnw's dair (and i think bair) (OH YEAH! mewtwo's nair), have actual hitboxes on their landing animation. lcancelled or not, it occurs, afaik, as long the landing occurs during the active frames (or whatever the time frame for it happens to be).

 

[Scribe]

Ah, gotcha.

I only knew Jiggs' d-air in Smash 64 has a hitbox during its landing animation that pops people up, which was one of the only cases where not Z-canceling was actually a valid mixup (since Z-canceling puts you into your normal landing animation in Smash 64), and I only knew that because of the commentary at Genesis.

 

[Bleck]

When you use Tipman and Fair as Ganon there are different hitbox uses for edgeguarding.
Also, with ganon you don't always want to L-cancel his bair because where you want to place a hitbox on a character that is locked in get up animation

the hitboxes that come out during landing lag on certain aerials are always on frame 1, as far as I know

as such whether or not you l-cancel them has no bearing on when the hitbox comes out, which means that the use of these moves would not be adversely affected by ALC

 

[Deleted member]

yeah i have to agree with prior opinion that just because you dont like ALC doesnt give you license to throw out logical fallacies with regards to other tech. i get why people are trying to make those comparisons, because its a difficult stance to verbalize, but we can still be more succinct than that. bring something of value to the table.

i dont like ALC either but at least i have standing arguments against it:
1. it bites into the win margin of more talented players. whether you think this is a skillset worth testing or not is subjective, but the baseline statement is not. ALC simply evens the playing field, in favor of lesser players at the expense of the more talented ones.
2. it rebalances the cast to some marginal degree. this time, in favor of characters that have difficulty punishing missed L cancels, at the expense of those that can do so well. i dont like this, and i suspect that other talented players that make marginal gains from nuance and labwork would generally dislike it as well.
3. you risk alienating some significant portion of the community by strong-handing a change to ALC. irrefutably, dismissing players because they disagree with your opinion (kip) or setting up a "test" for them to fail via placebo (narpas) is much more effective at making players actively distrust you. if you really wanted to instate ALC from a tournament standpoint, you would test it at local events in a well advertised manner, ask your entrants to review their experience in an honest way, and facilitate a productive discussion from it. if ALC is truly the superior approach to the game, it will be obviously so to your test group in say the same way the nebraska stage list is quickly becoming the standard. treating your fellow players poorly does not do this.

personally, i dont like ALC, it feels good to play sure but my average L cancel rate is nearly 100% anyway and it hurts my character more than helps. even if i was in favor of it, i would be wary about ramming it down peoples throats when theres so much opposition to it.

 

[Narpas_sword]

yeah i have to agree with prior opinion that just because you dont like ALC doesnt give you license to throw out logical fallacies with regards to other tech. i get why people are trying to make those comparisons, because its a difficult stance to verbalize, but we can still be more succinct than that. bring something of value to the table.

i dont like ALC either but at least i have standing arguments against it:
1. it bites into the win margin of more talented players. whether you think this is a skillset worth testing or not is subjective, but the baseline statement is not. ALC simply evens the playing field, in favor of lesser players at the expense of the more talented ones.
2. it rebalances the cast to some marginal degree. this time, in favor of characters that have difficulty punishing missed L cancels, at the expense of those that can do so well. i dont like this, and i suspect that other talented players that make marginal gains from nuance and labwork would generally dislike it as well.
3. you risk alienating some significant portion of the community by strong-handing a change to ALC. irrefutably, dismissing players because they disagree with your opinion (kip) or setting up a "test" for them to fail via placebo (narpas) is much more effective at making players actively distrust you. if you really wanted to instate ALC from a tournament standpoint, you would test it at local events in a well advertised manner, ask your entrants to review their experience in an honest way, and facilitate a productive discussion from it. if ALC is truly the superior approach to the game, it will be obviously so to your test group in say the same way the nebraska stage list is quickly becoming the standard. treating your fellow players poorly does not do this.

personally, i dont like ALC, it feels good to play sure but my average L cancel rate is nearly 100% anyway and it hurts my character more than helps. even if i was in favor of it, i would be wary about ramming it down peoples throats when theres so much opposition to it.

Can i ask what the measure of 'more talented players' is when they're susceptible to losing to someone who can now L cancel more reliably?

Also, my 'test' in trickery wasnt a real proposition. not sure if you missed that.

 

[Deleted member]

Can i ask what the measure of 'more talented players' is when they're susceptible to losing to someone who can now L cancel more reliably?

Also, my 'test' in trickery wasnt a real proposition. not sure if you missed that.

well it's like any of the other micro skills in smash, if you can't execute whatever then you have a very real chance to losing for it. i fail to see why L canceling should be an exception. if we are relatively even in all aspects except i can L cancel better than you and win for it, then i am still a better player than you are. simple stuff.

 

[Respect38]

well it's like any of the other micro skills in smash, if you can't execute whatever then you have a very real chance to losing for it. i fail to see why L canceling should be an exception. if we are relatively even in all aspects except i can L cancel better than you and win for it, then i am still a better player than you are. simple stuff.

Are there any other forms of micro that can be automated easily? You have plenty of techniques that cannot be automated [in the same vein as L-cancelling] because there are many situations where you are able to do a technique, but you choose not to because it's not the mixup that you want to do. In the case of L-cancelling, whenever the option comes up, there's no reason to not L-cancel. There is no mixup option for that scenario, it's just "Do you want to L-cancel? Yes." [it would be interesting if the shoulder buttons did different things and there actually was an option given to the player... at least in that case there would be some depth to it]

As long as L-canceling is the only micro that lacks having an alternative option, I absolutely see a reason why it should be an exception.

 

[4tlas]

well it's like any of the other micro skills in smash, if you can't execute whatever then you have a very real chance to losing for it. i fail to see why L canceling should be an exception. if we are relatively even in all aspects except i can L cancel better than you and win for it, then i am still a better player than you are. simple stuff.

Sure. Just because it is *a* skill does not mean it is a skill worth including in Smash, though. If I am more skilled than you at using items I am a better player than you, no?

 

[Deleted member]

certainly, and i have quite a bit of difficulty vs luck's diddy because of it. i don't consider his wins any less valid.

we have the ability to automate lots of tech if we want to. PM in particular already has less demanding smash inputs and easier shield drop windows. in general though, i like these because they're easier on controllers more than because they make PM "melee for babies" (i made fun of this in the DT a lot). a lot of melee players consider these to be training wheels too though, and i understand that mentality as well.

i don't disagree that l canceling takes no decision-making. i'm also not convinced that every "decision" in smash requires decision making as 90%+ of competitive play is pure autopilot. i'm okay with a meaningless tech barrier to entry that was grandfathered in, even if it makes no functional sense. perhaps if we were working from scratch we would remove it, but as it sits right now there are reasonable merits to keeping it in, which i have already listed from my own point of view.

 

[Bleck]

90%+ of competitive play is pure autopilot

did you know that 96% of statistics are made up on the spot

 

[4tlas]

i don't disagree that l canceling takes no decision-making. i'm also not convinced that every "decision" in smash requires decision making as 90%+ of competitive play is pure autopilot. i'm okay with a meaningless tech barrier to entry that was grandfathered in, even if it makes no functional sense. perhaps if we were working from scratch we would remove it, but as it sits right now there are reasonable merits to keeping it in, which i have already listed from my own point of view.

Yes, there are many practical reasons for keeping it in. It is easier to maintain status quo, and thus there would need to be a significant demand for ALC to have it implemented. These are important issues that should be discussed in addition to the purpose of L-cancelling (arbitrary tech barrier) when determining whether it is worthwhile.

Edit: I don't think anyone is saying that L-cancelling does not test skill, so nobody is suggesting that someone's wins would be "invalid" if they only won by the margin of L-cancelling. I think the argument is that L-cancelling is so insignificant that no player who is currently losing is losing by that amount, and thus ALC does not do much in terms of destroying the current skill rankings.

 

[Deleted member]

the thing about top level play is that people miss them less, but when they do miss them they die harder. its a trade off, not sure which is more meaningful tbh. but to say it has no impact on a match is just wrong.

 

[Bleck]

I don't think anyone is saying that L-cancelling does not test skill

yeah see the problem is that "skill" is not a thing that exists holistically with regards to metagame

"skill" is how good a person is at an action; you can be skilled at l-canceling and unskilled at combos, or vice versa, and etc.

overall, playing a game in a competitive fashion doesn't measure skill - it measures skills, all of which contribute in different ways to how players play the game against each other

the argument here is essentially whether or not the individual skill [being good at l-canceling] actually contributes in a meaningful capacity to the metagame, which it does not, objectively, regardless of how any individual or group feels about it

the thing about top level play is that people miss them less, but when they do miss them they die harder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

[4tlas]

yeah see the problem is that "skill" is not a thing that exists holistically with regards to metagame

"skill" is how good a person is at an action; you can be skilled at l-canceling and unskilled at combos, or vice versa, and etc.

overall, playing a game in a competitive fashion doesn't measure skill - it measures skills, all of which contribute in different ways to how players play the game against each other

the argument here is essentially whether or not the individual skill [being good at l-canceling] actually contributes in a meaningful capacity to the metagame, which it does not, objectively, regardless of how any individual or group feels about it



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I'm aware. This is why I regularly make the argument that just because it is a skill does not mean it is one we should test, one that is significant in the set of skills tested otherwise, or one that impacts the game in a meaningful manner. It is a skill nonetheless. That alone does not make it worthwhile, however.

 

[Bleck]

not so much disagreeing with you, just using your statement as a lead-in to mine

 

[Deleted member]

the argument here is essentially whether or not the individual skill [being good at l-canceling] actually contributes in a meaningful capacity to the metagame, which it does not, objectively, regardless of how any individual or group feels about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

this is the second time you have ignored my valid points and left a condescending wikipedia link with a dismissive axiom as a substitute argument. if you're not going to bring some real content to the table, go join the other people posting slippery slopes and strawmans. or you know, try to actually refute the idea that ALC doesn't relatively hurt me by helping my lesser opponents (good luck).

 

[Bleck]

this is the second time you have ignored my valid points.

points are not valid because you say they are

saying that people punish missed l-cancels on reaction "all the time" does not actually make it true

also I've addressed the idea that ALC hurts "talented players" by helping "lesser opponents" multiple times in this thread, and others, by both a) arguing that your skill at l-canceling is not inherently more valuable than other skills in the context of metagame (and is, in fact, less important), and that b) the tying of your self-esteem to your ability to play a videogame does not inherently make your desires with regards to said videogame more important

you are not better or more valuable than other people because you are better at l-canceling than they are, and you're certainly not making a "valid point" by arguing as much

 

[4tlas]

this is the second time you have ignored my valid points and left a condescending wikipedia link with a dismissive axiom as a substitute argument. if you're not going to bring some real content to the table, go join the other people posting slippery slopes and strawmans. or you know, try to actually refute the idea that ALC doesn't relatively hurt me by helping my lesser opponents (good luck).

Of course it relatively hurts you, since it removes the testing of a skill that you are accomplished at. That is a reason for you to dislike an ALC tournament, but it is not an argument against the idea.

 

[Narpas_sword]

or you know, try to actually refute the idea that ALC doesn't relatively hurt me by helping my lesser opponents (good luck).

That would be a strange thing to do indeed, as most ALC supporters are well aware that it lowers the skill floor needed to compete, and it's purpose is to help 'lesser' i.e new players compete by taking the focus off something arbitrary and instead having the match decided on other skills and decision making.

The point is, if you're losing to someone because they couldn't Lcancel, but now can, can you really consider youself the 'better opponent'?

better at L canceling only it seems.

 

[Deleted member]

better at l canceling is still a relevant skill in our metagame and i will continue to see it as a source of margin because that is the reality of the situation. if you do not do it correctly and lose for it, you are inarguably worse as a player for it. as per your example, if i beat another player because they do not l cancel, then i am the better player. if they then l cancel and beat me, i am the worse player. this is no different than any other relevant skill and like it or not a very important part of the metagame. i do not wish to help other players get better, as that only serves to make me relatively worse. even if i were interested in bolstering my opponents despite it being strict self sabotage from a competitive standpoint, i would not do so at the possible expense of alienating a significant portion of the player base. there are better ways to do this, such as offering advice or writing guides (i have done both).

---

i have not stated in any way that my point of view has more weight than that of my peers, i have merely personalized it for the sake of showcasing the depth to my stance in an applied context. punishing missed l cancels happens more games than not because we have introductory level, fundamental interactions based upon that very instance, particularly dashdance grab on landing lag and shield grab. my points are totally valid because they accomodate the real and applied nuances of the competitive metagame. i am considered one of the more talented players of the game and have the luxury of revealing to you the finer intracacies of the most developed aspects of competitive play. it lends you no credibility to dismiss my stance on metagame development when i am one of the people actively defining what that current metagame is. if we are equal in all ways except l canceling, and i am beating you because of it, that difference is suddenly the most valuable skill, not the least valuable. value is a fluid concept and disregarding it is a misevaluation that will cost you games and/or sets and leave me the better player.

 

[Bleck]

my points are totally valid

points are not valid because you say they are

 

[Deleted member]

ok bleck well if we ever play i'll make sure to punish your missed L cancels so you can tell me how invalid my wins are i guess.

for anyone else not interested in denying reality, i would thoroughly enjoy an engaging debacle on the speculative value of L canceling over the projected development of the metagame.

 

[Bleck]

does anyone else remember when I posted in this thread saying that the only people who are interested in keeping MLC on are the people who feel the need to rub how good at the game they supposedly are in your face

also

an engaging debacle/QUOTE]

I do not think this word means what you think it means, maybe consider a thesaurus before tryin' to sound smart

 

[Deleted member]

does anyone else remember when I posted in this thread saying that the only people who are interested in keeping MLC on are the people who feel the need to rub how good at the game they supposedly are in your face

also

i'm trying to rub how good i am in your face, and my L cancel rate is tied to my ego, and i'm trying to sound smart, right. if you were as good at debating my arguments as you are dismissing people with ad hominems, we might have settled this dispute ten posts ago. keep attacking my character while i win more using some arbitrary thing that you evaluate poorly, that will definitely convince others of your stance.

 

[Bleck]

i'm trying to rub how good i am in your face, and my L cancel rate is tied to my ego, and i'm trying to sound smart, right.

yes

if you were as good at debating my arguments as you are dismissing people with ad hominems

if you were as knowledgeable about logical fallacies as you think you are you wouldn't have tried arguing that you're right because you're good at the game

 

[4tlas]

You're using nearly circular logic, Umbreon, and I don't care to argue about it. You are saying L-cancelling is important because its part of the current metagame but it should stay as a part of the metagame because it is important. It has no value outside of that, we agree on that.

And it lends you no credibility to run around telling people they can't refute you because you're "one of the more talented players", and you're "defining the metagame". If you understand it so well, you can explain yourself. This is what Bleck (who is also being a jerk) is saying: your points are not valid just because you say they are; you must provide logic and/or evidence to convince people.

 

[Deleted member]

idk i thought it was readily apparent that having and pressing some kind of advantage was useful from a competitive standpoint regardless of its perceived merit. maybe thats why people keep comparing the idea to other forms of tech? if this base premise of marginal gains via execution has no validity to you guys then there's really nothing else to be said. nintendo has already made two smash game designed to mitigate the marginal difference that facilitates better players.

 

[4tlas]

idk i thought it was readily apparent that having and pressing some kind of advantage was useful from a competitive standpoint regardless of its perceived merit. maybe thats why people keep comparing the idea to other forms of tech? if this base premise of marginal gains via execution has no validity to you guys then there's really nothing else to be said. nintendo has already made two smash game designed to mitigate the marginal difference that facilitates better players.

It is pretty obvious that L-cancelling is a skill, yes, and therefore allows for a larger gap between unskilled and skilled players. That alone does not justify testing the skill, since we could test any number of skills that fall within the scope of "Smashbros", such as the ability to use items effectively or the ability to play every character in the game. We can pick and choose which skills from "Smashbros" we want to transfer over to "competitive Smashbros", and there are many good reasons to turn on ALC which have been mentioned in the thread.

L-cancelling does not take significant skill in the same way that most advanced techs do. L-cancelling results in marginal gains, of which there are already plenty in the game, like spacing more efficiently. And that's when it results in any gains at all, which it often doesn't. L-cancelling does not need to be as precise as those other techniques, like being frame tight. There are plenty of techs in the game to demonstrate tech skill with, like all of the advanced techs. There is no decision-making regarding L-cancelling at all, it is just a tech skill barrier. And most importantly, L-cancelling looks daunting to new players while also being the source of considerable elitism and noob-shaming. This mechanic has a disproportionate amount of negatives associated with it while having nearly insignificant positives. And if you don't care about new players wanting to join or about the treatment they receive, then consider that the scene will die without new players. Would this change be enough to make the difference? Maybe, maybe not.