Improving game-play around L-canceling

[Pwnz0rz Man]

This thread has allowed people, that love Smash Brothers, to discuss the gameplay mechanics surrounding L-canceling. We're doing so because it's fun to discuss game-design and consider different design decisions would affect the game. This is the case whether or not the Project M devs ever make changes to L-canceling.

I'm sorry the existence of this thread enrages you to the point that you feel the need to demand it be locked. Perhaps you should go take a walk.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure there are other threads about the same thing or very close that you could have searched to add to instead of creating a brand-new thread for a topic that has been discussed multiple times already.

 

[Paquito]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure there are other threads about the same thing or very close that you could have searched to add to instead of creating a brand-new thread for a topic that has been discussed multiple times already.

This is a pretty niche forum, I imagine there wouldn't be many threads here for that broad a definition of topic.

I wanted the starting point of the discussion to be Binary's argument about l-canceling not being an interesting gameplay decision, with the intention of exploring ways it could be made an interesting gameplay decision. The knee-jerk ragers saw this thread as a petition to remove L-canceling, for some reason, and the conversation swung that way.

 

[Pwnz0rz Man]

This is a pretty niche forum, I imagine there wouldn't be many threads here for that broad a definition of topic.

I wanted the starting point of the discussion to be Binary's argument about l-canceling not being an interesting gameplay decision, with the intention of exploring ways it could be made an interesting gameplay decision. The knee-jerk ragers saw this thread as a petition to remove L-canceling, for some reason, and the conversation swung that way.

Also, to be fair. That's where every conversation regarding L-Canceling has led in the past, logically that's where this one would/will end up going.

 

[0RLY]

You know, when I first read the OP, I thought, "hey, maybe this is going to lead to something other than the l-cancel vs. no l-cancel debate."

Boy was I wrong.

Wasn't the OP trying to start a discussion about something to add onto or change to l-cancels so that they become more of a choice? So that there can be trade-offs or some technical skill involved with it?

I was interested in the 1-frame precision l-cancel for 0 landing lag. It also made me wonder, what if l-cancels could scale landing lag down depending on how close you execute it to the ground. To reward "better timed" l-cancels. This doesn't really make it a choice, but it does make it more interesting.

I thought this one up while reading the OP. What if l-cancels weaken your shield? Just by a little. This way, more aggressive shffls or djcffls reduces your defense, temporarily. Sort of. Assuming you hit, there's no need for defense. However, if you hit a shield, then you might be in a pickle. Slower characters who shffl less sort of are more advantaged defensively, though not by much since they still have more overall landing lag. This should never reduce your shield down past a certain point, as getting a random shield break while attacking wouldn't make sense.

 

[Paquito]

Also, to be fair. That's where every conversation regarding L-Canceling has led in the past, logically that's where this one would/will end up going.

This thread will rise above that!

Anyway, this was pointed out up-thread by someone, but if L-canceling were to be removed, there would be a question of whether you'd speed up the character's natural recovery to mimic an l-canceled recovery, keep the current non-canceled recovery speed, or do something in-between.

If l-canceling were to be removed, we'd definitely want the recoveries to be as fast as possible. It's true that other fighters have significant landing lag, but there are differences in those game's designs that factor in here. The prominence of platforms and easily spamable projectiles in Smash put a huge emphasis on the air game, much more so than most other fighters. Plus, Smash's ground game doesn't have as many options as other fighters, due to its simpler design. So adding a lot of landing lag is effectively nerfing player's ability to chain attacks for a big chuck of a character's attack options.

You know, when I first read the OP, I thought, "hey, maybe this is going to lead to something other than the l-cancel vs. no l-cancel debate."

Boy was I wrong.

Let's bring it back!

I thought this one up while reading the OP. What if l-cancels weaken your shield? Just by a little. This way, more aggressive shffls or djcffls reduces your defense, temporarily. Sort of. Assuming you hit, there's no need for defense. However, if you hit a shield, then you might be in a pickle. Slower characters who shffl less sort of are more advantaged defensively, though not by much since they still have more overall landing lag. This should never reduce your shield down past a certain point, as getting a random shield break while attacking wouldn't make sense.

I reallly like this idea. The longer you're chaining l-cancels, the higher risk you run of getting shield broken by an opponent's counter attack. At a certain point, you may want to consider backing off, which is the type of gameplay decisions we're looking to add here.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

Welcome to fantasy land

 

[Foo]

@ 0RLY It's bound to be that way because there is pretty much no way to change l-canceling to make it a good mechanic. There is nothing wrong to the overal game design when it comes to aggression/defense, so there's no reason to make it weaker or stronger. Any change is going to unnecessarily change the balance of the game on a grand scale. More precise L-cancels just makes it MORE arbitrary. It would also make playing out of shield annoying, because you couldn't tell how long your opponent will be lagging (this is even more true for the frame perfect 0 lag)

.

As for the other suggestion, I think that takes the game in the wrong direction. I don't see a reason to nerf aggression, that would just be taking steps towards brawl levels of defense. Melee and PM have tons of mechanics that reward agression, and that makes it fun. There's a reason everyone hates characters like Zelda and people who spam projectiles. It also nerfs nair out of shield for a lot of characters.

So what's that? This discussion has still accomplished nothing new? PMDT knows what they want to do with L-canceling. This thread isn't serving any purpose. Needs a lock tbh.

If you hate this thread that much, no one is making you read it. There's the door, please let it hit you on your way out.

Not entirely true. It depends on what move you're using for one, and for second it can **** up your timing on your fast fall which indirectly screws up your L-cancel. Admittedly this is a way bigger concern for fast fallers, but it's there.

Eh, if the lag is THAT long, you can just hit L again.

The arguments to get rid of L cancelling aren't strong, they all boil down to "i dun wanna." What positive comes out of removing L cancelling? Baddies get better without developing any muscle memory or finger dexterity? That sounds a bit counter productive no? You should also realize that even pros miss an l cancel eventually, and at that level, as well as any other, that's grounds for a punish. Arbitrary tech barriers are good things because technical skill is part of the game, ie: git gud.

It's painfully obvious you haven't read this thread at all, because that is one of the biggest strong mans ever. I am strongly against L-canceling being in the game, despite the fact that I am good at it. If you'd watch the video I linked, you'd see that. Tell me, why should new players need to l-cancel to get better? What does it add to the game? Stuff like wavedashing, raring, dashdancing, shffling (minus l cancel) and etc. all are nessecary, but there's no reason.




Anyway, I still know that it won't change, 'cause melee. If melee didn't have l-canceling, this game wouldn't either, but it did so it will. People don't like change, even if it doesn't effect them in any way.

 

[0RLY]

@ Foo I agree that the suggestion appears as a nerf to aggression. I intended it to balance the power of aggression between fast characters and slow characters.

If you're the aggressor, you should be worried about your spacing on your shffls, not the size of your shield. That is what ultimately gets you punished in the end. The shield damage from a successful l-cancel shouldn't reduce shield health by much. I'm thinking less than a jab's worth. I have no idea how shield health is measured, so idk what's a good reference value. Assuming you shffl and narrowly miss, you're likely going to try to shield. In this case, your shield isn't that much different from before.

What does have a strong effect is repeated shffls or djcffls. So that means you're slightly more vulnerable after succeeding a good combo. In this scenario, there's no threat because your opponent is likely in no situation to punish you. You'd have to screw up your finisher for this to even pose a threat. In which case, you deserve to be punished, right?

Would this threaten aggressive play? I don't think so. The only time it really affects you is if you screw up badly. If you're worried about screwing up badly, then perhaps you're playing the wrong game, yeah?

Would this add depth? Probably not. I would choose shield damage over landing lag any day.

 

[Cedricwa]

I am definitely for L canceling. @ Foo New players learning to l-cancel is a good thing. It's a technique that can just make a player better, so not everyone is on the same level of gameplay. It's an element that makes the game harder to get better at. If there were no advanced techs, ssb wouldn't be as competitive as it is. Another reason l-canceling is good is that it speeds up the game. Faster gameplay is more intense and more challenging. If there were no l-canceling, like in brawl, there would be moves that people never use. Such as Link's down A for example. If you miss that with no l-cancel you're screwed, but with the l-cancel you're fine for the most part. It's more fun to be able to have more freedom and choice of what your character does in the game.

 

[Foo]

@ Foo I agree that the suggestion appears as a nerf to aggression. I intended it to balance the power of aggression between fast characters and slow characters.

If you're the aggressor, you should be worried about your spacing on your shffls, not the size of your shield. That is what ultimately gets you punished in the end. The shield damage from a successful l-cancel shouldn't reduce shield health by much. I'm thinking less than a jab's worth. I have no idea how shield health is measured, so idk what's a good reference value. Assuming you shffl and narrowly miss, you're likely going to try to shield. In this case, your shield isn't that much different from before.

What does have a strong effect is repeated shffls or djcffls. So that means you're slightly more vulnerable after succeeding a good combo. In this scenario, there's no threat because your opponent is likely in no situation to punish you. You'd have to screw up your finisher for this to even pose a threat. In which case, you deserve to be punished, right?

Would this threaten aggressive play? I don't think so. The only time it really affects you is if you screw up badly. If you're worried about screwing up badly, then perhaps you're playing the wrong game, yeah?

Would this add depth? Probably not. I would choose shield damage over landing lag any day.

It doesn't just appear as a nerf, it just straight up is. Your suggestion makes shffling inherently worse than it would be otherwise. Since shffling is primarily an aggro tool, it nerfs aggro by proxy. Your suggestion punishes players for being agressive and nerfs shffl heavy characters in particular (like ZSS) Let's draw up a hypothetical. I'm playing ZSS against a Zelda player. In this matchup, I have to play agressive and Zelda has to play defensively.

Since zero suits primary approach options are shffling, so I have to shffl spaced aerials into her shield or use the less safe spaced downsmash or grab approaches. After successfully landing a nair, I string into a short combo that puts her on a platform and I position to keep her at disadvantage above me. She tries to catch me off guard with a shield drop lighting kick, but I see it coming/react to it and block it.

1. PM 3.0: I block the kick, and can punish OOS
2. Your build: I get shield poked by lighting kick and potentially die

Why should I get punished for shffling? I don't get it. Aerials aren't OP, and even if they were, this would be a dumb way to nerf it. I just... ek. I am trying to use nothing but logical, well thought out arguments, but the thought of punishing players for using L-canceling in any way just seems pants-on-head ******** to me.

Why does L-canceling need to be in the game anyway? The only valid argument I've heard is that it "feels good" when you master it, but that seems like stockholms syndrome to me lawl

I am definitely for L canceling. @ Foo New players learning to l-cancel is a good thing. It's a technique that can just make a player better, so not everyone is on the same level of gameplay. It's an element that makes the game harder to get better at. If there were no advanced techs, ssb wouldn't be as competitive as it is. Another reason l-canceling is good is that it speeds up the game. Faster gameplay is more intense and more challenging. If there were no l-canceling, like in brawl, there would be moves that people never use. Such as Link's down A for example. If you miss that with no l-cancel you're screwed, but with the l-cancel you're fine for the most part. It's more fun to be able to have more freedom and choice of what your character does in the game.

1. Why does this game need to be harder to get better at? What purpose does that serve? So you can feel superior to people who've put less time into the game? I hate to break it to you, but if you are only beating someone because they don't l-cancel and you do, you deserve to lose. Since L-canceling is so important, anyone half-way decent is forced to learn to do it.

2. Let's not strawman here. Taking away l-canceling does not equal taking away advanced techs. Every other single advanced tech in smash is something I am strongly in favor of (except maybe dacusing, that seems harder than it needs to be, but idk.) l-canceling is unique because it is just an arbitrary button press. It doesn't add options, it's just something you have to do.

3. I know there's a lot of posts, but please read them before you try to refute someone's point. With l-canceling gone, every single aerial will have half it's natural landing lag. Effectively, all aerials are l-cancelled. Nothing in high level play would change save for less often tech errors.

 

[Cedricwa]

@ Foo I admit I was lazy and didn't read this whole thread. aha. And I dunno, I guess I just like it because I'm used to it. I disagree though with if someone is only winning because they're l-canceling then they don't deserve to. It's a simple thing that the other player can do as well, such as teching when hitting the ground.

 

[Paquito]

Why does L-canceling need to be in the game anyway? The only valid argument I've heard is that it "feels good" when you master it, but that seems like stockholms syndrome to me lawl

Playing at a competitive level demands not only technical expertise, but consistency in your performance. Under the stress of an important match, if you miss an lcancel, that leaves you vulnerable and makes it harder for you to follow up on your last attack. Capitalizing on mistakes like that are what makes for exciting moments in tournament play.

Removing lcanceling takes away from that element of the game

 

[0RLY]

It doesn't just appear as a nerf, it just straight up is. Your suggestion makes shffling inherently worse than it would be otherwise. Since shffling is primarily an aggro tool, it nerfs aggro by proxy. Your suggestion punishes players for being agressive and nerfs shffl heavy characters in particular (like ZSS) Let's draw up a hypothetical. I'm playing ZSS against a Zelda player. In this matchup, I have to play agressive and Zelda has to play defensively.

Since zero suits primary approach options are shffling, so I have to shffl spaced aerials into her shield or use the less safe spaced downsmash or grab approaches. After successfully landing a nair, I string into a short combo that puts her on a platform and I position to keep her at disadvantage above me. She tries to catch me off guard with a shield drop lighting kick, but I see it coming/react to it and block it.

1. PM 3.0: I block the kick, and can punish OOS
2. Your build: I get shield poked by lighting kick and potentially die

Why should I get punished for shffling? I don't get it. Aerials aren't OP, and even if they were, this would be a dumb way to nerf it. I just... ek. I am trying to use nothing but logical, well thought out arguments, but the thought of punishing players for using L-canceling in any way just seems pants-on-head ******** to me.

Dude. In no way am I trying to make this shield damage significant. I'm talking about a barely noticeable drop in shield health. Like less than or equal to just flashing your shield for 1 or 2 frames. I don't even like this idea. I just wanted to promote some discussion, not attract this flame. Also, you should totally upsmash if zelda is in a platform tech situation. The alternative would be to crouch, such that zelda cannot lightning kick as early as she normally could to hit you, thus giving you time to react and crawl into a cc sourspot kick.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Have none of you ever actually played the game? Go pillar a shield for awhile with Fox/Falco. L cancelling already has depth! The timing changes depending on whether or not your attack whiffs, if it hits, and where it hits on shield - this means the opponent can purposefully make L cancelling harder by moving his shield up or down to change your timing. If you miss an L cancel, its an opportunity for a punish, and it happens at every level of play including the highest. L cancelling is absolutely an interactive element and every time this comes up I respect the community less.

I don't see how this is a debate. Obviously you WANT to L cancel every time, just like how you want to nail your ledgedash perfectly every time.

Edit: shield damage is also a terrible idea. "You pulled off consistent, technically demanding offense? Well, here's punishment for that!" Its like the rage mechanic, or giving bullet bills to the last place players. Its a really minor type of rubber band mechanic which is always terrible imo.

 

[krazyzyko]

What if your aerial auto cancels if it hits someone or something. And you have to L-cancel if it whiffs.

 

[Fortress]

What if your aerial auto cancels if it hits someone or something. And you have to L-cancel if it whiffs.

That's basically Turbo Mode on aerials, and I don't think you want to know what Fox drillshine sans shine looks like.

 

[Revolution6 aka alterego]

What if your aerial auto cancels if it hits someone or something. And you have to L-cancel if it whiffs.

it's exists it's called lucario

 

[Stalled]

Technical complexity, even as a result of arbitrary technical barriers, adds to the skill ceiling. You don't have to choose to l cancel because you always should l cancel and missing one will leave you vulnerable. So it's a measure of skill, its a fundamental tech. No change to L canceling makes sense. Of those suggested, reduced landing lag based on when you l cancel fails because this game isn't designed around people having 0 landing lag. Any negative associated with l canceling (shield damage and reduced knockback/damage were suggested) would be bad design because you're punishing someone for doing something they are supposed to.

The disagreement here seems to stem from a fundamental difference in logic, one camp doesn't want to have good fundamentals and the other camp understands that L canceling is an important part of the game because having good fundamentals makes a good player.

 

[Foo]

Have none of you ever actually played the game? Go pillar a shield for awhile with Fox/Falco. L cancelling already has depth! The timing changes depending on whether or not your attack whiffs, if it hits, and where it hits on shield - this means the opponent can purposefully make L cancelling harder by moving his shield up or down to change your timing. If you miss an L cancel, its an opportunity for a punish, and it happens at every level of play including the highest. L cancelling is absolutely an interactive element and every time this comes up I respect the community less.

I don't see how this is a debate. Obviously you WANT to L cancel every time, just like how you want to nail your ledgedash perfectly every time.

Unless you can't hit L at least once every 7 frames, this doesn't matter. It's also not a mixup, it just makes it every so slightly harder. 7 frames is more than enough time, especially with fast fallers like fox and falco. I have drill pressured with both of them into shield to make my hands faster, and didn't really notice a difference going into a shield or not. Your claim that this happens at high level play seems extremely fraudulent, seeing as tilting your shield will change the timing by one frame max. You'll need many sources to prove that claim.

As for the ledge dashing, that is completely different. Yes, of course you want to do things correctly captain obvious. Removing L canceling isn't about "I don't want to do things right" it's about "Why do I have to hit L before hitting the ground after using an aerial? What purpose does it serve?" It's just an arbitrary button press. Even if the timing can change, it's still an arbitrary button press.

Now, for ledge dashing. Name a more simple input for ledgedashing that doesn't remove options. If you, say, pressed grab to ledge dash, it would limit the angles and timings you could use. Same goes for every non-lcanceling tech in the game. If you make the inputs more simple, you'll remove options. However, if you take the l out of shffling, it will serve the same function, have the same options, and will be functionally identical. Imagine if every time you ledge dashed you had to hit downcstick before you contacted the stage otherwise you would have double landing lag. It'd be exactly the same in competetive play, because everyone would learn to do it, but it would add NOTHING to the game.

@ 0RLY If it's not significant, then what's the point? Also, ZSS upsmash is complete and utter garbage, you can DI out of it by holding any direction but up or down, you don't even need to SDI. Not to mention, crouching still leaves me vunerable to lighting kick, it can hit low enough.

What if your aerial auto cancels if it hits someone or something. And you have to L-cancel if it whiffs.

I assume you don't actually mean auto cancel, and mean auto-lcancel. Autocanceling would put it at normal landing lag (a few frames).

Technical complexity, even as a result of arbitrary technical barriers, adds to the skill ceiling. You don't have to choose to l cancel because you always should l cancel and missing one will leave you vulnerable. So it's a measure of skill, its a fundamental tech. No change to L canceling makes sense. Of those suggested, reduced landing lag based on when you l cancel fails because this game isn't designed around people having 0 landing lag. Any negative associated with l canceling (shield damage and reduced knockback/damage were suggested) would be bad design because you're punishing someone for doing something they are supposed to.

The disagreement here seems to stem from a fundamental difference in logic, one camp doesn't want to have good fundamentals and the other camp understands that L canceling is an important part of the game because having good fundamentals makes a good player.

It technically adds to the skill ceiling, but what does that add to the game? While it's technically a "skill" it's unnecessary. Smash could have a much higher skill ceiling if L-canceling and teching was a 3 frame window, you had to do a quarter circle on the analog stick to preform a dacus, and smash attacks required you to hit foward, b, z, and a at the same time. Would this make the game harder? A little. Would it add anything? No.

As for that second paragraph, HOLY !@#$ING STRAWMAN BATMAN . Nobody is saying L-canceling because they don't want to learn fundamentals. That is a total farce. I am the most vocal opposition to l-canceling on this forum and I am good at l-canceling. I'm not perfect, but I don't struggle with it in the slightest: http://youtu.be/cB08tC8DW_k?t=35s

Also, your logic makes no sense: It's important for L canceling to be in the game because you need to do it to be good. How does that make L-canceling important?

 

[Rhubarbo]

The reason I personally want l-cancelling in Project M is because I believe Smash Bros. is relatively too simple. Compared to other fighting games, or even some shooters, Smash Bros. isn't that technically demanding. L-cancelling adds some physicality to compensate in this department. Simply put, it feels good to smooth out your aerials by "precisely" pressing R (only heathens use L); it makes game play more tangible.

Let's ask another question, now - What if you always teched, no matter what? You could argue that intentionally missing a tech is a provisional move, but you would lose. Auto-teching would eliminate that satisfying "oomph" you feel whenever you shrug off a big hit with a skilfully timed press of R. For this reason, I think l-cancelling has merit as it stands.

If we built a Smash game from the ground up, maybe we could come up with a better system for technical execution - one that poses failure like l-cancelling, but also offers multiple options in and of it self. However, this isn't feasible within the scope of Project M because it would alienate Melee players and risk upsetting the Project M faithful who have resoundingly accepted l-cancelling as is.

 

[Stalled]

missing a tech allows you to getup attack or delay your intangibility frames so it's not really comparable

It technically adds to the skill ceiling, but what does that add to the game? While it's technically a "skill" it's unnecessary. Smash could have a much higher skill ceiling if L-canceling and teching was a 3 frame window, you had to do a quarter circle on the analog stick to preform a dacus, and smash attacks required you to hit foward, b, z, and a at the same time. Would this make the game harder? A little. Would it add anything? No.

As for that second paragraph, HOLY !@#$ING STRAWMAN BATMAN . Nobody is saying L-canceling because they don't want to learn fundamentals. That is a total farce. I am the most vocal opposition to l-canceling on this forum and I am good at l-canceling. I'm not perfect, but I don't struggle with it in the slightest: http://youtu.be/cB08tC8DW_k?t=35s

Also, your logic makes no sense: It's important for L canceling to be in the game because you need to do it to be good. How does that make L-canceling important?

It adds the existence of long landing lag when someone fails an l cancel.

 

[Thor]

Technical complexity, even as a result of arbitrary technical barriers, adds to the skill ceiling. You don't have to choose to l cancel because you always should l cancel and missing one will leave you vulnerable. So it's a measure of skill, its a fundamental tech. No change to L canceling makes sense. Of those suggested, reduced landing lag based on when you l cancel fails because this game isn't designed around people having 0 landing lag. Any negative associated with l canceling (shield damage and reduced knockback/damage were suggested) would be bad design because you're punishing someone for doing something they are supposed to.

The disagreement here seems to stem from a fundamental difference in logic, one camp doesn't want to have good fundamentals and the other camp understands that L canceling is an important part of the game because having good fundamentals makes a good player.

Your button mashing isn't good fundamentals - good fundamentals are the ability to space out your opponents, space and properly time aerials, effectively cover recovery options, and recover effectively.

The obsession with skill ceiling as a result of pushing APMs just strikes me as totally wrong-headed.

Here's your post rewritten as someone might defend auto-cancelling only:

"You don't have to choose to auto-cancel because you always should autocancel and missing one will leave you vulnerable. So it's a measure of skill, it's a fundamental tech. No addition of lag cancelling makes sense.

The difference here stems from a fundamental difference in logic, one camp doesn't want to have good fundamentals and would rather lag cancel everything via buttons and the other camp understands that properly timing aerials to autocancel is an important part of the game because having good fundamentals makes a good player."

Eerily similar, and somehow reads like an argument for never including L-cancelling in the first place, because the players with good fundamentals will just space and time things to auto-cancel.

On another note: A while back, I had stomped players in Melee as Link who were using Falco and Fox and L-cancelling everything and pillaring my shield to hell and waveshining me when I could barely L-cancel dair and never wavedashed. Why? Because button mashing on someone's shield or characteer or the empty air isn't a sign of good fundamentals - spacing them out, making your hits count and following up for what you can get (or avoiding a punish if you're minus on hit), mixing up options to avoid getting called out and punished, and gimping/recovering wisely are the fundamentals I had. As a result, I had far more of the fundamentals down than they [and only at a basic level, really], but it was more than enough to beat technical scrubs. Tech skill doesn't breed good fundamentals - it only breeds an emphasis on tech skill.

Spoiler

Incidentally, that's why Melee draws in more people than Brawl - Melee has people get stomped by flashy players and n00bs are told "Get technical" when that won't actually help **** because their fundamentals suck, but they start to fix fundamentals over time. In Brawl people get stomped by efficient players and n00bs think "This game is cheap" and quit.

One more thing: You state tech skill = fundamentals? You could give a n00b the best "fundamentals" on the planet in Smash 64, with all the DJCs or double QAs or jab-grabs or tent combos in the world, and they'd be stomped by Isai every single time. Why? They don't have the fundamentals that actually matter, which are the ones I listed above.

Tech skill is a byproduct of learning good spacing, having control over your character - learning to hit shield as you land is not a fundamental, it's just an extra (inane) action that Melee forced on people so they now valorize its existence in PM.

EDIT: Always teching is not comparable to L-cancelling being automatic because there is incentive to sometimes miss a tech (i.e. when you would bounce offstage and then be less vulnerable to a sweetspot knee from Falcon, for instance), but there is never an incentive to miss an L-cancel.

 

[Comprehend13]

Technical complexity, even as a result of arbitrary technical barriers, adds to the skill ceiling.

Nitpick:
Technical complexity can either raise the skill ceiling or the skill floor. In the context of manual vs automatic L canceling, manual L canceling raises the skill floor. Character potential is the same under both implementations, but with automatic L canceling the technical prowess required to play the game competently is less.

 

[Ganreizu]

there is never an incentive to miss an L-cancel.

Baits, mind-games, and conditioning.

 

[menotyou135]

Removing it is definitely not the answer. If you are going to do that to remove the technical barrier, there is an easier solution.

Make it where if you L-cancel early, you get a minor l-cancel. Something like 25% faster rather than 50. To counteract this, we could make it where if you L-cancel the frame before hitting the ground you get a perfect L-cancel which completely negates landing lag.

Even that is kinda silly though. I think it is just something that people should learn.

 

[Fortress]

Just a personal opinion here, but the only way L-Cancelling could be improved is to be removed. I get that the topic at hand isn't for or against its removal, but that's what it's going to boil down to. There's simply no middle ground between the two, and having some kind of 'half-L-cancel' is the same thing as having L-Cancelling as-is; you get an aerial that is either safe/not as safe based on an input.

Sure, it's not that hard to learn, but the point is that you shouldn't have to learn to make your aerials safe. The focus should be on the player knowing whether-or-not their aerials are safe, not on being able to perform them. I've taught a lot of new players, both with little or no experience in the game, and after learning SHFFL or any portion including the L-cancel, the same thing happens; lots, and lots, and lots of aerials start coming out. Just because a player can make their aerials safe on-landing does not mean they know when it is safe to attempt using them, and that's where I think a major failing of the L-Cancel mechanic lies. It's a mechanic that doesn't do anything to advance the game (save for having slightly faster fingers), and does (whether or not you notice it) drive a lot of focus during your early time playing in whether-or-not you can hit a needless input, not letting you think far enough ahead to if you even should've attempted your move.

L-cancelling doesn't lead to smart play. There's no situation save from a few specific auto-cancels where asking the question "should I L-Cancel" is going to be worth your trouble, so, what's the point of that archaic mechanic? Increase the skill ceiling? Nah, everybody who's played for some decent amount of time and is at least dedicated to the game can or will be able to do it sooner or later, and you simply cannot succeed at the top levels without it, so why have players spending so much time focusing on it? I'm telling you, smarter play comes from simplified execution of it.

 

[Thor]

Baits, mind-games, and conditioning.

Because top players are only capable of punishing missed L-cancels. I'm sure M2K and Mango both love it when you try to condition them that you miss L-cancels by giving them your first stock.

Your conditioning of top-level players must have one hell of a payoff, since I've literally never seen this strategy from any high-level player work EVER.

...

Oh wait... maybe that's because it just doesn't.

It's an impediment to those who haven't played Melee/PM for 5+ years, but irrelevant to those where it actually matters. It thus (as Comprehend13 pointed out) will raise the skill floor, but not the skill ceiling.

 

[Fortress]

Because top players are only capable of punishing missed L-cancels. I'm sure M2K and Mango both love it when you try to condition them that you miss L-cancels by giving them your first stock.

This. It's a comparable statement to "I'm going to play Ryu, and really trick my opponent by not throwing a single low or fireball, and halfway into the match, I will! They'll be so tricked."

Read-As: "I'm not going to do this thing I need to be doing 110% of the time, and see if that throws my opponent off."

Alternatively: "I'm not going to use this technique that absolutely must be used at this level of play to throw my opponent off."

Neither of those make sense, do they?

Baits, mind-games, and conditioning.

It's one thing to say something like "I'm going to get really intense with my throw game with Sheik, and then back off as I leave them enough rope to hang themselves with so as to open them up for a big mistake", and to say "I'm going to use that thing to make my moves usable, and then stop doing that".

There is literally no reason to not be using that thing that makes your moves usable in the first place, and that's where my point lies. L-cancelling, when not done, leaves you more open to punishment. Before you can even think about whether-or-not your move was punishable through framedata or predictability, you have to think of (and input correctly) an L-Cancel each time you want to do an aerial, and that detracts from a lot of the depth and experience of the whole thing. Sure, it doesn't sound hard to do that since it's basically habit, but it doesn't exactly bring anything to the table, either. It leads to thoughts just like yours of "well, I can change my options, and mix my opponent up". That's a good thought process to have, but not the right way to apply it. You don't apply a mixup in a way such that you present yourself for huge punishment.

There is nothing that can justify this mechanic being in the game outside of "bcuz maylay, been here for 13 years now", and the PMDT has more power than anybody out there to not only remove this mechanic, but justify the reasons for it and build a stronger game because of it. Yeah, it's kind of an extreme change to even consider, us being so used to this mechanic, but it wouldn't make us worse players at all, and would make the game more accessible and allow for some more thought behind utilizing your moveset.

 

[Rhubarbo]

Instead of just harping on l-cancelling, I think we should supply a possible alternative, replacement tech. Tech skill's a big part of what makes Smash fun, so we can't just go about chopping it out. Since l-cancelling is a major part of Smash's tech, I think it requires something equally presiding/repetitive as a replacement.

The catch is, you can't make major changes like this in Project M. Ubiquitous changes would require creative direction. The PMDT possesses limited creative direction because it's developed by many fans, and its largely bound by its source material and the community that loves it. Collaboratively developing new fundamental mechanics is impossible because a loud group of fans will shut anything down before they can be forced to adapt (sometimes for the best).

Since gutting tech skill is undesirable and implementing change is impractical, we're probably gonna be stuck with l-cancelling in the long run. The good thing is, it's not that bad of a mechanic!

 

[Fortress]

It's not that it's a bad mechanic, it's that it's a dumb one, an unnecessary one. Performing it does something good for your character, not performing it does the opposite. Again, not a bad mechanic since technically it benefits your character, but it is the only technique I can think of that is both positive for the character and not necessary. It is, simply put, superfluous.

There is, again, no reason to not perform this technique, so it is to everybody's benefit (and every character's benefit) to standardize the landing lag among the cast. There's no catch to it, there's no 'gigantic change' that anybody would have to get used to. It's removing something in order to speed up the play (or, rather, keep it at the same pace). It is removing a negative option for all characters that literally nobody chooses. It is always giving the player the best choice for something that they all choose anyway. It's streamlining the experience, which has been one thing Project M has been offering since day one. Keeping poor design choices around just because they've been around do not make those choices good ones. I'm positive that if you ask people if they'd want a "PRESS ME TO NOT LOSE" button that must be pressed every time they attack they'd tell you no.

You could have everybody and their dog agree that being able to halve your landing lag on an input is fantastic, but there is no reason anybody could argue for "would you like to have a choice between having twenty-eight frames of landing lag and fourteen? Or just fourteen?". Absolutely no reason. Seriously, ask yourself that, and try to convince yourself that this is a sound technique that has something serious to offer to this game after years, and years, and years (over a decade) of development. Ask yourself, "would I rather have to choose between landing with 15 frames of lag, or 30, or just land with 15". What would you rather do? Why do you even want the option there to land more slowly? You never hear a commentator point out that "that was such a sweet L-Cancel" because everybody's doing it and is supposed to be doing it. It is not an impressive-to-behold technique, or one that is worth mentioning. It's worth mentioning even more when somebody does not perform this technique than when they do.

There's no alternative or replacement technique. "Land with 25% the effectiveness of an L-Cancel, like somebody suggested". So, what, we end up with choosing between landing as fast as we can, or more slowly than that. Ask yourself a third time now, "would I rather land as quickly as I could, or have the choice to be more punishable". Does it still sound like you'd choose the second option, ever? Out of tradition's sake? You'd hold back the game because that's what you're used to?

On the subject of gutting technical skill. 'Technical skill' refers to, of course, being able to perform a variety of techniques to at least a high degree of success, and being able to apply these techniques in the most applicable of situations. A technique in itself does not present the player with any higher degree of skill until they are of course able to perform it, and beyond that apply it in the manner that allows them to dominate their opponent with no room for them to counter you. Let's look at some common techniques, and the gist of them.

Wavedashing: an unorthodox movement option allowing for surgical spacing of moves, fast fake-out options, and attacks while moving. Technique usefulness varies character-to-character, it not being a universal need-to-know technique. There is some lag associated with the technique, and as distances/speeds vary, certain characters will benefit more strongly than others, and some benefit more strongly in certain situations.

Perfect Shielding: a mechanic through which you block an attack on the frame your shield is activated, akin to a Parry. Allows the character blocking to react instantly, taking no shield-knockback or shield damage. Precise timing is required to master this technique, and the timing is universal through the cast. There is no reason to not do this 100% of the time (though, it would be extremely improbable to do so).

Fast Falling: A movement technique involving a motion on the control stick to speed up your character's decent during any of the types of jumps. Allows for specific hitboxes (and only specific hitboxes) to be active during certain moves, providing certain applications for autocancel windows. Allows for various timing options with attacks, giving the attacker another mixup tool. Speeds and timings vary through the cast, and they are non-universal.

L-Cancelling: A technique that reduces the landing lag of aerial normals by half. Any aerial normal can be L-Cancelled, and is a technique that is strongly encouraged to learn early on so as to speed up your game and leave fewer opportunities for punishment. The timing on the actual cancel is universal throughout the cast, and the benefit is the same (halving landing lag). There is no reason to not perform this technique 100% of the time, and is not difficult to do so.

Now that we're through with that, look at each of those techniques, and tell me what would be lost by removing each of them. The list for removing L-Cancelling is a lot shorter, isn't it? Removing L-Cancelling and standardizing landing lag rates at their L-Cancelled rates removes nothing from the experience since everybody worth mentioning is doing it to begin with.

 

[Paquito]

Removing L-Cancelling and standardizing landing lag rates at their L-Cancelled rates removes nothing from the experience

False. See my point about consistency:

Playing at a competitive level demands not only technical expertise, but consistency in your performance. Under the stress of an important match, if you miss an lcancel, that leaves you vulnerable and makes it harder for you to follow up on your last attack. Capitalizing on mistakes like that are what makes for exciting moments in tournament play.

Removing lcanceling takes away from that element of the game

 

[0RLY]

If it's not significant, then what's the point? Also, ZSS upsmash is complete and utter garbage, you can DI out of it by holding any direction but up or down, you don't even need to SDI. Not to mention, crouching still leaves me vunerable to lighting kick, it can hit low enough.

The point is to get this thread back on topic instead of l-cancel vs no l-cancel debates.

Up-b instead then. The purpose of the crouch is to give you the time to react to see Zelda dropping through the platform. Then you will know her intention and be able to react properly. If she didn't drop through, a crouch is a no-commit action so you will still be able to react with whatever you want.

 

[Thor]

Instead of just harping on l-cancelling, I think we should supply a possible alternative, replacement tech. Tech skill's a big part of what makes Smash fun, so we can't just go about chopping it out. Since l-cancelling is a major part of Smash's tech, I think it requires something equally presiding/repetitive as a replacement.

The catch is, you can't make major changes like this in Project M. Ubiquitous changes would require creative direction. The PMDT possesses limited creative direction because it's developed by many fans, and its largely bound by its source material and the community that loves it. Collaboratively developing new fundamental mechanics is impossible because a loud group of fans will shut anything down before they can be forced to adapt (sometimes for the best).

Since gutting tech skill is undesirable and implementing change is impractical, we're probably gonna be stuck with l-cancelling in the long run. The good thing is, it's not that bad of a mechanic!

We have short-hopping, shield-angling, powershielding, wavedashing (and all its angles, and ledgedashing and haxdashing for some), JC grabs, boost grabs, DACUS, RAR, glide tossing, aerial glide tossing, crouch-cancelling, dash-dancing, moonwalking (for some), OoS up+B and OoS usmash, pivot _____ [ex Pivot fsmash, pivot dtilt, whatever], random tech certain characters do (float/hover cancelling, fast-like tree grabbing [technically anyone can, but it's mainly a Marth thing, and doesn't seem terribly prevalent even for him], QAC, and there's more I haven't listed...

Does L-cancelling really add that much that it's the difference between a game being fun and not? I don't think so. I also disagree that tech skill is what makes Smash fun in the first place, but I don't think either of us is going to budge on that opinion so I'll agree to disagree. Genuine question: I take it that means you dislike Brawl and Smash 4, since neither of them have L-cancelling and there isn't an obvious replacement mechanic for it?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The reason I personally want l-cancelling in Project M is because I believe Smash Bros. is relatively too simple. Compared to other fighting games, or even some shooters, Smash Bros. isn't that technically demanding. L-cancelling adds some physicality to compensate in this department. Simply put, it feels good to smooth out your aerials by "precisely" pressing R (only heathens use L); it makes game play more tangible.

Let's ask another question, now - What if you always teched, no matter what? You could argue that intentionally missing a tech is a provisional move, but you would lose. Auto-teching would eliminate that satisfying "oomph" you feel whenever you shrug off a big hit with a skilfully timed press of R. For this reason, I think l-cancelling has merit as it stands.

If we built a Smash game from the ground up, maybe we could come up with a better system for technical execution - one that poses failure like l-cancelling, but also offers multiple options in and of it self. However, this isn't feasible within the scope of Project M because it would alienate Melee players and risk upsetting the Project M faithful who have resoundingly accepted l-cancelling as is.

There are reasons to not tech in some situations, legitimate reasons.

There is no situation you do not L-Cancel.

Oh and yes, making smash bros harder without adding depth is inherently stupid. Make the game harder while adding some depth in options or gameplay. L-Canceling is a tacked on one that is an additional reason why I don't like how a few things in PM are designed.

 

[Foo]

The point is to get this thread back on topic instead of l-cancel vs no l-cancel debates.

Up-b instead then. The purpose of the crouch is to give you the time to react to see Zelda dropping through the platform. Then you will know her intention and be able to react properly. If she didn't drop through, a crouch is a no-commit action so you will still be able to react with whatever you want.

If you want the thread to be about that, then someone will have to make an L-Cancel suggestion that isn't completely awful

(Up=b would be a bad option, if she did ANYTHING but shield drop or jump within a precise window, I eat a lightning kick. Up-b is relatively laggy and punishable. As for crouching, nothing ZSS has that comes out fast enough would beat lighting kick. Shield is easily the best option.)

 

[EddyBearr]

Missed L-cancels should be punished, adding skill to the punishing side in the least. Likewise, in competitive/tournament settings, L-Cancels make for a litmus test of how well a player handles stress. Likewise, you can do things to make your opponent less likely to L-Cancel properly, such as tilting the shield or putting needles/etc. on the ground. And, from the executioner, it also adds a small bit of skill in regards to reacting to "earlier L-Cancel due to whiff or later due to hitting the opponent."

I'd prefer L-cancelling be kept than it be lost. If it was lost, the combo game should be toned down so things aren't too free.

 

[Rhubarbo]

There are reasonsto not tech in some situations, legitimate reasons.

There is no situation you do not L-Cancel.

Oh and yes, making smash bros harder without adding depth is inherently stupid. Make the game harder while adding some depth in options or gameplay. L-Canceling is a tacked on one that is an additional reason why I don't like how a few things in PM are designed.

There are very few reasons to not tech, and all of them come down to mind games. It's a niche option. Granted, teching doesn't exactly line up with l-cancelling because there are many more situations in which skipping a tech is viable opposed to not l-cancelling; 0.1>0.01, you know.

How about this: What if you automatically teched unless you pressed L/R?

Execution barrier can be depth. Depth doesn't have to involve foresight or intense thought. Depth, like competitiveness, is more or less a buzzword these days.

We have to take into account what we want in Smash Bros. Many fans want strategy, and many fans also want tech skill. L-cancelling increases technical depth. Yes, l-cancelling doesn't make the game more strategic, but it makes it twitchier. For example, many players like pressing many buttons to perform combos because it feels viscerally intense - By pressing many buttons, you frantically interface with the game as your character frantically interacts with his opponent. In this way, l-cancelling succeeds at making the game more interactive/fun.

I would love it if someone came up with a better piece of tech to replace l-cancelling, but no one has. Right now, opponents against l-cancelling are clamoring for unilateral removal, which amounts to gutting the game. As it stands, l-cancelling is an accepted mechanic whether you think it's stupid or not, so your best bet at removing it is offering a more compelling piece of tech skill.

 

[Foo]

There are very few reasons to not tech, and all of them come down to mind games. It's a niche option. Granted, teching doesn't exactly line up with l-cancelling because there are many more situations in which skipping a tech is viable opposed to not l-cancelling; 0.1>0.01, you know.

How about this: What if you automatically teched unless you pressed L/R?

Execution barrier can be depth. Depth doesn't have to involve foresight or intense thought. Depth, like competitiveness, is more or less a buzzword these days.

We have to take into account what we want in Smash Bros. Many fans want strategy, and many fans also want tech skill. L-cancelling increases technical depth. Yes, l-cancelling doesn't make the game more strategic, but it makes it twitchier. For example, many players like pressing many buttons to perform combos because it feels viscerally intense - By pressing many buttons, you frantically interface with the game as your character frantically interacts with his opponent. In this way, l-cancelling succeeds at making the game more interactive/fun.

I would love it if someone came up with a better piece of tech to replace l-cancelling, but no one has. Right now, opponents against l-cancelling are clamoring for unilateral removal, which amounts to gutting the game. As it stands, l-cancelling is an accepted mechanic whether you think it's stupid or not, so your best bet at removing it is offering a more compelling piece of tech skill.

Teching also has prediction options to it as well. If you predict you are about to get shined, or fsmashed or whatever, you can hold down and L to tech it. However, if you guess wrong and they chose a slower/faster option, you will miss the tech. Someone tried to apply that logic to L-canceling with shield tilting, but the ONE FRAME that that changes doesn't matter.

Smash is incredibly technical even without L-Canceling, so removing it won't change that. I want smash to be a technical AND strategic as well. However, smash doesn't need to artificially boost its tech skill.

Missed L-cancels should be punished, adding skill to the punishing side in the least. Likewise, in competitive/tournament settings, L-Cancels make for a litmus test of how well a player handles stress. Likewise, you can do things to make your opponent less likely to L-Cancel properly, such as tilting the shield or putting needles/etc. on the ground. And, from the executioner, it also adds a small bit of skill in regards to reacting to "earlier L-Cancel due to whiff or later due to hitting the opponent."

I'd prefer L-cancelling be kept than it be lost. If it was lost, the combo game should be toned down so things aren't too free.

WTF?!?!?! Why would we tone down combos because l-canceling is gone?!?! It's already so easy... Removing it will make combos a little easier, but in no way would warrant a nerf. That implies that good players regularly drop combos because of missed L cancels at even top levels of play. That doesn't even hold true at my locals (with the exception of lower finishers) and EVEN I"M GOOD ENOUGH TO TOP THERE (if I don't choke)

 

[EddyBearr]

WTF?!?!?! Why would we tone down combos because l-canceling is gone?!?! It's already so easy... Removing it will make combos a little easier, but in no way would warrant a nerf. That implies that good players regularly drop combos because of missed L cancels at even top levels of play. That doesn't even hold true at my locals (with the exception of lower finishers) and EVEN I"M GOOD ENOUGH TO TOP THERE (if I don't choke)

It's more about worse players PM combo'ing better players like mad. Honestly, I think PM combos need nerfing to begin with.

 

[Foo]

It's more about worse players PM combo'ing better players like mad. Honestly, I think PM combos need nerfing to begin with.

1. Comboing being easier would only apply shffling. L canceling is the easiest part of shffling to get right. If a player can't L-cancel, they won't be able to shffl. Not having to l-cancel doesn't make the inputs ezpz. Just takes away one uneeded button press.
2. If a player hasn't put enough effort into the game to learn l-canceling and they start beating a "good player" after L-canceling was removed, the "good player" is garbage.
3. Why do you have such a problem with worse players doing better at the game? If they are really worse, they won't beat you. If anything, I'd like an increased challenge from playing worse players. The skill gap is EXTREMELY emphasized as opposed to most games. Once I got gud at shffling and finally started trying to play the mental game (as opposed to focusing on my inputs) I went from beating someone with one stock every time, to 3-4 stocking them every game. This happened over about 2 weeks.

Also, PM combos are about as strong as they were in melee. The only difference is PM combos (for top tiers) generally end in a powerful move, whereas melee combos end in sending them off stage. In melee, being sent off stage means you are probably dead if playing against a good player (eventually dead, at least) In PM, since recoveries are better, you kinda skip the edge guarding step and just kill them (if you are a top tier, that is). Top tiers and recoveries are being toned down, so a happy medium should be found.