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

[LightningDragon]

Why are you trying to debate someone who clearly refuses to provide evidence?

Outright refusal to provide evidence shows that the person is full of it, and is not worth trying to argue with.
I would not even humor Vigilante until he actually attempts to provide evidence.

 

[4tlas]

Why are you trying to debate someone who clearly refuses to provide evidence?

Outright refusal to provide evidence shows that the person is full of it, and is not worth trying to argue with.
I would not even humor Vigilante until he actually attempts to provide evidence.

There are other reasons to not provide evidence. For example, there is no evidence. Or the evidence is non-conclusive and not worth providing. The ALC crowd has provided non-conclusive evidence so far, including reaction times and game design theory. Granted, it is impossible to prove that L-cancelling is *never* a useful gameplay element. Since it is possible to prove that it *sometimes* is, I agree we should continue to wait on such claims until the evidence is brought forth.

 

[lordvaati]

seeing as Rivals of Aether kinda showcases what an example of a game that uses auto S-Landing can generate for potential, I'm gonna have to side with Brent Rambo and be for Auto.

 

[Narpas_sword]

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.

Would adding l canceling to all other moves create more depth?

(and for the sake of the example, let's say the current endlag value is the cancelled value, and not canceling it would be double the current value)

 

[lordvaati]

on top of that, the example Vigilante used applies moreso for teching.

no matter how you squeeze it Lcancel/S-Land is just complexity added for the sake of it rather then for depth.

 

[4tlas]

on top of that, the example Vigilante used applies moreso for teching.

no matter how you squeeze it Lcancel/S-Land is just complexity added for the sake of it rather then for depth.

There's also a legitimate, common advantage to not teching: the ability to getup attack. There's also the mixup potential of when the invuln frames occur.

 

[masterpad]

B. Part of why tr4sh sucks is because there is a lack of tech, and while just putting in L-cancelling wouldn't make the game that much better, it would at least feel rewarding to master that timing.

reward, the word that blind people preaching the "it is all about stategy" religion doesn't understand anymore.

you should definitly understand that no-l-cancel means no landing animation at all, and then we will talking about another game but not melee nor projectMelee....

this argument has been had dozens of times over the past five years, maybe you should seek out those threads before spouting any more dumb nonsense

an example of this religious godly-knowledge gifted that knows and predict everything and situation that could happen in a completly new game engine that has been just released

 

[Ningildo]

reward, the word that blind people preaching the "it is all about stategy" religion doesn't understand anymore.

you should definitly understand that no-l-cancel means no landing animation at all, and then we will talking about another game but not melee nor projectMelee....



an example of this religious godly-knowledge gifted that knows and predict everything and situation that could happen in a completly new game engine that has been just released

Please stop with ad hominems and actually address arguments.

I've already mentioned that in situations where using missed l-cancel animations are always inferior to other options like DJ away, wavedash away, running away etc. because of the amount of setup needed to use the animation. If you disagree, provide counterpoints that are based on logical reasoning. E.g. show that there is at least a semi common situation where only a missed l-cancel would let you dodge. Note that this doesn't include situations where you do incredibly stupid things like getting yourself in mid range against Samus when she just fired a missile.

And that last bit is a two way street. Just as we can't know everything about the game day 1 (although...), neither can you. So moot, ignoring the fact that Bleck told the guy to go check arguments made in previous threads, albeit in a typical Bleck fashion. AKA he wasn't making any comments on the game engine.

And for the record, Project M was never really officially Project Melee, it was just Project M.

Again, if you came back just to say that we "preach" our "religion" in this thread and are "blind" to things you see...well, someone needs a refresher on how debates are done, probably.

 

[RestUp]

what about mew2king using needles to messup l-cancel timing to punish?

 

[Narpas_sword]

what about mew2king using needles to messup l-cancel timing to punish?

If you are hit by a needle, or any other move, you take knock back and don't remain in your attack animation. There's nothing to l cancel.

 

[xquqx]

We've also been over the "just mash the input and you can't have the timing messed up" thing before, so even if they did something that actually affected the timing, it doesn't really matter.

 

[4tlas]

what about mew2king using needles to messup l-cancel timing to punish?

That only works in Melee, since the needles have hurtboxes and thus there is hitlag when hitting needles stuck in the ground. It doesn't work in Project M.

 

[masterpad]

Please stop with ad hominems and actually address arguments.

thank you, but arguments are always pointless in fanatic's ears...

since you are completly unable to think of the value of an input without a strategic/choice point of view.

=> there is a landing animation that cause lag after an aerial attack.
=> This lag can be obstacle to preform a combo or a flaw in the defense
=> now there is an input that can be performed in a window of frame and allow to avoid the landing animtion and its lag. so player that succed in performing it will be REWARDED with more reactitivy to perfomed their combos or less flaw in their defense when landing.

The reward value of l-cancel that's enough to make this input always relevant. And the input itself is extremely fun depending on category of person, which i am part of.

At least the window frame is a true debate, since the input can be smash repeadly in this window and still performed sucefully and that is not very competitive-friendly -in my opinion-

But completly remove l-cancel from the competition will always be a pointless debate causes by religious exposing their personal feeling as a general thruth, Making a thing of it as a burden for beginner's and so on, but i was a beginner and it has never borther me as it never borthers many others.

#ExcuseMyBadEnglish

 

[Ningildo]

thank you, but arguments are always pointless in fanatic's ears...

since you are completly unable to think of the value of an input without a strategic/choice point of view.

=> there is a landing animation that cause lag after an aerial attack.
=> This lag can be obstacle to preform a combo or a flaw in the defense
=> now there is an input that can be performed in a window of frame and allow to avoid the landing animtion and its lag. so player that succed in performing it will be REWARDED with more reactitivy to perfomed their combos or less flaw in their defense when landing.

The reward value of l-cancel that's enough to make this input always relevant. And the input itself is extremely fun depending on category of person, which i am part of.

At least the window frame is a true debate, since the input can be smash repeadly in this window and still performed sucefully and that is not very competitive-friendly -in my opinion-

But completly remove l-cancel from the competition will always be a pointless debate causes by religious exposing their personal feeling as a general thruth, Making a thing of it as a burden for beginner's and so on, but i was a beginner and it has never borther me as it never borthers many others.

#ExcuseMyBadEnglish

You know what makes points even harder to understand or be taken seriously than poor English? Spouting insults or lies along with them. Please stop, insults only cause more needless tension in an already heated debate.

But, okay, whatever. I'll take various angles.

First off, is l-cancelling an option? Nope! You will never want to not l-cancel, ever. Every other tech has reasons for not using it when the possibility is there, but not l-cancelling. There will never be a situation where you'd want to get extra lag on your aerials. The landing animation was already covered earlier, better options always exists over not l-cancelling, making it moot.

Secondly, what does proper l-cancelling teach you? Adjusting your button press for hitlag. That's it. Other tech do more then that. In order to properly use dash dancing, you need to be aware of your stage positioning, the opponent's effective range of attack, and, when tech chasing with it, be aware of the opponent's get up options (although this is more along the lines of tech chasing in general). For wavedashing, it's mostly the same thing, be aware of your opponent's range, your own positioning and what options you'd be able to use accounting for endlag and the gained distance. And the best part is, once you know what to look for to maximize DDing or wavedashing's effectiveness, the difficulty of doing so doesn't change, because at what ranges your opponent will be will change depending on your opponent's playstyle. Once you've mastered l-cancel timings, there's nothing there that teaches you anything and, worse, the "interactions" of the tech stop being there (it's between quotation marks because tech cause interactions by being used successfully, not by being failed).

Going off that, if auto l-cancelling would be tournament standard, what would be lost? At high level play, until proven otherwise by a certain someone with his own evidence, l-cancels are not missed. And since I've shown that, once mastered, l-cancelling doesn't provide any interactions, the only thing that would be missed is the button press.

Now, if you want to argue about pressing a button being a sign of "true skill", then I'll refer to you to Rawkobo's post:

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.

The post being replied to is here.

I've presented my case. Again. And I'll eagerly await any counterpoints that are based upon sound logic. Hopefully not in vain, but considering the track record of the pro manual side, I'm not going to have any delusions.

 

[JOE!]

And I'll eagerly await any counterpoints that are based upon sound logic.

But it makes my ego feel sad, and sadness is a bad thing

 

[4tlas]

thank you, but arguments are always pointless in fanatic's ears...

since you are completly unable to think of the value of an input without a strategic/choice point of view.

=> there is a landing animation that cause lag after an aerial attack.
=> This lag can be obstacle to preform a combo or a flaw in the defense
=> now there is an input that can be performed in a window of frame and allow to avoid the landing animtion and its lag. so player that succed in performing it will be REWARDED with more reactitivy to perfomed their combos or less flaw in their defense when landing.

The reward value of l-cancel that's enough to make this input always relevant. And the input itself is extremely fun depending on category of person, which i am part of.

At least the window frame is a true debate, since the input can be smash repeadly in this window and still performed sucefully and that is not very competitive-friendly -in my opinion-

But completly remove l-cancel from the competition will always be a pointless debate causes by religious exposing their personal feeling as a general thruth, Making a thing of it as a burden for beginner's and so on, but i was a beginner and it has never borther me as it never borthers many others.

#ExcuseMyBadEnglish

I firmly believe that you do not mean to word things so insultingly, and that it is merely a byproduct of your English. Nevertheless, I am sure you really do think that we have strong beliefs and are simply blind to the truth, incapable of ever understanding a conflicting point of view (aka, zealots). If you withdraw yourself from your perspective and consider a neutral one, you will see that you could be defined the same way. If you think that we cannot see the truth, why debate? I certainly think you can be "made to see the truth", so I am willing to try and convince you. It is only respectful to assume that people a) have good reason to believe what they do already (and thus you could be wrong) and b) assume that they are intelligent enough to figure out the truth (and thus it is worth talking to them to figure it out together). As such, please consider these arguments fairly.

1) Your first argument here seems to be (if I am interpreting it correctly) that requiring a button input, a test of technical skill, has value. And it certainly does, but its not necessarily valuable to everyone, and even if it is it might not be very valuable. In fact, for some people, it actively hurts the game and has negative value. Does the mechanic have enough value to be worth the negative value? Its hard to say, since we don't know how many people won't play because of this one element, and its hard to measure such a thing quantitatively. Instead, we can look at the general game design and try to justify the inclusion/exclusion of L-cancelling through that. In this case, this is THE fighting game designed around SIMPLE CONTROLS. That is 100% true, Sakurai said it himself, and it is readily apparent in the gameplay. If you want more button inputs for the sake of testing technical skill, those fighters exist. This does not belong in Smash. Sakurai agreed it was a mistake, and removed it from all subsequent games after Melee.

2) As for less landing lag being valuable, it is true that there are plenty of situations where performing the L-cancel allows you to, say, follow up on a hit, whereas if you missed it you wouldn't get a followup. That doesn't give it value, though. Yes, it is always better to perform the input than to not, but that further confirms that there's no decision-making behind it. Its just an input for the sake of an input, which shouldn't exist in Smash.

3) Your last argument is that we assume that since L-cancelling bothered us as beginners it bothers everyone. First, we cannot know how many beginners quit when confronted with L-cancelling, since they never enter the community. That number could be infinite. We know such people exist, though, since we've met them. So it is entirely possible that most beginners quit due to L-cancelling, though I don't actually believe that's true. (I think its more likely that most beginners quit because of the attitude many Smashers have towards new players, but anyway...) Regardless, we know the number is non-zero, which means that it would be a positive change to remove L-cancelling (unless there are more reasons to keep it, which I can't find). Just because you weren't bothered by it doesn't mean most people weren't. And just because it doesn't bother you doesn't make it good or useful game design. I speak with top players all the time who agree its a useless, stupid mechanic. They have never had any trouble with it, but that doesn't make it less stupid.

 

[LightningDragon]

reward, the word that blind people preaching the "it is all about stategy" religion doesn't understand anymore.

an example of this religious godly-knowledge gifted that knows and predict everything and situation that could happen in a completly new game engine that has been just released

You're the last person to have any validity in saying those things. You're the one who used the term "heretic" here, not your opponents. The irony in what you said there is hilarious.

 

[masterpad]

But, okay, whatever. I'll take various angles.

First off, is l-cancelling an option? Nope! You will never want to not l-cancel, ever.

No insults, i just try to expose one single thing that you prooved right now with the first sentence of your argument.
YOU ARE UNABLE TO THING OF THIS INPUT WITHOUT A STRATEGIC/CHOICE/OPTION POINT OF VIEW WICH IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO EVALAUTE AN INPUT IN A GAME!

As such, please consider these arguments fairly.
1) Your first argument here seems to be (if I am interpreting it correctly) that requiring a button input, a test of technical skill, has value.
2) As for less landing lag being valuable, it is true that there are plenty of situations where performing the L-cancel allows you to, say, follow up on a hit, whereas if you missed it you wouldn't get a followup. That doesn't give it value, though. Yes, it is always better to perform the input than to not, but that further confirms that there's no decision-making behind it. Its just an input for the sake of an input, which shouldn't exist in Smash.
3) Your last argument is that we assume that since L-cancelling bothered us as beginners it bothers everyone. First, we cannot know how many beginners quit when confronted with L-cancelling, since they never enter the community. That number could be infinite.

you are still talking like many others about how there is no situation that l-cancel is not a good option. but i as a player, i dont care! is fun and rewarding in a natural situation of the game (landing animation) where i whould have been defensless or unable to quickly follow up my areals into a combo...
THAT IS ALL!!!

1) yes, this could not be a skill from one player to another but is certainly a skilled input if not some beginners would have never have problem with it.
2) not every player cares about decision making in a game, a skill for reward input goes fine for many many player
3)as we can not know how many veteran players never have a real issue with lcancel since they just pass through it and now have fun with the game regardless of it.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Here it goes again

by 'it' do you mean constructive and thought out posts without ad hominem contributing to a debate?

 

[masterpad]

by 'it' do you mean constructive and thought out posts without ad hominem contributing to a debate?

i was editing my post, may you please answer my one single argument of judging an input basing on somethiing else than stategy/option/choice?
we can go for as many 2D fighting game that you want since i deeply play or have played almost everyone of them .
i understand that sakurai reject lcanceling after melee but sometimes players can found something great in a game despite the creator's position about it...

 

[Ningildo]

i was editing my post, may you please answer my one single argument of judging an input basing on somethiing else than stategy/option/choice?
we can go for as many 2D fighting game that you want since i deeply play or have played almost everyone of them .
i understand that sakurai reject lcanceling after melee but sometimes players can found something great in a game despite the creator's position about it...

I really hope the coin falls before long, but if nothing else, my prediction was on the mark.

Read my post entirely instead of stopping at one phrase that seems to agitate you and draw all your attention away from the several other lines of text below that I'd like you to respond to.

And if we focus on the "fun" of things, then you're going to have a really bad time dealing with such a subjective concept in a discussion. It changes from person to person and saying that the fun you have is more important then the bad times others might have kinda implies you think you're better and your time is more valuable.

Of course, assumptions do jack for the progression of a debate, so, again, I'll ask you to go through all my points and counter them, if possible.

 

[4tlas]

you are still talking like many others about how there is no situation that l-cancel is not a good option. but i as a player, i dont care! is fun and rewarding in a natural situation of the game (landing animation) where i whould have been defensless or unable to quickly follow up my areals into a combo...
THAT IS ALL!!!

1) yes, this could not be a skill from one player to another but is certainly a skilled input if not some beginners would have never have problem with it.
2) not every player cares about decision making in a game, a skill for reward input goes fine for many many player
3)as we can not know how many veteran players never have a real issue with lcancel since they just pass through it and now have fun with the game regardless of it.

I understand that you LIKE the mechanic. Many people like it. Many people do not. As I said, we cannot quantify that. The only things you can look at are objective facts about what the mechanic does and how that fits into the gameplay. This is why I mentioned that it does nothing for decision making, and is only for requiring more "technical skill". Now is that a good thing? Not necessarily. Which brings me to your points.

1) Yes, but we could also require people to play All-Star mode (forcing players to demonstrate their mastery over several characters and matchups), play with stage hazards (demonstrating the ability to adapt, prepare for, and be aware of factors outside your control), or even play blindfolded (knowing what's happening without seeing it is quite an impressive skill). These all take skill. We could even require players to play a decathlon, with 5 physical sports and then 5 esports. But none of those are this game. They aren't bad games, and maybe someone would want to play them. But they aren't this game.

2) Correct, and they have the option to demonstrate that through advanced techs. They can still demonstrate their consistency though other techs, and Lcancelling didn't show off anyone's precision anyway (as we said, it has no fail window). L-cancelling is very simple and offers no decision-making benefit, as well as no considerable gameplay benefit. If you find it fun, that's grand, but it doesn't change the actions that occur in-game. Its so easy to perform everyone should get it 100% of the time, and the few times they miss have not been shown to matter at all. Most importantly, the entire rest of this game is explicitly designed around being a fighter with simplistic inputs. Sometimes those simple inputs add up to something greater, as in the case of advanced techs, but the base game mechanics are meant to avoid extra button presses. L-cancelling runs directly counter to that.

3) So it didn't change their experience at all, right? They sucked it up and learned to do it. Well not everyone wants to do that. And just because they manage to enjoy the game IN SPITE OF a useless relic doesn't make it any less egregious. Furthermore, there is a finite number of players in that pool: namely, less than the total number of competitive players we've ever seen. The number of players who we have not seen has the potential to be much higher, and new players are the only way to grow the scene.

You want to argue that its fun. Well that's fine, you're welcome to play with Manual L-cancelling for your fun. Some people also find it unfun. Which is the better way to play?

There isn't one. So why not remove it? Well then why not remove other things? Why keep it? Well then why not add other things?

As for adding other things, I mentioned some possibilities above (all-star, stage hazards, blindfolds), but we could even go as simple as forcing you to L-cancel EVERY time you landed. Would that make the game better? It probably wouldn't change anything gameplay-wise, but it would make you (you, personally) happier.

As for removing other things, nothing else in the game has quite the same combination of uselessness for gameplay and obnoxiousness to players. The potential gain from allowing all the competitive people who are scared away by L-cancelling to play far outweighs the "loss" of L-cancelling. Advanced techs are just combining the simple inputs in complex ways. Every other tech has decision-making attached to it, so removing it would very clearly change gameplay.

Edit: I realized I didn't end with a summary. So here goes.

At the end of the day, there's only 1 objective way to look at the game design, because everythings fun to a different group. The way to look at it is the intended, cohesive game design. Smash was designed to be THE SIMPLISTIC FIGHTER. L-cancelling was grafted on at the end to satisfy a vocal minority that thought the game didn't have enough technical depth and was too slow. Unfortunately, even L-cancelling hasn't added much technical depth on its own, as its so easy nearly everyone can do it if they bother learning how. Stop making everyone else bother to learn how just to get access to the very basic level of competition.

 

[RestUp]

I know I am popping in a out like crazy and not really responding to arguments lol, but I did find something while I was randomly watching top plays of 2015. I wasn't looking for missed l-cancels or anything, so I don't have a count and how/if they were punished. However, Vish vs MacD in the final game at S@P did have a missed l-cancel that was punished. MacD was up 3-1 in stocks at the time and because he missed an l-cancel on the fair (I think it was fair if I am remembering correctly), and was killed for it. I wasn't really looking for l-cancels, but I guess I was just focused on watching MacD's peach at that particular moment.

I don't have anything to really add to either side of the argument, but I thought I would bring this up.

 

[Rawkobo]

I know I am popping in a out like crazy and not really responding to arguments lol, but I did find something while I was randomly watching top plays of 2015. I wasn't looking for missed l-cancels or anything, so I don't have a count and how/if they were punished. However, Vish vs MacD in the final game at S@P did have a missed l-cancel that was punished. MacD was up 3-1 in stocks at the time and because he missed an l-cancel on the fair (I think it was fair if I am remembering correctly), and was killed for it. I wasn't really looking for l-cancels, but I guess I was just focused on watching MacD's peach at that particular moment.

I don't have anything to really add to either side of the argument, but I thought I would bring this up.

If MacD were to review that game, he would more than likely be asking himself why the hell he went for fair instead of anything safer. He was making a risk regardless of L-cancelling.

That's the sort of mindset you have to consider sets in. If you pick an option that has bad frame data, it doesn't matter if you halve the landing lag; in the end it's the choice you made to input the move in the first place that's the problem, not if you missed the L-cancel.

I feel like I said something about this earlier, but I don't remember exactly when.

 

[Vigilante]

Speaking of ad hominems, I don't see it. I have to admit, the reason I stopped arguing here is because I felt that it was falling on deaf ears. I actually felt that no matter how good my arguments would get, there was no way the current crowd here would actually give an inch. In fact, some of the things I have said are indisputable facts and were still tossed aside outright. I was curious about the topic for a while and so I read a bit earlier and found a similar trend. People have stopped arguing with you guys over time, and it seems that the likely cause is the realization that this was going around in circles.

They are basically leaving the discussion due to being tired of arguing.

 

[xquqx]

Speaking of ad hominems, I don't see it. I have to admit, the reason I stopped arguing here is because I felt that it was falling on deaf ears. I actually felt that no matter how good my arguments would get, there was no way the current crowd here would actually give an inch. In fact, some of the things I have said are indisputable facts and were still tossed aside outright. I was curious about the topic for a while and so I read a bit earlier and found a similar trend. People have stopped arguing with you guys over time, and it seems that the likely cause is the realization that this was going around in circles.

They are basically leaving the discussion due to being tired of arguing.

I mean, it's a stupid argument because once we get through all the misconceptions and false statements, it just comes down to "I feel like the game is better with it, it feels more skillful", which no one can really argue against because it's purely subjective, so neither side gets anywhere. And then someone new will come in going "but wait guys, what if they're doing something to mess with my timing" instead of reading the thread and everything starts over.

 

[Vigilante]

I mean, it's a stupid argument because once we get through all the misconceptions and false statements, it just comes down to "I feel like the game is better with it, it feels more skillful", which no one can really argue against because it's purely subjective, so neither side gets anywhere. And then someone new will come in going "but wait guys, what if they're doing something to mess with my timing" instead of reading the thread and everything starts over.

Except doing something well and consistently is a skill. And yes, many people enjoy the act of L-canceling. The objective arguments I brought were ignored mostly. For example, I have stated that beyond the shadow of a doubt, L-canceling matters in a match, which you argued against. It is a skill-based pressure tool, both to continue and escape pressure.

 

[Ningildo]

Speaking of ad hominems, I don't see it. I have to admit, the reason is topped arguing here is because I felt that it was falling on deaf ears. I actually felt that no matter how good my arguments would get, there was no way the current crowd here would actually give an inch. In fact, some of the things I have said are indisputable facts and were still tossed aside outright. I was curious about the topic for a while and so I read a bit earlier and found a similar trend. People have stopped arguing with you guys over time, and it seems that the likely cause is the realization that this was going around in circles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only fact you've stated is, that by the definition of the word skill, l-cancelling is a skill. Then Rawkobo brought up counter points.

You've brought up points, people have attempted at counterpoints that you...never really answered. You either went with the "it's a pressure tool" route, that said that, under pressure, people fail their l-cancels (note that this tool, going with this, hinders people rather than helping them, theoretically at least). I brought up that, at high level play, these missed l-cancels do not happen. You said "see EVO" (and never said anything else as to what set I should watch) and I should find my missed l-cancels. I went to GF and found 2 and explained that, even if they had been done, there were other, more important reasons as to why they got hit or couldn't follow up. You never answered that. You made the claim that missed l-cancels happen, even at high level play, and there you do have a point. However, when I pointed out those didn't matter, you never really countered it, just "he could've gotten something". I asked in what set a missed l-cancel made a difference. Nope. All I got that was remotely close was "dude, Mango misses like 10 l-cancels a set". You'll note that in most of those, Mango still wins regardless, which implies that there are far stronger factors then l-cancelling at work that determines if someone wins.

If people providing counterpoints is "not giving an inch", then yes, the other side is not giving an inch. They did go and look for evidence to one of your claims, though.

Except doing something well and consistently is a skill. And yes, many people enjoy the act of L-canceling. The objective arguments I brought were ignored mostly. For example, I have stated that beyond the shadow of a doubt, L-canceling matters in a match, which you argued against. It is a skill-based pressure tool, both to continue and escape pressure.

First off, is l-cancelling an option? Nope! You will never want to not l-cancel, ever. Every other tech has reasons for not using it when the possibility is there, but not l-cancelling. There will never be a situation where you'd want to get extra lag on your aerials. The landing animation was already covered earlier, better options always exists over not l-cancelling, making it moot.

Secondly, what does proper l-cancelling teach you? Adjusting your button press for hitlag. That's it. Other tech do more then that. In order to properly use dash dancing, you need to be aware of your stage positioning, the opponent's effective range of attack, and, when tech chasing with it, be aware of the opponent's get up options (although this is more along the lines of tech chasing in general). For wavedashing, it's mostly the same thing, be aware of your opponent's range, your own positioning and what options you'd be able to use accounting for endlag and the gained distance. And the best part is, once you know what to look for to maximize DDing or wavedashing's effectiveness, the difficulty of doing so doesn't change, because at what ranges your opponent will be will change depending on your opponent's playstyle. Once you've mastered l-cancel timings, there's nothing there that teaches you anything and, worse, the "interactions" of the tech stop being there (it's between quotation marks because tech cause interactions by being used successfully, not by being failed).

Going off that, if auto l-cancelling would be tournament standard, what would be lost? At high level play, until proven otherwise by a certain someone with his own evidence, l-cancels are not missed. And since I've shown that, once mastered, l-cancelling doesn't provide any interactions, the only thing that would be missed is the button press.

Now, if you want to argue about pressing a button being a sign of "true skill", then I'll refer to you to Rawkobo's post:

The post being replied to is here.

I've presented my case. Again. And I'll eagerly await any counterpoints that are based upon sound logic. Hopefully not in vain, but considering the track record of the pro manual side, I'm not going to have any delusions.

Some parts you'll need to scroll up a bit for.

Now, if you can prove that missed l-cancels happen and that those missed l-cancels affected the game greatly, you'd force me to counter that. You know, I made a claim, you make counterpoints, I make counterpoints to those points and so forth. That's generally how debate goes. So I'll wait for the counterpoints.

 

[Vigilante]

I want to argue here, but the points I brought for have not been countered. I have stated how L-canceling makes a difference in a match by showing how by nature, lag makes you more vulnerable / more prone for action. You still claim it doesn't. Yet I have enver received a good counterpoint.

 

[4tlas]

I want to argue here, but the points I brought for have not been countered. I have stated how L-canceling makes a difference in a match by showing how by nature, lag makes you more vulnerable / more prone for action. You still claim it doesn't. Yet I have enver received a good counterpoint.

No, you're misunderstanding.

You say it makes you vulnerable. We say it doesn't make you vulnerable ENOUGH to MATTER. We've explained reaction time and done actual math with it, we've gone through matches that you specifically said prove your point and found no evidence, and we've discussed the game design (which is the closest to defining objective fun we're going to get). These points have gone unaddressed.

The points you have brought forth have all been countered, you just somehow missed/ignored those posts. Any lag makes you more vulnerable, yes thats math. So what? Is it ENOUGH? Even if it was, it still wouldn't prove that its a good mechanic. You'd still have to convince people that we should test a button press for the sake of testing button presses, and the game design just plain shows that this game isn't meant to do that. Even if it was, AND if you proved the mechanic mattered, it STILL wouldn't mean that its a worthwhile mechanic. It would have value then, but that value could still be less than the value of introducing new people to the scene who are turned off by L-cancelling or the elitist attitudes surrounding it.

 

[Ningildo]

I want to argue here, but the points I brought for have not been countered. I have stated how L-canceling makes a difference in a match by showing how by nature, lag makes you more vulnerable / more prone for action. You still claim it doesn't. Yet I have enver received a good counterpoint.

It's a fact that having more frames of lag is bad. But if the missed l-cancel never happens, then your point is moot.

And in the very (and I do mean very) few instances where the l-cancel was missed, it's been shown that a poor decision, not the missed l-cancel, was the reason got people punished (again, you'd need an incredibly fast reaction time to react to the missed l-cancel and that would only account for the laggier moves).

Wait, never mind. Cause l-cancelling doesn't cause a difference, missing the input does. Your statement is a lie.

It's telling when the only time your "tech" show instances of interactions between players is when it's failed. It's also a bit odd you'd call l-cancelling a tool a bit above when you would never want to not l-cancel anyway. But that's besides the point.

The reason I want an example is because, well, people don't want to miss their l-cancels. They generally don't either. And as stated above, the only time your tech can provide interactions is by missing it, and even then, there are usually more important aspects like bad spacing, poor positioning and so on that get people punished. So you'll need to provide an example where the reason someone got punished was due the missed l-cancel and nothing more, at high level play. What does messing up l-cancelling on it's own do? The only thing I'd imagine that solely be on l-cancelling is spacie shield pressure. But does that happen at high level play?

I feel the need to stress that you having to prove that failing your "tech" is punishable will prove that, somehow, your tech brings "depth" and "interaction". By failing said tech.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Vigilante, an easy way to convince the alc side would be to explain why adding l-cancel to all other moves would add value to the game.

Because if it adds depth and skill to aerial moves, it should add the same depth to others. Right?

Explaining that would help convince the alc supporters that including l canceling was a design decision based on adding skill, not just an appeal to tradition.

 

[4tlas]

Vigilante, an easy way to convince the alc side would be to explain why adding l-cancel to all other moves would add value to the game.

Because if it adds depth and skill to aerial moves, it should add the same depth to others. Right?

Explaining that would help convince the alc supporters that including l canceling was a design decision based on adding skill, not just an appeal to tradition.

Its a step, but I don't think it would be conclusive.

 

[Narpas_sword]

He would then of course have to explain why we didnt add it to other moves.

 

[Vashimus]

If PM forced me to L-cancel missiles as Samus, I definitely would've been super pissed.

 

[4tlas]

He would then of course have to explain why we didnt add it to other moves.

His explanation could be "you guys didn't follow good logic, but it would've been a good idea".

Just because something was done doesn't mean it was a good idea. Just because something was purposely avoided doesn't mean it was a bad idea. It only means it was or wasn't done

 

[Rawkobo]

I want to argue here, but the points I brought for have not been countered. I have stated how L-canceling makes a difference in a match by showing how by nature, lag makes you more vulnerable / more prone for action. You still claim it doesn't. Yet I have enver received a good counterpoint.

Because you never issued something that needed to be refuted?

The whole problem we had in the first place is that you skip steps in the logic behind MLC as a mechanic to imply its value. Yes, we all hate lag, and having something that alters our lag if we perform certain inputs or just an input should follow through as something we like and want to get better at because it should have a substantial difference.

This all sounds familiar, because it was said a few pages ago. It should do these things. But if you then follow with "Therefore, it's irrefutable that manual L-cancelling is a significant skill that should not be ejected from the game in some capacity," I would follow up with, "You said should. But should is not does. Show me it does."

This is easier said than done, because if it is "objectively true" as you say it is, then obviously, if you demonstrate to me that punishing, say, moves on block, for example, is universally better manually L-cancelled than not, then you would have a real example of it being a useful skill.

But you have to demonstrate that with every character. Because otherwise it's not objectively true, but usually true. And that, my friend, is a whole 'nother beast.

 

[xquqx]

I was at a pokemon tournament once where Hax had to have someone else hold his cards for him while he played, since his hands were so destroyed. It's a huge problem how bad this game is for hands, so I want to see some evidence that L Cancelling is not only a meaningful skill, but meaningful enough to be worth the extra hand killing.

 

[Lamesama]

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

 

[Bleck]

Vigilante's statement - that we shouldn't divide the community into ALC and MLC factions - is only valid if both viewpoints are valid, which they are not

when you observe the arguments made in favor of MLC, it boils down to "I want it", and the fact remains that, in any context, those who'd sacrifice the stability of a community to support their own stubbornness and stupidity have no place in that community