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

[Ningildo]

Man, the auto-cancel squad is ravenous today. Just go watch EVO matches, you'll see your examples. That's about the amount of effort I'll put in. I don't go around proving to people that the Earth isn't flat. It's painfully obvious.

L-canceling is a nice, and fun skillful thing to learn. It's not really about self worth. It's just.... fun.

You made the statement that l-cancelling does influence high level play. The only other thing you provided to "prove" that is "it totally happens guys". I'm pretty sure that proving your claims is standard fare in discussions.

As is not assuming something is as clear cut as you think it is, but apparently drawing poor comparisons is better.

 

[Vigilante]

I've already told you. Go watch EVO matches.

 

[4tlas]

Man, the auto-cancel squad is ravenous today. Just go watch EVO matches, you'll see your examples. That's about the amount of effort I'll put in. I don't go around proving to people that the Earth isn't flat. It's painfully obvious.

L-canceling is a nice, and fun skillful thing to learn. It's not really about self worth. It's just.... fun.

Saying "its painfully obvious" implies that you aren't even willing to consider that you might be wrong. That's part of a respectful debate.

If the concern is that both parties have to bring forth proof, it is much easier to prove your claim, since all you need to find is ONE example of a missed L-cancel translating into an advantage that wouldn't have happened otherwise. To prove that it NEVER happens would require looking at every single top level video in existence as well as all of the stuff we don't even have footage of.

It being fun is most certainly subjective. And as for it being about self-worth, I was responding to your statement that you want to feel like you "deserved" your wins, as if L-cancelling made the difference between deserving them or not. Why do you feel that way?

 

[Ningildo]

I've already told you. Go watch EVO matches.

So right now I'm rewatching EVO GF and the first missed l-cancel I saw was Armada missing it on the grass transformation on PS game 4 after a Nair, which lead to nothing on Hungrybox's end as he was respawning. A second later Armada does get hit, but not because of the Nair, but because him running away from Hbox wasn't the best decision and Hbox recognized that and punished him for it.

Later that same game, Armada goes for an Up throw > Nair and misses the l-cancel, but Hungrybox airdodged down and away anyway, meaning he wouldn't have gotten a punish regardless.

Only 2 l-cancels were missed in that set from what I could tell and both of them didn't mean a thing.

If there IS a set at EVO where a missed l-cancel changes anything, well, you just found the reason why I wanted a specific set/moment to be mentioned.

 

[Vigilante]

4tlas I am objectively right, there is nothing to consider. L-canceling is a tool that serves to reduce landing lag. It stands to reason that failing to do so while under pressure will increase the amount of time where you are vulnerable to attacks while having no means to defend yourself. It also stands to reason that the time spent recovering for your landing while on the offense is time not spent pressuring your opponent. Those are factual. I cannot be wrong on this as this is objectively true.

Where my enjoyment of it is subjective, sure, it is. But so is your lack of enjoyment of it.

 

[4tlas]

4tlas I am objectively right, there is nothing to consider. L-canceling is a tool that serves to reduce landing lag. It stands to reason that failing to do so while under pressure will increase the amount of time where you are vulnerable to attacks while having no means to defend yourself. It also stands to reason that the time spent recovering for your landing while on the offense is time not spent pressuring your opponent. Those are factual. I cannot be wrong on this as this is objectively true.

Where my enjoyment of it is subjective, sure, it is. But so is your lack of enjoyment of it.

Everything you said in this post is objectively true. The part where your argument breaks down is saying that's a good thing. Why are any of those good things? Does this scenario even occur often enough to be significant?

 

[Vigilante]

Everything you said in this post is objectively true. The part where your argument breaks down is saying that's a good thing. Why are any of those good things? Does this scenario even occur often enough to be significant?

It doesn't have to be often. When it happens, the effects are significant. Even great players mess up at times.

 

[Ningildo]

It doesn't have to be often. When it happens, the effects are significant. Even great players mess up at times.

So right now I'm rewatching EVO GF and the first missed l-cancel I saw was Armada missing it on the grass transformation on PS game 4 after a Nair, which lead to nothing on Hungrybox's end as he was respawning. A second later Armada does get hit, but not because of the Nair, but because him running away from Hbox wasn't the best decision and Hbox recognized that and punished him for it.

Later that same game, Armada goes for an Up throw > Nair and misses the l-cancel, but Hungrybox airdodged down and away anyway, meaning he wouldn't have gotten a punish regardless.

Only 2 l-cancels were missed in that set from what I could tell and both of them didn't mean a thing.

If there IS a set at EVO where a missed l-cancel changes anything, well, you just found the reason why I wanted a specific set/moment to be mentioned.

 

[4tlas]

It doesn't have to be often. When it happens, the effects are significant. Even great players mess up at times.

It has to be often ENOUGH to be worth all the cases when its a detriment to the community. Since it is far easier to find proof of times when it does matter, could you provide such proof?

 

[Vigilante]

One can only be considered skillful is one is also consistent. Being able to consistently pull these off only shows great mastery. And you fail tu understand. Time lost to a failed L-cancel can always be used for better things. Positioning, punishing, pursuing, etc... Armada in this match would have likely capitalized on the extra frames he had.

 

[Ningildo]

One can only be considered skillful is one is also consistent. Being able to consistently pull these off only shows great mastery. And you fail tu understand. Time lost to a failed L-cancel can always be used for better things. Positioning, punishing, pursuing, etc... Armada in this match would have likely capitalized on the extra frames he had.

Except I pointed out he couldn't follow up or showed why he got hit. I provided reasoning as to why it didn't matter and you went right back to the "it shows true skill" card. You didn't bring up how the better positioning that Armada could've gotten from the first missed l-cancel or what the possible punishes are for Armada on the second, again given the positioning and allotted time (although the odds of this changing anything are extremely slim, tying in to reacting to the opponent's sub 15 frame actions). I'm talking specifics here, you can't just say "oh but he could do something different" and call it a day, you have to look at situations at a case by case basis and explain what and why he could've (and should've) done something different that would've made a meaningful impact on the game.

You seem to think that stubbornly stating the exact same thing over and over, without ever giving an inch, will help further discussion. Or think that this is all a waste of time and anyone who disagrees with your notion hasn't seen the light or is just too bad at the "tech" and wants it gone. Or *insert w/e needless assumption here*.

Please provide claims, reasoning and proof to back said claims to help the discussion instead of this.

 

[4tlas]

One can only be considered skillful is one is also consistent. Being able to consistently pull these off only shows great mastery. And you fail tu understand. Time lost to a failed L-cancel can always be used for better things. Positioning, punishing, pursuing, etc... Armada in this match would have likely capitalized on the extra frames he had.

The ability to consistently pull off reads, spacing, mindgames, and advanced tech are all also ways to show great mastery. There are plenty of ways to show mastery. Is this one really necessary?

Time lost to a failed L-cancel is always detrimental, yes. So it is not a decision point, it is simply an extra input. In a game designed around the removal of needless inputs from normal fighters, this should not exist.

I haven't failed to understand anything so far, I simply disagree with you. You still haven't actually responded to any of the queries I posited to you. Would you like me to elaborate so we can have some discussion beyond the rehash?

 

[Bleck]

Just go watch EVO matches, you'll see your examples.

telling people to go find evidence that supports your claim does not count as presenting evidence that supports your claim

 

[Vigilante]

telling people to go find evidence that supports your claim does not count as presenting evidence that supports your claim

I have already demonstrated the truth to my claims. You simply refuse to accept any evidence. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

 

[Ningildo]

I have already demonstrated the truth to my claims. You simply refuse to accept any evidence. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

So right now I'm rewatching EVO GF and the first missed l-cancel I saw was Armada missing it on the grass transformation on PS game 4 after a Nair, which lead to nothing on Hungrybox's end as he was respawning. A second later Armada does get hit, but not because of the Nair, but because him running away from Hbox wasn't the best decision and Hbox recognized that and punished him for it.

Later that same game, Armada goes for an Up throw > Nair and misses the l-cancel, but Hungrybox airdodged down and away anyway, meaning he wouldn't have gotten a punish regardless.

Only 2 l-cancels were missed in that set from what I could tell and both of them didn't mean a thing.

If there IS a set at EVO where a missed l-cancel changes anything, well, you just found the reason why I wanted a specific set/moment to be mentioned.

Only 2 l-cancels were missed in that set from what I could tell and both of them didn't mean a thing.

You've demonstrated jack. I've explained why the 2 missed l-cancels didn't matter in the given situation. I've ****ing watched and analyzed a video just to see what the living hell you meant by EVO sets containing game changing missed l-cancels (because you were so goddamn helpful in specifying what set) and saw **** all. The missed l-cancels would've changed nothing.

I did your goddamn homework in this discussion and then you have the gall to tell me you can't be bothered to even refute my observations with some sound reasoning?

If you come back with the same "it shows true skill" card you've been pulling instead of actually addressing my points with counterpoints (as it works in a debate), well, I don't even know, you're a jerk if you do.

If all you wanted from a discussion was some more confirmation bias to "prove" you're right, you kind of miss the point of a discussion.

 

[Bleck]

I have already demonstrated the truth to my claims. You simply refuse to accept any evidence. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

saying that you presented evidence doesn't count as presenting evidence

 

[RestUp]

I'm new and have been following this thread since a couple of my friends were talking about it, so I thought I would make an account and share my 2 cents. Take my opinion the way you would like.

For me, I like l-canceling because I am worried more about the integrity of the game. Lots of inputs per second can be an attractive thing to be able to show, and without l-canceling, that avg input goes down. I think all of us sometimes forget where competitive smash used to be, and how it got to be where it was. It had to EARN its respect from the other top games in the competitive industry, and it didn't win it by making the game easier for new players, and remove inputs because it lacks "depth."

Sadly with PM and smash4 getting balancing patches and such, it has made both of these communities somewhat "spoiled" because the communities don't have to deal with the game they were given, but instead, mold it to fit their needs. However, there are a lot of people in this community, so there will always be some kind of split when situations like this appear. That is why the PMDT didn't take l-canceling out for good, but instead added a toggle for it. My main point here is that we are trying to make the game fit to our needs without thinking about how to expand farther and garner respect from the even bigger industries of e-sports.

A big talk is about how this effects high-level play. Why does it only matter about high-level play?? Isn't that only tier-list where it matters about high-level play? Why isn't there a button input to make pivoting for grabs and such easier? Lots of things are out there that we could make easier to input because if you know the right option you should get to do it. Things like pivot grab/smashattack, wavedashing/landing, etc., are things that top players rarely miss/flub, but we don't argue about making those inputs easier so that it is only about strategy and mind games without proper execution. I shouldn't lose to someone because I can't pivot forward smash when i want to do so in the correct situation right? Wrong. Execution is a big part of this game too.

The NFL changed the extra-point rule this year so that it would make them harder for the extra-point to be made because it was basically automatic in the NFL (kinda like l-canceling is in smash at top-level play), but College and High School rules didn't follow suit because they didn't have the same problem. What am I trying to say here? Honestly, I don't know, but high-level play shouldn't be the only thing we look at to decide rules.

Here is my explanation to l-canceling. I look at it as like your character is bracing for a fall after doing something crazy like an aerial in the air. The reason this only applies to aerials and not jumping up and doing specials is because an aerial can only be on in the air, and specials can be done on the ground and while jumping, so for game mechanics, aerials are the only attacks that apply to this rule. Now to add on to my point, let's say you tried to jump and do foxes forward-air in your living room. If you just were thinking about kicking and not falling, you would hit the ground, probably fall, and have a somewhat long time of getting up. On the other hand, if you were kicking and saw you were close to the ground and decided to brace for the fall, you would hit the ground and get up faster then the previous outcome. That is my explanation of l-canceling.

Now people have brought up ways not l-canceling actually helps dodge attacks with proof, and everyone for auto didn't accept it because it wasn't good enough. What makes your argument that much better?

 

[JOE!]

Here is my explanation to l-canceling. I look at it as like your character is bracing for a fall after doing something crazy like an aerial in the air.

So, should we apply the same real life logic to how Yoshi is able to eat people and have them not come out all chewed up by stomach acid or how Link can slash you with a sword and you're OK?

Edit R RestUp ,

This came off a bit mean spirited, but my point here is that the examples you are using are a bit subjective. For example, you used a real-life scenario of doing an aerial mid-air and having to focus on landing, when in-game you have fantastic characters like Kirby or Zelda who literally use reality defying magic that sorta brings the "logical thing that'd happen" line of thinking into question. I mean yes it'd make sense in context a lot of the time but still. Secondly, why not apply that logic to grounded moves then? If you know you are gonna swing your leg out for a kick, why not brace yourself to go into your next motion or have your leg come back quicker? Etc.

 

[4tlas]

I'm new and have been following this thread since a couple of my friends were talking about it, so I thought I would make an account and share my 2 cents. Take my opinion the way you would like.

For me, I like l-canceling because I am worried more about the integrity of the game. Lots of inputs per second can be an attractive thing to be able to show, and without l-canceling, that avg input goes down. I think all of us sometimes forget where competitive smash used to be, and how it got to be where it was. It had to EARN its respect from the other top games in the competitive industry, and it didn't win it by making the game easier for new players, and remove inputs because it lacks "depth."

Sadly with PM and smash4 getting balancing patches and such, it has made both of these communities somewhat "spoiled" because the communities don't have to deal with the game they were given, but instead, mold it to fit their needs. However, there are a lot of people in this community, so there will always be some kind of split when situations like this appear. That is why the PMDT didn't take l-canceling out for good, but instead added a toggle for it. My main point here is that we are trying to make the game fit to our needs without thinking about how to expand farther and garner respect from the even bigger industries of e-sports.

A big talk is about how this effects high-level play. Why does it only matter about high-level play?? Isn't that only tier-list where it matters about high-level play? Why isn't there a button input to make pivoting for grabs and such easier? Lots of things are out there that we could make easier to input because if you know the right option you should get to do it. Things like pivot grab/smashattack, wavedashing/landing, etc., are things that top players rarely miss/flub, but we don't argue about making those inputs easier so that it is only about strategy and mind games without proper execution. I shouldn't lose to someone because I can't pivot forward smash when i want to do so in the correct situation right? Wrong. Execution is a big part of this game too.

The NFL changed the extra-point rule this year so that it would make them harder for the extra-point to be made because it was basically automatic in the NFL (kinda like l-canceling is in smash at top-level play), but College and High School rules didn't follow suit because they didn't have the same problem. What am I trying to say here? Honestly, I don't know, but high-level play shouldn't be the only thing we look at to decide rules.

Here is my explanation to l-canceling. I look at it as like your character is bracing for a fall after doing something crazy like an aerial in the air. The reason this only applies to aerials and not jumping up and doing specials is because an aerial can only be on in the air, and specials can be done on the ground and while jumping, so for game mechanics, aerials are the only attacks that apply to this rule. Now to add on to my point, let's say you tried to jump and do foxes forward-air in your living room. If you just were thinking about kicking and not falling, you would hit the ground, probably fall, and have a somewhat long time of getting up. On the other hand, if you were kicking and saw you were close to the ground and decided to brace for the fall, you would hit the ground and get up faster then the previous outcome. That is my explanation of l-canceling.

Now people have brought up ways not l-canceling actually helps dodge attacks with proof, and everyone for auto didn't accept it because it wasn't good enough. What makes your argument that much better?

This is a pretty good post! I disagree with all of it, but I think you at least offered up explanations for what you're thinking and they at least flow logically. Its going to come down to priorities of who thinks what is important.

1) Your first statement is about the integrity of the game and a need for rigorous physical skill to be tested in the competitive setting. Some people certainly feel this way, and it definitely comes down to preference. However, Smash was designed to be simplistic in terms of inputs compared to most fighters. Essentially, if you want rigorous tech skill to be a skill requirement, then thats what other fighters are for. Furthermore, we have plenty of advanced tech in this game that can be very useful, so there is still plenty of tech skill to aim for and prove your skill with. The L-cancel is so basic that it only affects new players, who are exactly the people that will be overwhelmed with L-cancelling but not advanced tech since they won't find it until they're ready(ish).

Then you mention that we need to think about gaining respect from other fighters, and I just plain disagree. Smash is Smash. Appease Smashers, not [insert FGC game here] players.

2) You talk about trying to change the game to better suit the players who play it. I don't see any problem with changing the game toward the ideal that its players wanted from the start. And again, I don't think worrying about other FGCs is the way to go at all.

3) You're absolutely correct that its not just the highest level that matters. The highest level is the only one that matters in terms of theorycrafting the "skill cap" of the game. Most people arguing against ALC (auto Lcancel) say that it lowers that skill cap, so that's why its commonly rebuked by pointing out that it literally doesn't affect top-level play, and thus wouldn't change the skill cap.

Now if we want to talk about lower levels, that's thoroughly interesting and not super straightforward. You mention that the game is about execution, and I say that there are plenty of things to screw up executing. You also mention that we don't talk about making other inputs easier, and you're right that most people don't talk about it. This is because all of those inputs are already just a series of simple, base level inputs. You combine them in different ways to make different techs. L-cancelling is already as simple as it can be, but its just so prevalent that its actual cases where it adds to gameplay are significantly less than those where it subtracts from it: namely, every new player who is on the fence about the tech skill requirement.

4) Your NFL analogy is pretty good. Since you didn't really push any particular points with it I have nothing else to respond to here.

5) One thing to note with your explanation is that you have to switch from kicking to preparing for impact. There is no downside to L-cancelling in-game. Furthermore, realism only goes so far as an argument in games. You must demonstrate that there is a gameplay benefit. Why can characters double jump? Not because of realism, but because it creates levels of commitment for being airborne (grounded, air with jump, air no jump). Why do characters gain invulnerability on the ledge? Not because of realism, but because you get a breather after making it back to stage. Why do characters respawn? Not because of realism, but to give you another chance to keep playing the game!

6) The evidence provided is a niche situation, but it does exist. However, it was pointed out that the scenario would literally never occur in-game, since purposely dodging with the no L-cancel was strictly inferior to just not doing the move. If they had such a hard read as to want to dodge with a non L-cancel, then they should just hit/dodge normally instead. Furthermore, the point of presenting such evidence was to find enough/big enough scenarios as to justify L-cancellings downfalls in other cases. The actual evidence provided was contrived enough to not convince people. Not everyone will agree on how much is necessary to prove the point (as evidenced by you thinking it was enough and me thinking it wasn't), so the more convincing the evidence is the more people it will convince. It was so contrived that it changed nobody's mind.

 

[Rawkobo]

I'm new and have been following this thread since a couple of my friends were talking about it, so I thought I would make an account and share my 2 cents. Take my opinion the way you would like.

For me, I like l-canceling because I am worried more about the integrity of the game. Lots of inputs per second can be an attractive thing to be able to show, and without l-canceling, that avg input goes down. I think all of us sometimes forget where competitive smash used to be, and how it got to be where it was. It had to EARN its respect from the other top games in the competitive industry, and it didn't win it by making the game easier for new players, and remove inputs because it lacks "depth."

Sadly with PM and smash4 getting balancing patches and such, it has made both of these communities somewhat "spoiled" because the communities don't have to deal with the game they were given, but instead, mold it to fit their needs. However, there are a lot of people in this community, so there will always be some kind of split when situations like this appear. That is why the PMDT didn't take l-canceling out for good, but instead added a toggle for it. My main point here is that we are trying to make the game fit to our needs without thinking about how to expand farther and garner respect from the even bigger industries of e-sports.

A big talk is about how this effects high-level play. Why does it only matter about high-level play?? Isn't that only tier-list where it matters about high-level play? Why isn't there a button input to make pivoting for grabs and such easier? Lots of things are out there that we could make easier to input because if you know the right option you should get to do it. Things like pivot grab/smashattack, wavedashing/landing, etc., are things that top players rarely miss/flub, but we don't argue about making those inputs easier so that it is only about strategy and mind games without proper execution. I shouldn't lose to someone because I can't pivot forward smash when i want to do so in the correct situation right? Wrong. Execution is a big part of this game too.

The NFL changed the extra-point rule this year so that it would make them harder for the extra-point to be made because it was basically automatic in the NFL (kinda like l-canceling is in smash at top-level play), but College and High School rules didn't follow suit because they didn't have the same problem. What am I trying to say here? Honestly, I don't know, but high-level play shouldn't be the only thing we look at to decide rules.

Here is my explanation to l-canceling. I look at it as like your character is bracing for a fall after doing something crazy like an aerial in the air. The reason this only applies to aerials and not jumping up and doing specials is because an aerial can only be on in the air, and specials can be done on the ground and while jumping, so for game mechanics, aerials are the only attacks that apply to this rule. Now to add on to my point, let's say you tried to jump and do foxes forward-air in your living room. If you just were thinking about kicking and not falling, you would hit the ground, probably fall, and have a somewhat long time of getting up. On the other hand, if you were kicking and saw you were close to the ground and decided to brace for the fall, you would hit the ground and get up faster then the previous outcome. That is my explanation of l-canceling.

Now people have brought up ways not l-canceling actually helps dodge attacks with proof, and everyone for auto didn't accept it because it wasn't good enough. What makes your argument that much better?

Okay. You're new. Let me try to break this down, point by point.

First of all, you're talking specifically about competitive Melee. Don't put PM and all over games under the "competitive Smash" window, because when you do that, if you make any sort of criticisms about other games, there was no point in making the generalization in the first place, because the point of saying "competitive Smash got respect" is implying that the most technical game in the series, Melee, got respect. PM will never have that same sort of respect, which makes its relevance to the argument of "worrying about its integrity" not only highly subjective, but pointless because of its subjective nature. Our target audience should not be Melee's audience anymore, because it's forcing us to build on their principles when they're distinct from us as a game, not just in terms of the game itself, but also infrastructure and developer support.

Because you're talking specifically about competitive Melee, you have to understand that it, as a game whose community believes it has such high competitive integrity, still has these problems in relation with the FGC, because it is so distinctly different from all other fighters, due to its mechanics, movement and control scheme. These three things rewrite the book on what it means to have good footsies, fundamentals, spacing, etc., based on the ability to weave in and out. This isn't done especially well in any other fighting game, other than characters with "fake-out" attacks that allow them to weave out and dodge. Most time, people in fighting games have to block; we can simply weave out of it.

However, other Smash games follow these same fighting game fundamentals to a T. Are there things missing from Melee? Well, yes. The movement was changed such that the game involves the same style of poke-and-punish that we see in Street Fighter at the moment. Was it a good change from before? Well, no, because we as a community were so used to the multitude of inputs and options available in Melee, so we saw it as a direct downgrade.

But does that affect competitive integrity?

I am willing to argue it does not on the grounds that all of the other Smash games still follow fighting game fundamentals and approaches, even if the game is still made unique by nature of control scheme and mechanics/platform fighting. To claim inputs are equivalent to competitive integrity requires a large, large amount of proof. Pretty sure the current version of Street Fighter doesn't have even close to some of the input readouts we've seen at events like HTC, but the game is backed by its developer and is paying out substantially more than Smash due to the sponsors and cups/majors associated with it.

What does that have to do with L-cancelling? Well, so far, in this particular thread, people are arguing that a non-interactive single input with debatable interaction on the game itself matters because it should matter. I am willing to agree that it should matter, because what L-cancelling does, when described, is something that should matter. But in the context of actually playing the game, we don't point out that "if X had L-cancelled here, everything would have been fine," or, "man, that mix-up with the non-L-cancel sure was a good choice." Have you ever considered why it is, that those things aren't scrutinized, even by top analysts of either Melee or PM?

Simply put, if it mattered, at any level of the game, it would be something people would analyze and discuss on a relatively consistent basis. But they do not, even in top-level Melee at EVO. What they analyze, instead, are those fundamental interactions between players that I addressed above. Perhaps the interaction between two players is what maintains competitive integrity in a game, and not simply inputs.

The reason we make the high-level distinction is because of the fact that what actually matters in this game are the fundamentals, and not a non-interactive button press. Low-level and mid-level players tend to lose because of making bad decisions completely independent of not pressing a button. There is a low level of awareness that is more of a problem than an arbitrary "technical flub."

I will agree that looking to the higher level for all the answers is a bit entitled, but there's a reason it happens. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that a missed L-cancel is to blame for a situation. Well, that implies that everything else in the situation---your spacing, your place in neutral, your choice, etc.---is optimal. Such distinctions are things we tend to expect from not low-level or mid-level, but high-level players. But, by the same point, high-level/top players can often crack and make bad decisions that may also include a missed input. Yet, most of the time, those inputs fail due to one of those things I claim in the situation should be perfect.

Therefore, to say that it comes down to missing an L-cancel is a terrible misjudgment of almost every event where it occurs. No, it's the fact that there is an opponent who wants to force interaction in a particular manner and is weaving out of your misspaced attack that you failed to account for and is punishing you for overstepping your boundaries. It is a matter completely independent of this press. To blame it is to be overly presumptuous.

Now, you'll note I said "almost." That's because, yes, I do agree that the existence of aerials where not L-cancelling does provide a situation in which it would be bad to have auto-cancelling on. But there's two reasons it's not enough, and both of them are related to the same assertion, which is "We gave you evidence. How is that not good enough?"

First of all, let's talk about "good." The Ganon example was awful and an incredibly unlikely situation. If you want the example to be good, it would have to be considerably more like the Kirby-Samus example, where a missile in the face is expected based on the nature of Samus likely firing a missile. Saying "here's an example where I dair and don't get hit because my opponent is facing the opposite way such that it is almost as though he is not trying to interact with me, but I missed the L-cancel and didn't get hit" is a rather lackluster analysis of the situation.

Then there's "enough." So let's say Kirby and Game and Watch are the characters whose moves affect their body structure such that missing a L-cancel is relevant; let's say I give you that distinction. Well, that's 2/41 characters, which is far from a majority of characters "influenced" by the mechanic. So you would have to prove a majority, which would be 21+ characters, follow suit for that to be a relevant argument. Sure, I understand there is some degree of something "lost," but I would say it's not enough to state manual-L-cancelling matters.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I have already demonstrated the truth to my claims. You simply refuse to accept any evidence. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

You made a post saying look at evo while ignoring all counter points when directly addressed back to you.

You presented at best subjective reasoning to keep it.

And when presenting objective ones like people messing it up, someone had to go dig it up and when a counterpoint was made you flat out ignored it.

The only reason people want it to stay on PM is subjective love of it because it was in Melee and that's it. Not because it evolve the gameplay but because it adds an extra technical requirement that adds no value to the desicion making.

You have posted a lot only mentioning this but not demonstrating it.

 

[Ningildo]

I'm new and have been following this thread since a couple of my friends were talking about it, so I thought I would make an account and share my 2 cents. Take my opinion the way you would like.

For me, I like l-canceling because I am worried more about the integrity of the game. Lots of inputs per second can be an attractive thing to be able to show, and without l-canceling, that avg input goes down. I think all of us sometimes forget where competitive smash used to be, and how it got to be where it was. It had to EARN its respect from the other top games in the competitive industry, and it didn't win it by making the game easier for new players, and remove inputs because it lacks "depth."

Sadly with PM and smash4 getting balancing patches and such, it has made both of these communities somewhat "spoiled" because the communities don't have to deal with the game they were given, but instead, mold it to fit their needs. However, there are a lot of people in this community, so there will always be some kind of split when situations like this appear. That is why the PMDT didn't take l-canceling out for good, but instead added a toggle for it. My main point here is that we are trying to make the game fit to our needs without thinking about how to expand farther and garner respect from the even bigger industries of e-sports.

A big talk is about how this effects high-level play. Why does it only matter about high-level play?? Isn't that only tier-list where it matters about high-level play? Why isn't there a button input to make pivoting for grabs and such easier? Lots of things are out there that we could make easier to input because if you know the right option you should get to do it. Things like pivot grab/smashattack, wavedashing/landing, etc., are things that top players rarely miss/flub, but we don't argue about making those inputs easier so that it is only about strategy and mind games without proper execution. I shouldn't lose to someone because I can't pivot forward smash when i want to do so in the correct situation right? Wrong. Execution is a big part of this game too.

The NFL changed the extra-point rule this year so that it would make them harder for the extra-point to be made because it was basically automatic in the NFL (kinda like l-canceling is in smash at top-level play), but College and High School rules didn't follow suit because they didn't have the same problem. What am I trying to say here? Honestly, I don't know, but high-level play shouldn't be the only thing we look at to decide rules.

Here is my explanation to l-canceling. I look at it as like your character is bracing for a fall after doing something crazy like an aerial in the air. The reason this only applies to aerials and not jumping up and doing specials is because an aerial can only be on in the air, and specials can be done on the ground and while jumping, so for game mechanics, aerials are the only attacks that apply to this rule. Now to add on to my point, let's say you tried to jump and do foxes forward-air in your living room. If you just were thinking about kicking and not falling, you would hit the ground, probably fall, and have a somewhat long time of getting up. On the other hand, if you were kicking and saw you were close to the ground and decided to brace for the fall, you would hit the ground and get up faster then the previous outcome. That is my explanation of l-canceling.

Now people have brought up ways not l-canceling actually helps dodge attacks with proof, and everyone for auto didn't accept it because it wasn't good enough. What makes your argument that much better?

The first point is moot. For the time being at least, we aren't going to be esports or a part of the FGC or respected by it for a long time. Why that should matter is beyond me, PM is a grassroots community first and foremost, so we tend to be a bit self sufficient. Also, don't pretend to know the reasoning behind the PMDT's decision behind allowing auto to be toggled unless you have evidence to prove otherwise. This counts for all claims. I mean, you could not, but that leaves you open for counter points.

Secondly, those things are tools. Options. You can choose to do them, do them in one way or another, now or later and, most importantly, they require understanding of the game and the situation at hand in order for their usefulness to be maximized. L-cancelling...doesn't have any of these (at best, you could argue that shield angling influences it, but that tends not to happen ever at high level play). Why bring up high level play? Cause it's there that interactions between players, characters and their tools are being used at their best, so it's there where we can see if removing l-cancel or any other mechanic would have any influence on it. The answer...is no. L-cancelling is never not done and, at this level, not screwed up. The only "interaction" this mechanic would bring is providing an opening or a dropped combo if it's failed and even that's debatable. So, given that the only "interaction" of the tech happens when FAILING it (I emphasize this because all other tech bring interactions based on its successful execution) and that failing it never happens at high level play, what does it do? It's just there as another way to screw you over and nothing to gain from it. The ONLY thing that you could argue it brings in are allowing combos to be continued and to avoid punishes, but since this can also be done with auto with no interactions being lost...it depends on how much you value button presses for the sake of button presses and nothing more. You'll note that TFGs (the games of the community that you seemingly want respect from) don't have anything of the sort regarding an button input for the sake of a button input.

Imma quote myself real quick on the next point

Never mind that at this level (mid level or lower) you still have no proper grasp of neutral, good spacing, optimized punishes, awareness of mixups on various aspects of the game (edgeguarding, cross ups on shield, DI traps on throws etc) that probably matter more then just l-cancelling and require way more effort and actually provide interactions at high level play.

The point behind mentioning all these things that actually matter at high level play is that at low to mid level play, a LOT of things aren't done well. But obviously making mechanic changes based on this level of play is foolhardy.

Added a bit to help elaborate things (the "(mid level or lower)" bit if you're wondering), but yeah. That sums up why I think only high/top level play should be used to evaluate mechanics and tech.

The following point is, uh, moot. Talking about how it should makes sense as it would in real life is impossible. People can't float around like Mewtwo, Peach or Ganon, somehow get aerial upwards momentum when they are already in the air and falling or even double jump. This is a really weak point to make, tbh.

As for your final point

Note I said high level play. If people can't last long enough to make top whatever to get on stream, they probably aren't note worthy to begin with.

You also seem to be forgetting how much needs to happen for this occur. Kirby needs to be in the air already when Samus fires the missile (because jumping in response to a missile tends to be bad), Dair preemptively at mid to close range (not that Samus will ever fire a missile at close range) or Dair in response to a missile at long range (instead of closing the gap or crouching, if you REALLY want to dodge the missile), be at FH height when starting the Dair and fastfall it (as doing it at SH height gets you hit) with good timing to avoid the missile. All this to have a mediocre way of dodging missiles that probably still leaves you in a bad spot.

What I'm trying to say is that you need a lot of setup for something that could done way better for way less commitment. Yes, you CAN do this with intentionally missing the l-cancel, but there's never a reason to when better alternatives exist (crouching, multiple uses of jumps to maneuver around missiles, perfect shielding, probably more), making this a moot reason for keeping l-cancelling in.

This was in response to this post which went about to show that missing an l-cancel could meaningfully impact the game and could even be intentional. Except...well, read the quote for that. It generally counts for all animations shifting hurtboxes when missing an l-cancel just for that.

 

[Vigilante]

You made a post saying look at evo while ignoring all counter points when directly addressed back to you.

You presented at best subjective reasoning to keep it.

And when presenting objective ones like people messing it up, someone had to go dig it up and when a counterpoint was made you flat out ignored it.

The only reason people want it to stay on PM is subjective love of it because it was in Melee and that's it. Not because it evolve the gameplay but because it adds an extra technical requirement that adds no value to the desicion making.

You have posted a lot only mentioning this but not demonstrating it.

L-canceling reduces landing lag by half rounded down. Its function proves my point. Less lag = less time vulnerable. Less lag = being able to react and follow up faster. The mechanic itself proves my point. It's that simple.

 

[xquqx]

L-canceling reduces landing lag by half rounded down. Its function proves my point. Less lag = less time vulnerable. Less lag = being able to react and follow up faster. The mechanic itself proves my point. It's that simple.

And auto L cancelling does all that too so I'm not sure what your point actually is here.

 

[Rawkobo]

L-canceling reduces landing lag by half rounded down. Its function proves my point. Less lag = less time vulnerable. Less lag = being able to react and follow up faster. The mechanic itself proves my point. It's that simple.

So in that big text post I made up there, I addressed this exact thing. Its function, as stated, should do those things in a meaningful way because of the nature of the mechanic. But the definition doesn't prove the action itself.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

L-canceling reduces landing lag by half rounded down. Its function proves my point. Less lag = less time vulnerable. Less lag = being able to react and follow up faster. The mechanic itself proves my point. It's that simple.

Then just cut lag in half and cut out the input.

 

[Vigilante]

Then just cut lag in half and cut out the input.

But then you have no chance of failing it and therefore, you lose the ability to pressure someone into failing their L-cancels. The idea behind that is that "MISSING" these inputs make you vulnerable, adding a CONSEQUENCE for being pressured. Auto-cancels removes that depth entirely.

 

[Rawkobo]

But then you have no chance of failing it and therefore, you lose the ability to pressure someone into failing their L-cancels.

Where's the pressure in a noninteraction?

 

[Vigilante]

Less lag = being able to act faster. Failing = being punished for failing to be on your toes. Missing an L-cancel is basically the equivalent of being in a fight and having a moment of inattention, or messing up your footwork. This happens a lot to fighters under intense pressure, as do missed L-cancels at high play. Removing that removes this depth.

 

[Rawkobo]

Less lag = being able to act faster. Failing = being punished for failing to be on your toes. Missing an L-cancel is basically the equivalent of being in a fight and having a moment of inattention, or messing up your footwork. This happens a lot to fighters under intense pressure, as do missed L-cancels at high play. Removing that removes this depth.

Bad example. Failing to be able to move faster doesn't account for awareness. Awareness is completely independent of being able to move faster.

 

[Vigilante]

Being aware means that you are more likely to perform a successful cancel and therefore move faster. They are very dependent on one-another.

Also, lack of skill in an area of a game is no excuse to demand that the game dumbs itself down to the player's level. The responsibility falls on the player to improve.

 

[Rawkobo]

Being aware means that you are more likely to perform a successful cancel and therefore move faster. They are very dependent on one-another.

Also, lack of skill in an area of a game is no excuse to demand that the game dumbs itself down to the player's level. The responsibility falls on the player to improve.

...What?

You...do realize being aware allows you to respond to an interaction, right? Your example implies that "being on your toes" is the same thing as being fast. Not...especially. You don't have to be exceptionally fast to respond to an interaction. There's a lot of spacing in a fight on its own, and...

Why am I trying to validate a contradictory example?

Also, for the second part...you still haven't proved it's a relevant "skill." I asked where the pressure is in a noninteraction. There's no "skill" in a noninteraction in a multiplayer game, by definition.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm pretty sure that tapping a button to reduce lag is interacting with the game. You will have to explain your strange definition of an interraction.

Skill: The ability to do something well. Being able to L-cancel with consistency under most circumstances is a skill, no matter how you look at it.

 

[xquqx]

I'm pretty sure that tapping a button to reduce lag is interacting with the game. You will have to explain your strange definition of an interraction.

Skill: The ability to do something well. Being able to L-cancel with consistency under most circumstances is a skill, no matter how you look at it.

You can mash the input though so there's not really a skill, timing-wise. You can't really throw off someone's timing if they mash it. It's just doing it for the sake of doing it, not an interactive skill. Interactive in this case is between you and the opponent. You shouldn't be fighting the game at high level play.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But then you have no chance of failing it and therefore, you lose the ability to pressure someone into failing their L-cancels. The idea behind that is that "MISSING" these inputs make you vulnerable, adding a CONSEQUENCE for being pressured. Auto-cancels removes that depth entirely.

If it never happens, which was a counter point brought up then you ignored it.

Is it actually adding depth then? Are those fringe rare cases worth it for raising the skill floor without giving much in return?

 

[Vigilante]

If it never happens, which was a counter point brought up then you ignored it.

Is it actually adding depth then? Are those fringe rare cases worth it for raising the skill floor without giving much in return?

Dude, Mango misses like 10 L-cancels per set. It's hardly rare.

 

[wiiztec]

Mango's a fraud tho

 

[Bleck]

Dude, Mango misses like 10 L-cancels per set. It's hardly rare.

the question is not whether or not it does, the question is "[If no l-cancels are missed] Is it actually adding depth then? Are those fringe rare cases worth it for raising the skill floor without giving much in return?"

 

[Ningildo]

Less lag = being able to act faster. Failing = being punished for failing to be on your toes. Missing an L-cancel is basically the equivalent of being in a fight and having a moment of inattention, or messing up your footwork. This happens a lot to fighters under intense pressure, as do missed L-cancels at high play. Removing that removes this depth.

In order for any of this to be taken as a serious point, you have to prove that 1. Missed l-cancels happen consistently or at least at times at high level play 2.That the missed l-cancel cause a change in momentum 3. That the missed l-cancel was the sole reason that momentum shift happened.

Until you do, you got nothing.

 

[Rawkobo]

I'm pretty sure that tapping a button to reduce lag is interacting with the game. You will have to explain your strange definition of an interraction.

Skill: The ability to do something well. Being able to L-cancel with consistency under most circumstances is a skill, no matter how you look at it.

I'm pretty sure the intention of the game is interacting with your opponent. It's not a strange definition in the context of a competitive game. Pressing L or R to reduce your landing lag has no bearing on your opponent's ability to react ( JOE! researched this) and punish you, nor does it threaten them in any way. It is a noninteractive press, then, for there is no change in interaction between you and your opponent. Noninteraction is not skillful by nature, but you do it because why else wouldn't you? (aka terribly misunderstood reasoning)

I'll admit that if you follow that definition, then sure, L-cancelling is a skill. But that means pushing A to jab on the controller is a skill. And pushing Y or X to jump on the controller is a skill. Hell, most menial things are skills. But that doesn't mean they're necessary skills.

I'm pretty sure I'm looking at and analyzing the same game as everyone else that's doing it, but at no point have any of those analysts ever noted specifically why having a manual press is significant to the situation. It's all choices, commitments, things that promote an interaction between players.