Improving game-play around L-canceling

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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.

If you did the game would need to be redesigned for that.

I don't need to come up with a new tech because that has no bearing on if L-Cancelling staying being a good or bad thing.

A tech needs purpose or your just arbitrarily adding difficulty to exclude people from playing the real game just cause.

I want tech skill to matter of course, it's what separates these games from chess etc.
I don't want it if it's not going to actually add to the game itself with far more cons than pros.

Removing it makes the game less technical, not a bad thing in this case, and makes the game more accessible.

Keeping it is just for ego satisfaction in how people effectively doing something that's there just to be there.

PM dev team won't do it though, I have zero faith that they will given how they have shown clear character bias and favoritism to make Melee 2.0 instead of just a solid smash game.

PM is a good mod but keeping L-Cancelling is ultimately a giant mistake.

 

[Rhubarbo]

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.

Like I said, How about this: What if you automatically teched unless you press L/R? This would make it easier for players in most situations. It's the visceral aspect of pressing L/R to roll that I'm more concerned with.

I agree that that pro-l-cancelling argument is rubbish. I'm sure there are very, very, very few situations in which you don't want to l-cancel.

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.

L-cancelling inputs are a large part of a player's inputs/minute. Removing l-cancelling would only remove one technical component of Smash, but it would greatly reduce the amount of technical inputs in a game.

Also, I don't think l-cancelling is completely artificial. It may not be the most complicated or fundamentally necessary mechanic, but it still greatly increases interactivity with the game.

My biggest gripe with l-cancelling is that as a tech, it strictly decreases landing-lag. This shifts the meta to greatly favouring quick aerials. Since most characters only have five aerials, this lowers the complexity of Smash, especially the ground-game's. If we're to brainstorm new techs, we should try to address this issue.

For example, what if Boswer gained armour/grab intangibility instead of reduced landing lag on his l-cancelled aerials?

I don't need to come up with a new tech because that has no bearing on if L-Cancelling staying being a good or bad thing.

Removing l-cancelling would remove tech skill from Smash, though. Since Smash fans like tech skill, you should offer an alternative, or at the very least allow for one, if you want l-cancelling removed. Also, the main purpose of this thread to begin with was to make changes around l-cancelling.

A tech needs purpose or your just arbitrarily adding difficulty to exclude people from playing the real game just cause.

L-cancelling isn't interactive between players (i.e. playing the real game), but it challenges a player to consistently interface with their character's aerials at the right time. This mini-challenge is fun.

I had an incomplete, leaked version of Project M back in 2011 that scandalously featured (every character and) auto l-cancels. It was less exciting to perform aerials for me. I'm sure many Smash fans would share this sentiment. In this way, l-cancelling isn't arbitrary.

I want tech skill to matter of course, it's what separates these games from chess etc.
I don't want it if it's not going to actually add to the game itself with far more cons than pros.

This is debatable.

Removing it makes the game less technical, not a bad thing in this case, and makes the game more accessible.

Accessibility is not Project M's goal, and whether or not it's bad in this case is again, debatable.

Keeping it is just for ego satisfaction in how people effectively doing something that's there just to be there.

This is complete presupposition; l-cancelling is there for technical interactivity.

PM dev team won't do it though, I have zero faith that they will given how they have shown clear character bias and favoritism to make Melee 2.0 instead of just a solid smash game.

I don't imagine making a simpler Smash game is the PMDT's idea of a solid smash game.

I agree that l-cancelling could use a rework or be entirely replaced by something else, but asking to overall simplify the game, especially how it's interfaced with, isn't realistic at this point. Since Project M is a fan mod made by fans, big change must come through widely accepted improvement. Since l-cancelling is widely accepted by the community, changing it would require careful and creative design.[/quote]

 

[Foo]

L-cancelling inputs are a large part of a player's inputs/minute. Removing l-cancelling would only remove one technical component of Smash, but it would greatly reduce the amount of technical inputs in a game.

Also, I don't think l-cancelling is completely artificial. It may not be the most complicated or fundamentally necessary mechanic, but it still greatly increases interactivity with the game.

My biggest gripe with l-cancelling is that as a tech, it strictly decreases landing-lag. This shifts the meta to greatly favouring quick aerials. Since most characters only have five aerials, this lowers the complexity of Smash, especially the ground-game's. If we're to brainstorm new techs, we should try to address this issue.

For example, what if Boswer gained armour/grab intangibility instead of reduced landing lag on his l-cancelled aerials?

The only situation where you wouldn't want to L-Cancel is if you were sandbagging (or your shoulder buttons are sticky, or you will die in real life if you hit L too many times). If you are trying to win, there is exactly zero realistic situations where you wouldn't L-cancel.

l-cancelling doesn't shift the meta towards aerials because the game is balanced around every aerial being L-canceled every time. There are some characters with very good aerial games and weaker ground games (i.e. ZSS and Falcon) but there are also characters who are stronger when staying on the ground. (i.e. link)

Like I said, How about this: What if you automatically teched unless you press L/R? This would make it easier for players in most situations. It's the visceral aspect of pressing L/R to roll that I'm more concerned with.

Nope, because that would be a massive buff to crouch canceling. As I said before, there is a prediction element to teching. I'll go more in depth this time. Let's say a roy is running at you and you are high%. You predict he will forward smash you, so you hold down and try to tech. However, he opts to swords dance, using the third down hit to lead into the fourth foward one. Since you tried to tech an fsmash, you cannot tech the side-b and die.

Say a ZSS lands a downsmash on a spacy. She walks on top of him and waits for him to pop up. Fox tries to tech hitting the ground, but just before he lands, Zss uptilts her. He pops up a very short distance before hitting the ground again, letting ZSS hit another uptilt into potentially more. Alternatively, if he let fox hit the ground and he DIDN'T tech, that would be a free downsmash.

If you autoteched, you could mindlessly hold down (and a slight direction if you wanted to tech roll) to prevent dying to a punish. With current teching, you have to guess what they will punish you with to land the amsa tech.

For example, what if Boswer gained armour/grab intangibility instead of reduced landing lag on his l-cancelled aerials?

Ew, that would be really really bad. Prediction, mind games and reads are really really important, but that would just be a coinflip. If it were strong enough to matter, that is.

EDIT: Also, it'd be bad design to have L-canceling to do totally different things for different characters.

 

[Smearglangelo]

For example, what if Boswer gained armour/grab intangibility instead of reduced landing lag on his l-cancelled aerials?

Did Rhubarbo just misspell Bowser!? How dare you disrespect the great King of Koopas!

I don't like the idea of grab intangibility, it should be possible to punish an action the opponent makes and not being able to grab or flinch/launch them seems like it would break the pacing of a match.

Unless you meant armor or grab intangibility in which case I would say not being able to grab a non-dodging opponent would be weird.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Like I said, How about this: What if you automatically teched unless you press L/R? This would make it easier for players in most situations. It's the visceral aspect of pressing L/R to roll that I'm more concerned with.

I agree that that pro-l-cancelling argument is rubbish. I'm sure there are very, very, very few situations in which you don't want to l-cancel.



L-cancelling inputs are a large part of a player's inputs/minute. Removing l-cancelling would only remove one technical component of Smash, but it would greatly reduce the amount of technical inputs in a game.

Also, I don't think l-cancelling is completely artificial. It may not be the most complicated or fundamentally necessary mechanic, but it still greatly increases interactivity with the game.

My biggest gripe with l-cancelling is that as a tech, it strictly decreases landing-lag. This shifts the meta to greatly favouring quick aerials. Since most characters only have five aerials, this lowers the complexity of Smash, especially the ground-game's. If we're to brainstorm new techs, we should try to address this issue.

For example, what if Boswer gained armour/grab intangibility instead of reduced landing lag on his l-cancelled aerials?



Removing l-cancelling would remove tech skill from Smash, though. Since Smash fans like tech skill, you should offer an alternative, or at the very least allow for one, if you want l-cancelling removed. Also, the main purpose of this thread to begin with was to make changes around l-cancelling.



L-cancelling isn't interactive between players (i.e. playing the real game), but it challenges a player to consistently interface with their character's aerials at the right time. This mini-challenge is fun.

I had an incomplete, leaked version of Project M back in 2011 that scandalously featured (every character and) auto l-cancels. It was less exciting to perform aerials for me. I'm sure many Smash fans would share this sentiment. In this way, l-cancelling isn't arbitrary.



This is debatable.



Accessibility is not Project M's goal, and whether or not it's bad in this case is again, debatable.



This is complete presupposition; l-cancelling is there for technical interactivity.



I don't imagine making a simpler Smash game is the PMDT's idea of a solid smash game.

I agree that l-cancelling could use a rework or be entirely replaced by something else, but asking to overall simplify the game, especially how it's interfaced with, isn't realistic at this point. Since Project M is a fan mod made by fans, big change must come through widely accepted improvement. Since l-cancelling is widely accepted by the community, changing it would require careful and creative design.

[/quote]

There is no situation where you would not L-Cancel. It's there to slap on more technical requirement with nothing gained in return. Anything with a semi-reward is gonna make someone feel better, but the tech itself does not serve any purpose in gameplay and depth. No fighting game is ever going to purposely add L-Canceling without it requiring meter or something of the sort. It lacks a resource, so there is no question of if you will use it or not.

At least with Auto cancels there is a timing to it so you can only use them in certain situations, otherwise you get lag. L-cancels work in pretty much any situation you want with no questioning if you will do it or not.

L-Canceling is objectively bad game design.

Accessibility is not a goal, but neither is how technical the game on any measureless level. This lowers the tech skill but doesn't actually remove any depth to the game. The game is the same with landing lag adjusted to be all L-cancelled, but easier and suddenly a lot more players who can "play the real game"

The down side is some players lose the ego trip of, I learned how to press this button after every aerial.

It's not needed and is only in PM because it was in Melee, not because it's good or bad game design.

 

[Rhubarbo]

l-cancelling doesn't shift the meta towards aerials because the game is balanced around every aerial being L-canceled every time. There are some characters with very good aerial games and weaker ground games (i.e. ZSS and Falcon) but there are also characters who are stronger when staying on the ground. (i.e. link)

Since l-cancelling only reduces landing lag, and since quick aerials are almost always better than slow aerials (note that I don't mean non-l-cancelled aerials), after executed, l-cancelling only serves to boost one part of the game. Since Smash is very aerial to begin with, consistently low landing lag isn't ideal for game play diversity; the same would hold true under a paradigm with universally low landing lag. If there was a binary incentive to l-cancelling, a complementary tech, or an interactive way to stop l-cancelling, the air game -- and l-cancelling in and of its self -- would be more substantial.

Alternatively, you could outright replace l-cancelling with another tech.

Quick aerials detract from the ground game by proxy. E.g. for most characters, aerials are more situationally applicable than their tilts/jabs. A buff to the ground game could be good, but I'll accept the idea that Smash is fundamentally an aerial game (with the way knock-back works and such).

Nope, because that would be a massive buff to crouch canceling.

Sorry, but I don't get this.

As I said before, there is a prediction element to teching. I'll go more in depth this time. Let's say a roy is running at you and you are high%. You predict he will forward smash you, so you hold down and try to tech. However, he opts to swords dance, using the third down hit to lead into the fourth foward one. Since you tried to tech an fsmash, you cannot tech the side-b and die.

So with auto-teching, you'd press L/R to not tech under the assumption that Roy will wait you out.

Say a ZSS lands a downsmash on a spacy. She walks on top of him and waits for him to pop up. Fox tries to tech hitting the ground, but just before he lands, Zss uptilts her. He pops up a very short distance before hitting the ground again, letting ZSS hit another uptilt into potentially more. Alternatively, if he let fox hit the ground and he DIDN'T tech, that would be a free downsmash.

I don't understand this. Are you saying Fox might try to rush into a tech and then get punished for it?

I don't want to get hung up on the teching analogy, even if that means having to eat my own words. My main point stands: tech skill doesn't have to be strategic, although it's better if it is.

Did Rhubarbo just misspell Bowser!? How dare you disrespect the great King of Koopas!

I don't like the idea of grab intangibility, it should be possible to punish an action the opponent makes and not being able to grab or flinch/launch them seems like it would break the pacing of a match.

Unless you meant armor or grab intangibility in which case I would say not being able to grab a non-dodging opponent would be weird.

Hey, at least I didn't call him Browser

So what if Bowser lit-up in flames upon successfully l-cancelling. This would explain his intangibility from grabs, and show that he's only vulnerable to strong attacks. In a weird way, this would make using Bowser's aerials a defensive tactic.

Maybe this would only be an aspect the aerials for which Bowser retreats into his shell (nair, dair).

Of course, I'm hardly serious about this, it's just some brain storming I'm throwing out there in an attempt to address OPs question.

 

[Fortress]

Just face it, everybody, some people like the choice of being more punishable to throw their opponent off.

 

[Paquito]

PM dev team won't do it though, I have zero faith that they will given how they have shown clear character bias and favoritism to make Melee 2.0 instead of just a solid smash game.

This is pretty ridiculous.

L-Canceling is objectively bad game design.

Nope

Even considering that point about consistently though, it is the case that L-Canceling isn't an interesting gameplay decision, which was the original point of the thread. Here are a couple of ideas that were thrown around to add some interesting gameplay here:

What if each l-cancel applies a "exhaustion" stack on the character for X seconds, lowering the damage of their attacks with a few stacks, lowering the knock-back of their attacks with a few more stacks, and maybe apply a shield-break penalty to the character at a certain number of stacks?

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.[/quote

 

[smashbro29]

That said, on the other hand, is there anything intrinsically wrong with what amounts to an arbitrary technical barrier?

Yes.

Looking at the game in a vacuum they would have never added this in as is. It's in "because Melee" and they'll admit it every time you ask.

Here's the breakdown:

Pros - Never miss

New players - "why do I have to do this? This is stupid, it wasn't in Brawl."

Guys in the middle - varying levels of success

So it's just there to **** with us in the middle?

 

[smashbro29]

This is pretty ridiculous.



Nope

Even considering that point about consistently though, it is the case that L-Canceling isn't an interesting gameplay decision, which was the original point of the thread. Here are a couple of ideas that were thrown around to add some interesting gameplay here:

"If we do all this crazy arbitrary bull**** to this other crazy arbitrary bull**** we can justify it"

In its current form it's meaningless "if we do X" means jack **** to this discussion.

 

[Smearglangelo]

Yes.

Looking at the game in a vacuum they would have never added this in as is. It's in "because Melee" and they'll admit it every time you ask.

Here's the breakdown:

Pros - Never miss

New players - "why do I have to do this? This is stupid, it wasn't in Brawl."

Guys in the middle - varying levels of success

So it's just there to **** with us in the middle?

L-canceling is a skill that can be improved on and adds a very small amount of depth to the game. New players might be at a disadvantage, but it rewards those who actually bothered to learn the timing.

We shouldn't automatically dismiss L-canceling as unnecessary just yet. Although I don't doubt that it's inclusion in Project M was simply to make it seem more like Melee.

 

[smashbro29]

L-canceling is a skill that can be improved on and adds a very small amount of depth to the game. New players might be at a disadvantage, but it rewards those who actually bothered to learn the timing.

We shouldn't automatically dismiss L-canceling as unnecessary just yet. Although I don't doubt that it's inclusion in Project M was simply to make it seem more like Melee.

Twiddling your thumbs is also a skill that can be improved upon but much like L-cancelling it adds no depth to the game. You want to to it every time you land with an aerial, so if you could you would. Most people can't 100% of the time.

That's not depth, that's just making it harder to get into for no reason.

It's not like motions in a fighter or a tech that does something you don't always need it is utterly pointless muscle memory.

 

[Smearglangelo]

Twiddling your thumbs is also a skill that can be improved upon but much like L-cancelling it adds no depth to the game. You want to to it every time you land with an aerial, so if you could you would. Most people can't 100% of the time.

That's not depth, that's just making it harder to get into for no reason.

It's not like motions in a fighter or a tech that does something you don't always need it is utterly pointless muscle memory.

I'm not the biggest fan of L-canceling either, but it doesn't make the game harder for no reason.

L-canceling makes the game easier if you do it. Once you get the hang of it there is no situation where you wouldn't to L-cancel.

But your post has made me curious. Do people who want l-canceling removed want it's effects to me removed or to activate automatically?

 

[Foo]

I'm not the biggest fan of L-canceling either, but it doesn't make the game harder for no reason.

L-canceling makes the game easier if you do it. Once you get the hang of it there is no situation where you wouldn't to L-cancel.

But your post has made me curious. Do people who want l-canceling removed want it's effects to me removed or to activate automatically?

L-canceling makes the game harder for no reason.

If there was no L-Canceling, all aerials would be "auto l-canceled" meaning all aerials would have their lag halved. This has been stated many times by several different people.

 

[King Bee]

...it doesn't make the game harder for no reason. L-canceling makes the game easier if you do it. Once you get the hang of it there is no situation where you wouldn't to L-cancel.

But that's literally saying the exact same thing. Game is easier once you learn it = Game is harder until you learn it. There's no strategy or decision-making involved, it's just a hoop for new players to jump through before they can reach a baseline level of competence and actually start to get good at the game.

 

[smashbro29]

I'm not the biggest fan of L-canceling either, but it doesn't make the game harder for no reason.

L-canceling makes the game easier if you do it. Once you get the hang of it there is no situation where you wouldn't to L-cancel.

But your post has made me curious. Do people who want l-canceling removed want it's effects to me removed or to activate automatically?

Everyone loves the speed, the effect would be permanent.

 

[Smearglangelo]

L-canceling makes the game harder for no reason.

If there was no L-Canceling, all aerials would be "auto l-canceled" meaning all aerials would have their lag halved. This has been stated many times by several different people.

I just wanted your opinion Foo, but thanks for the sass.

Everyone loves the speed, the effect would be permanent.

Ok so it does make the game easier and people like that so the best thing to do would be to keep the effects.

I was just assuming that people wanted all aerials to have full lag(No L-cancel effect) and I'm not a big fan of that happening.

 

[Paquito]

"If we do all this crazy arbitrary bull**** to this other crazy arbitrary bull**** we can justify it"

It's already justified. Did you read that post I linked to about consistency?

Arguing that l-canceling should be scrapped because the pros hardly ever miss them is like arguing the NFL should stop doing extra points in football, because teams barely ever miss them. ("Just save time by giving teams the option to take 7 points or attempt a two point conversion!")

 

[Paquito]

double post................

 

[Foo]

It's already justified. Did you read that post I linked to about consistency?

Arguing that l-canceling should be scrapped because the pros hardly ever miss them is like arguing the NFL should stop doing extra points in football, because teams barely ever miss them. ("Just save time by giving teams the option to take 7 points or attempt a two point conversion!")

That's far from a fair comparison. The extra point is a play just like any other, where the opposing team has opportunity to prevent it and there is lots of "chess" surrounding it.

Do we go for the extra point, or take the riskier 2 point conversion? If we go for the two point conversion, should we play a fake field goal? If we do a fake field goal, do we run or pass? etc. etc. etc.

From defense, do we send everyone to increase chances of blocking it? If we do and they fake the field goal, they will get two points for free. However, if we hang people back it increases our odds of blocking it are halved.

I'm not even into football, so I imagine anyone who actually is could explain that it's even more complicated than I described.

Again, the key here is options. With the one point conversion, even though the one point is almost always taken, there are options.

 

[Paquito]

That's far from a fair comparison. The extra point is a play just like any other, where the opposing team has opportunity to prevent it and there is lots of "chess" surrounding it.

Do we go for the extra point, or take the riskier 2 point conversion? If we go for the two point conversion, should we play a fake field goal? If we do a fake field goal, do we run or pass? etc. etc. etc.

From defense, do we send everyone to increase chances of blocking it? If we do and they fake the field goal, they will get two points for free. However, if we hang people back it increases our odds of blocking it are halved.

I'm not even into football, so I imagine anyone who actually is could explain that it's even more complicated than I described.

Again, the key here is options. With the one point conversion, even though the one point is almost always taken, there are options.

The vast majority of two point conversions aren't fake field-goals. Fake field-goal two point conversion attempts probably happen with the same frequency of a pro-player making a mechanical mistake during a match. Situations where the defense makes a meaningful decision like that are equally rare.

But just leaving the opportunity for these low-probability/high impact events is enough to keep them in the game. That's the case with l-canceling too.

 

[Vorde]

Removing the L-Cancelling from PM would be great for people that are new to the game.
You're right, it does add artificial difficulty to the tech in the game.
However, in my opinion, it should stay because
1) It's been there since the beginning, like Z Cancelling in SSB, L cancelling in Melee, and L cancelling in all forms of PM.
2) I put many hours into getting this into muscle memory so I could get it down to 90% of the time happening; like many other players here. Removing it from the game literally throws away the countless amount of time learning it to begin with
3) Removing it would make newer player better because all their characters would be significantly faster as everything is cancelled for them. Isn't the whole point of becoming better at the game, and learning the tech, is to become better? I feel as though it's a test of endurance and perseverance towards getting better at the game.
Just my 2 cents

 

[Foo]

The vast majority of two point conversions aren't fake field-goals. Fake field-goal two point conversion attempts probably happen with the same frequency of a pro-player making a mechanical mistake during a match. Situations where the defense makes a meaningful decision like that are equally rare.

But just leaving the opportunity for these low-probability/high impact events is enough to keep them in the game. That's the case with l-canceling too.

It's still an option. Just like not teching is an option. If there are options, it adds some level of depth. Just having the option, even if it's not used, can force your opponent to respect that option. I'd imagine the average FG defense play has a backup plan for fakes.

 

[Paquito]

It's still an option. Just like not teching is an option. If there are options, it adds some level of depth. Just having the option, even if it's not used, can force your opponent to respect that option. I'd imagine the average FG defense play has a backup plan for fakes.

Right, which is why it'd be nice to add some gameplay depth to l-canceling. That'd be preferable to removing it all together, because you'd be removing a possible mistake that could be punished.

I get that people here have strong opinions that the consistency argument isn't enough to warrant keeping the mechanic. At the same time, it really isn't hurting the game either, so calling for its removal is just a net loss, IMO. It's much more interesting to consider ways to improve the gameplay around l-canceling

 

[Foo]

Right, which is why it'd be nice to add some gameplay depth to l-canceling. That'd be preferable to removing it all together, because you'd be removing a possible mistake that could be punished.

I get that people here have strong opinions that the consistency argument isn't enough to warrant keeping the mechanic. At the same time, it really isn't hurting the game either, so calling for its removal is just a net loss, IMO. It's much more interesting to consider ways to improve the gameplay around l-canceling

The moment someone comes up with a good idea that makes L-Canceling into a good mechanic, I'll be in full fledged support with it. However, I don't think that will happen because the mechanic is poorly designed in the first place. No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

 

[mimgrim]

What positive comes out of removing L cancelling?

What negatives come from removing L-cancel and turning normal landing lag into L-canceled landing lag?

Hint: The answer for both question are completely subjective based on personal mind-set and neither are factually correct.

L-cancel discussions go no where.

There are 2 different kinds of people, and a smaller 3rd and 4th kind, with 2 different mindsets. Neither mindset is correct or incorrect.

You have the people who like L-cancel and think having a button that needs to be pressed all the time is good for tech skill.

You have people who find it to be pointless mechanic as there is no point to do it and think that a constant button press when there is no option to not do it is bad.

Then you have the people who want to try and change L-cancel to be more meaningful and have more depth. However they don't realize that any suggestion they make is more often then not going to lead to the tech being even more "arbitrary" then it already is.

Then you have the people like me who doesn't give a single **** about the tech and can live with it staying or going.

I personally don't care about it because in all functionally it is the same premise as Active Reloading in Gears of War, albeit Active Reloading as a much bigger visual cue then L-cancel but it is still the same premise. I do appreciate that Project M gave the tech a better visual cue however as that was always something that bugged me in Melee.

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

Topics like these are exactly the reason why I want a feature to where people can actively select Manual L-Canceling and Auto L-Canceling in the game itself in Custom Controls or something. Then those who want it can use it and those who don't, won't.

Everybody wins.

 

[Stalled]

if that was an option no one would ever manual l cancel since they can hit 100% consistency with a setting

 

[smashbro29]

It's already justified. Did you read that post I linked to about consistency?

Arguing that l-canceling should be scrapped because the pros hardly ever miss them is like arguing the NFL should stop doing extra points in football, because teams barely ever miss them. ("Just save time by giving teams the option to take 7 points or attempt a two point conversion!")

That is some twisted logic.

While it is boring it's got less of a success rate than L-cancelling.

It's also actually something and let me explain that. In Smash you short hop, do an aerial, land and hit your button, nothing is lost without that extra button. To the pro it may as well be automatic, they don't even feel it.

In the NFL they still have to line up, set up their play and succeed. The entire goal of the extra point is to make this field goal, the blockers still have to block with all their might the kicker does have to kick it it's something.

There is no way to compare it to something in a physical sport. Extra point doesn't work because it's not something you constantly do and it's not a technique it's a way to score. Usually it's comapred to dribbling in basketball but the entire game of basketball is designed around dribbling probably to make defense possible without body checks. Nothing physical is that unnecessary, this is like if a pitcher had to chew his gum in a very specific pattern as he threw the ball.

 

[StrikerX22]

This is coming from someone who hasn't played at all at a technical level (or at all for quite a good while), but I am interested in this sort of thing, and after going through the whole thread, I've noted the lack of any (iirc) mentions of options being offered as fixes to L-Canceling. You want more depth, right? To be blunt, while there are some pretty decent things said here and there, it seems like everyone is missing the point of the thread (which has been pointed out, but not acted on). Sure, L-Canceling could be removed. You'd alienate a fair number and the game would suddenly feel less engaging because of a "design mistake" that was there from the beginning. There's also the argument that adding a timing like that is a good mechanic (even if minigame-esque), but if the timing's too loose, then it should be changed, period. Either remove it, or tighten it if it's to be treated like some sort of bonus; or, add depth/options.

I'd really like to see what others could come up with if, you know, they actually tried to think about options instead of replying to the somewhat unrelated arguments of the posts above them. Yeah, most of the posts have something wrong with them, what can you do? (It really never ends as long as this thread has posts.) Maybe it won't help at all, but I'd like to offer a random option just to get the juices flowing.

If TL;DR, main point:
This isn't something I'd think would necessarily be good (I'm not in a position to say), but I'm kinda just hoping to get the thread going in the intended direction: Say you had one button that shortened your landing lag only for then executing moving/jumping but no land attacks/guarding until the full landing lag is up, and another button (or perhaps more appropriately, a lack of button) would shorten the lag possibly the same amount or close, but only for land attacks/guarding/moving, no jumping, until the full landing lag is over.

Again, I'm not saying it's a useful solution, but I hope that this can help some to come up with more appropriate solutions. If the idea of taking anything away from how L-Canceling functions seems bad (backlash), then consider adding a different positive to each case instead, like even less lag for stated pros, or just adding a different positive for when you don't press but keep the default lag.

 

[Paquito]

One thing that hasn't been touched upon here is the aesthetic reasons to keep l-canceling. When you don't l-cancel, characters have a nice landing animation related to the move they just landed from, which conveys the weight of the character and the type of the move they just performed. The quality of that animation is a mark of a well-made Nintendo game, and one reason why non-competitive players enjoy playing the game.

If you get rid of l-canceling and just have every aerial auto l-canceled, those nice animations disappear. The aesthetic appeal is lost for the casual players. If you keep the slower recoveries, we have the aesthetic appeal, but competitive matches slow down.

Keeping l-canceling allows us to have both a fast competitive game and appealing visuals for casual fans.

 

[Cpt.]

I like it just because it makes it feel like you are doing more. Just the act of pressing more buttons. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an automatic L-Cancel, but then what would happen if it was one of those few times that you did not want to L-Cancel?

To make the technique less linear is something else. Though what would the point be? Why not just make L-Canceling automatic and have L do something new?

 

[Narpas_sword]

if that was an option no one would ever manual l cancel since they can hit 100% consistency with a setting

Make it like Mario Kart auto and Manual drfting. (wii)

Manual = as we know it
Auto = everything is L canceled, but the bonus is not as much.

Then have tournies set to Manual. (just like there's the input buffer thing)

alternatively, make the white flash slightly more obvious, and remove L canceling, but dont tell anyone. you get a nice placebo white flash for your efforts =p

but then what would happen if it was one of those few times that you did not want to L-Cancel?

I think the point is, that is never a 'time'

 

[BananaBolts]

Maybe a trial version of PM could be made wherein L-cancelling was automatic. Give the game to a portion of the community, newcomers and vets, and let them test it out to see if the removal of the extra input is a good redesign or not.

Experiments, people. It just might help.

 

[Anonistry]

I wonder if there could be a solution in a different kind of end-move action besides L-cancelling. As it is, you either half the lag or you... do nothing? Some of the suggestions are "l-cancel here for better cancel!" but that actually is just "git gudder for moar l-cancel" when you break it down.

A new option would need to be just that: new. Not even cancelling, but something that somehow makes up for it. For example, and this is super-dumb and don't treat it as a serious suggestion just yet, but what if instead of halving the lag, you have a "cancel" that keeps lag, but gives armor and allows for a counterstrike if hit? Instead of making your move safe, you play a game, presumably on moves that are still pretty darn punishable even with l-cancel, where the opponent now guesses if you l-cancel, and tries to punish, or you armor-cancel, and backs off because that punish will be countered. If they guessed wrong on the armor-cancel and you l-cancelled, you get benefited with a safe recovery. Like I said, I don't think this particular thought can go anywhere, but its that idea. L-cancel becomes an option if you can give something else that, instead of halving lag, literally makes you think keeping the lag could provide a worthwhile option.

The real question is... in a game so neutral dominant, so read-reliant, and so punish-heavy as Smash, what in the world can you think of that would be a favorable alternative?

 

[Narpas_sword]

can you imagine what the forums would look like if the community had access to test builds? yuk

 

[l3thargy]

I personally feel that it would be nice if auto l-cancelling was a option that could be turned on or off, in tournament play the default would be off, but for the people that just want to play the game slightly more casually there's the option to do so.

I'm not trying to hate on l-cancelling since I have no personal problems with it, it's just that I believe that more options in fighting games/games in general are usually better then none, and that implementing something like that would most likely please most people.

 

[Paquito]

Back on topic with a gameplay suggestion: What if each successive l-cancel reduced the max-knockback of your moves for X seconds, and a landing that isn't l-canceled or wave-landed completely removes that penalty?

It doesn't really nerf aggression, since you're still racking up damage against your opponent you can now. But when you want to try to finish off your opponent/knock them far back, you need to make the decision not to l-cancel

 

[Narpas_sword]

terrible. you're saying wavedash is too complicated in one thread, now you're suggesting an incredibly counterintuitive degradation of moves.

 

[Fortress]

terrible. you're saying wavedash is too complicated in one thread, now you're suggesting an incredibly counterintuitive degradation of moves.

What did you expect?