L Canceling Is Semi-Bad Game Design

[luigijerk]

I think we can all agree that decision making should be the most important thing in deciding who wins, but tech skill should not be discounted. There are many cases where there is only one proper decision to make, but the player's hands just don't execute.

If you want a game with only decision making, and no tech skill, I would recommend chess. Video games have decision making and tech skill. You don't always succeed in executing your choice. It is part of the beauty of playing fast paced games.

 

[luigijerk]

L-cancelling is rarely the reason people give up after trying, but I know multiple cases who just gave up at the mere mention of needing that reflex. This includes people who play demanding games like MvC2 and freaking DDR. It isn't the action that I object to, it's the concept.

Videogames are analogous to sports in the sense that there is competition and two people comparing skill. We do not require a baseline techskill level. The same applies for macro skills in RTS games. These are arbitrary skills, but form part of the RTS skillset. Fighting games should never be about arbitrary execution, and should focus a lot more on interactions, which L-cancelling adds virtually nothing to.

Here's the breakdown. No L-cancelling = slow, defensive uninteresting game. This is due to a landing animation. Landing animations are the real issue here, to be honest. From a game design perspective, there should have been no reason to implement them in a game with such spacial gameplay.

Sorry for the double post, but I'm glad you mentioned sports. If a football player has a ball thrown at his chest in the endzone, should we just give him the touchdown whether he catches the ball or not? There isn't a decision to make, catching the ball is best every single time. I guess he should just get the points if the ball hits his chest and bounces off him into the ground? Extending his hands and timing his catch would be a superfluous barrier for newcomers to the game.

 

[Firejew]

This must be a joke. You wanna whiff your L-cancels against a top player you'll get your *** whooped - there are matches where PPMD and M2K don't miss a single L-cancel, but there are tons of punishes because their lag is still too high/they made mistakes like that. You sit in lag longer, you're still just going to eat the exact same punish you'd normally eat from a strong player - they'll just think you're scrubby too if they whiff a punish once because they'll see you missed an L-cancel. It doesn't alter the pace of the match when they're rushing in to punish at all - you'd still just get smacked around.

Why am I getting punished at all? I'm just hitting them with a move that doesn't get L-cancelled. Getting the punish, if it still exists after not-l-cancelling, is some brain-destroying stuff if you slow everything down and hit them with a noob combo. This could also work as a trap. Imagine you're a Falco against an anything, you d-air them at a high percent, fail the l-cancel, they swoop in to punish (fast falling onto you assuming you're helpless because you failed that l cancel) and you casually up-tilt or do whatever counters what they did. Every move has a correct moment to be used, every mechanic has a correct way to be used to your advantage.

Besides, if they only miss one punish due to a forced LC miss then I've succeeded in using the mechanic to my advantage over the opponent. Even more besides (I would have to look this up to actually know specifics): there are aerials that have a landing position lower than standing position. If you were a wizard, you'd know when to use these moves get free damage while avoiding a followup (assuming a tilt/jab would hit overtop), whereas if you were to l-cancel you would have frame(s) of standing and therefore vulnerability.

tldr; there are times when failing an l-cancel is beneficial, they are few, but they exist

 

[Thor]

Why am I getting punished at all? I'm just hitting them with a move that doesn't get L-cancelled. Getting the punish, if it still exists after not-l-cancelling, is some brain-destroying stuff if you slow everything down and hit them with a noob combo. This could also work as a trap. Imagine you're a Falco against an anything, you d-air them at a high percent, fail the l-cancel, they swoop in to punish (fast falling onto you assuming you're helpless because you failed that l cancel) and you casually up-tilt or do whatever counters what they did. Every move has a correct moment to be used, every mechanic has a correct way to be used to your advantage.

Besides, if they only miss one punish due to a forced LC miss then I've succeeded in using the mechanic to my advantage over the opponent. Even more besides (I would have to look this up to actually know specifics): there are aerials that have a landing position lower than standing position. If you were a wizard, you'd know when to use these moves get free damage while avoiding a followup (assuming a tilt/jab would hit overtop), whereas if you were to l-cancel you would have frame(s) of standing and therefore vulnerability.

tldr; there are times when failing an l-cancel is beneficial, they are few, but they exist

Go watch PPMD vs M2K - you know what happens when M2K messes up, be it not hitting PPMD or missing an L-cancel? He gets whacked by PPMD. And there's a TON of CCing at low percents, you do ANY aerial not L-cancelled (Except maybe like sweetspot knee and other VERY strong aerials) there's a very large chance you're just going to get CC-shined by Falco, and that means you're not being combo'd. And if PPMD messes something up, even if he just mis-spaces an L-cancelled aerial, it's a tilt, smash, aerial, or grab.

Also note just how well M2K DIs shine, dair, etc. - if you don't L-cancel something, you're giving them longer to tech away and get back in neutral - you won't be following up with a slow combo, you'll just get hit or miss entirely and now be in more lag.

If I'm a Falco against anything, if I dair them at high percent they're in hitstun longer than the lag on the dair, so this argument doesn't make any sense. And most people would only do that if they thought they'd outprioritze you anyway, L-cancelled or not.

They won't "miss", they'll hit you with the right move - look at pretty much any character's punish game, all their stuff will hit some ducking, so just being shorter doesn't work - people don't punish with jabs unless it's Axe on the ledge (Which means being short doesn't help), they're looking for jab -> smash (and being short doesn't help for a lot of jabs), and most tilts that punish will be angled to hit you, so you'll get hit. And if you're so negative that even on L-cancelled hit you're in lag, you've just given them extra time to hit you even if they whiff a jab or whatever. They could also just wait for a bit of the lag to wear off and hit you once your character stops crouching (Since L-cancelling doubles the animation speed, your "tall" frames would be twice as long as if you L-cancelled, so they'll just double jab and you're still hosed).

tld;dr If you're whiffing L-cancels on purpose you're going to get hit, combo'd, and die, and no one's gonna be thrown off by a "Slow combo" - Falco waveshining (or just SH out of shine and walk after them) other spacies can be very slow, but it's no more back-breaking than any other combo. All it means is you had crap DI, because there are moves that are hard to follow up on even with L-cancelled lag, so if there is good DI, forget about following up with extra lag.

 

[Thor]

Sorry for the double post, but I'm glad you mentioned sports. If a football player has a ball thrown at his chest in the endzone, should we just give him the touchdown whether he catches the ball or not? There isn't a decision to make, catching the ball is best every single time. I guess he should just get the points if the ball hits his chest and bounces off him into the ground? Extending his hands and timing his catch would be a superfluous barrier for newcomers to the game.

Sorry for the double post as well, but that's not analogous. You don't catch the ball every time - if you're on defense, you're often instructed to hit it away, in case you bobble it and the offense catches it off the bobble (though even hitting it away, it can be caught, so there is a cost to that). You could also be the trash that intentionally doesn't catch it because you're not sure you can but you felt someone touch you and want to play it up to draw a flag. There's a choice, but there's not a choice in L-cancelling - it's a must for all sides, offense (comboing) and defense (trying to avoid punishes).

Catching a ball is analogous to finishing a combo, not L-cancelling - finishing a combo is just how the game works, if you can't do it you can't, and it separates at a fundamental level who can play that position and who cannot (much as those who can't combo are more or less fundamentally unable to play Melee at a high level). L-cancelling would be like a rule that you must make a Spock with your left arm extended straight up before every attempt to catch the ball - players would adapt, but then missing it becomes a [huge] problem at high level play, while people who do it every time make it not worth noting. It's a barrier that blocks some people out because they can't do all the stuff needed, even if some of it does not actually improve the game because it could be fully compensated for in a non-intrusive way (namely, half lag, no L-cancel, or just not having to make a Spock every time). There are people who play Brawl at a very high level who could probably also play Melee at an at least decently high level if there were no L-cancelling needed without much practice shifting to Melee (they'd need wavedashing and acclimating to the game physics a bit, but with no L-cancelling half the major barriers just went away - and unlike wavedashing, L-cancelling does not add significant depth to the game at a top level).

You did state "There are many cases where there is only one proper decision to make, but the player's hands just don't execute" which would be an example of not finishing a combo as well. That requires physical AND mental decision making skills, but L-cancelling does not actually require mental decision making skills (unless it's not second nature because they don't practice) which in my opinion means that it is not good game design.

From a game design perspective, there should have been no reason to implement them in a game with such spacial gameplay.

They belong there because it adds to concept of spacing. We could remove L-cancelling and lower landing lag to half or whatever (PM), but they are important because they are an opportunity cost to doing an attack - how much better would Fox/Falco/maybe even Link and the Mario bros be if they could literally just always nair and do anything immediately after? It would be like a shield in air, while not quite as useful (Marth fair), still rather silly for characters that don't have nairs like that.

I do agree that just reducing landing lag and removing L-cancelling would be sufficient.

 

[luigijerk]

Sorry for the double post as well, but that's not analogous. You don't catch the ball every time - if you're on defense, you're often instructed to hit it away, in case you bobble it and the offense catches it off the bobble (though even hitting it away, it can be caught, so there is a cost to that). You could also be the trash that intentionally doesn't catch it because you're not sure you can but you felt someone touch you and want to play it up to draw a flag. There's a choice, but there's not a choice in L-cancelling - it's a must for all sides, offense (comboing) and defense (trying to avoid punishes).

Catching a ball is analogous to finishing a combo, not L-cancelling - finishing a combo is just how the game works, if you can't do it you can't, and it separates at a fundamental level who can play that position and who cannot (much as those who can't combo are more or less fundamentally unable to play Melee at a high level). L-cancelling would be like a rule that you must make a Spock with your left arm extended straight up before every attempt to catch the ball - players would adapt, but then missing it becomes a [huge] problem at high level play, while people who do it every time make it not worth noting. It's a barrier that blocks some people out because they can't do all the stuff needed, even if some of it does not actually improve the game because it could be fully compensated for in a non-intrusive way (namely, half lag, no L-cancel, or just not having to make a Spock every time). There are people who play Brawl at a very high level who could probably also play Melee at an at least decently high level if there were no L-cancelling needed without much practice shifting to Melee (they'd need wavedashing and acclimating to the game physics a bit, but with no L-cancelling half the major barriers just went away - and unlike wavedashing, L-cancelling does not add significant depth to the game at a top level).

You did state "There are many cases where there is only one proper decision to make, but the player's hands just don't execute" which would be an example of not finishing a combo as well. That requires physical AND mental decision making skills, but L-cancelling does not actually require mental decision making skills (unless it's not second nature because they don't practice) which in my opinion means that it is not good game design.



They belong there because it adds to concept of spacing. We could remove L-cancelling and lower landing lag to half or whatever (PM), but they are important because they are an opportunity cost to doing an attack - how much better would Fox/Falco/maybe even Link and the Mario bros be if they could literally just always nair and do anything immediately after? It would be like a shield in air, while not quite as useful (Marth fair), still rather silly for characters that don't have nairs like that.

I do agree that just reducing landing lag and removing L-cancelling would be sufficient.

I specifically said he's in the endzone and the ball hits him in the chest. There is no choice, catching the ball is always best. When you mention defensive pressure, that is analogous to people throwing off the timing of an l-cancel with angled shields and spot dodges. Even pros drop the ball once in a while, just like pros miss l-cancels once in a while.

 

[Firejew]

tld;dr If you're whiffing L-cancels on purpose you're going to get hit, combo'd, and die, and no one's gonna be thrown off by a "Slow combo" - Falco waveshining (or just SH out of shine and walk after them) other spacies can be very slow, but it's no more back-breaking than any other combo. All it means is you had crap DI, because there are moves that are hard to follow up on even with L-cancelled lag, so if there is good DI, forget about following up with extra lag.

Definitely a fair argument. I can understand how failing an l-cancel on purpose isn't viable at top level play (lol 20xx) and the current and obviously future metagame won't allow my use of the mechanic, but I maintain the position that it does add to the game (even if it requires low level play to be useful).

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

Ok - I'll be honest. I haven't heard a convincing argument against L-cancelling. The main argument against it ( as I understand ) is "There is never a reason not to L-cancel. It's an artificial technical barrier that doesn't add depth, therefore it should be removed."

But to be honest I don't find this statement very convincing. Sports and video-games in general are filled with things that could be considered "artificial barriers." And I don't see a problem with that ( at least with L-cancelling ). I mean it's a game, where you press buttons - in real time. It only makes sense that there is some type of technical mastery needed to be considered good. I mean I really liked that football analogy that @ luigijerk used. In his scenario catching the ball is the best option; literally there is no reason not to. So if the ball is flying at the receiver in the end-zone - and it hits his chest and he drops it. I feel like with that "no reason to not L-cancel" logic it must also follow that he should just receive the points for a touchdown. I mean the offense obviously made the right mental decision ( by being able to throw an open pass ) so why add an artificial physical barrier of actually catching the ball to get a touchdown? You could reduce the difficulty of the game and have many people who under other circumstance couldn't become pros now be able to, right?

The way Street Fighter does linkers could also be considered an "artificial barrier." Why should the timing on linking two moves together be so precise? Why not make it so as long as you hit the button before your punch ends the game automatically does the link? I mean if you took that away more people could do devastating combos - thus there would be more mindgame oriented, right?

I get the argument. But I don't think it holds water and amounts to much more than "I prefer the game with less tech skill, more mental skill." I don't think it really objectively proves that L-cancelling is bad game design, just that it doesn't represent what you like in games. You could go into an argument about the vision Sakurai holds for Smash - but that also doesn't prove it's a bad element.

I mean I already presented that the purpose of L-cancelling was the concept of work versus payoff - to which people just seemed to ignore...

Honestly, I think you could explain why L-cancelling smells in a better way then the "No reason not to" logic.

EDIT: And others have already said you can force an error and exploit a missed L-cancel. To people have replied "That rarely happens, it shouldn't happen, it doesn't matter." But a forced error is forced error regardless.

 

[1MachGO]

@ EPsilon933

While I respect the fact you were willing to put out a video talking about L-Cancelling, its just plain wrong in many regards.

Things I disagree with:

1. L-Cancelling lacks a risk/reward dynamic

This criticism is warranted when a mechanic is implemented with the intention to create risk/reward but failed to do so. There are no signs this was ever the case. Calling L-cancelling out for lacking risk-reward is like disliking wavedashing because of it.

2. L-cancelling turns players away

This is entirely your speculation. One could just as easily argue that L-cancelling can draw players who like pushing buttons. In fact, I would contend that L-cancelling is a great entry technique because it lacks theory; the implications are obvious and mastery gives immediate gratification. Couldn't that suffice for foot in the door?

Regardless, at the time that video was produced Melee, had eclipsed its predecessor in popularity in spite of the L-cancelling barrier. Saying it turns away players when this is the case only serves to discredit your argument.

3. L-cancelling makes the game campy

This comes off as speculation once again. Melee currently has the most aggressive meta out of the three smash games (probably due to the fact its punish game isn't as extreme as either 64 or Brawl so "going in" isn't as risky).

4. New players like Project: M because it easier

Again, speculation. You fail to cite that Project: M still has L-cancelling. If anything, you only prove that L-cancelling is a non-factor when it comes to impeding players.

5. Reacting to a missed L-Cancel is outside of human reaction time

Wrong, because you are reacting to what your opponent is doing after they hit their aerial. If they are stuck in landing lag and aren't shining/dashing/etc. after 12 frames you would notice.

6. L-Cancelling is an arbitrary input and its interaction with a shielding opponent is its only marginal contribution to depth

Arbitrary or not, it still affects the player and still adds depth. If the player has to L-cancel after they land an aerial, can they fully react to how the aerial interacted with their opponent? Even if L-cancelling is habitual, its still an instance of multi-tasking. The implication of L-cancelling affecting reaction times is a perfect example of technical and mental depth interacting.

You see, I think the main area where you falter is you fail to address the merit of technical depth. Why can't inputs be just as valuable as mind games? Is there nothing to be said about mastery of the controller as well as the mental battle outside the game? Do you feel that the ultimate reality would be the day we can just plug our brains into a computer and control fighting game characters with our minds? Inputs/execution, no matter how arbitrary you feel they are, add depth to the game because they create a limitation. This isn't to say they shouldn't be balanced, but through limitation, we create metnal/technical interaction and thus, more depth.

 

[Praxis]

Counter Argument. (reposting from my own post on reddit)

People keep saying L-cancelling is a bad mechanic because it's just a routine. To repeat their argument: "You never want not to L-cancel, so there's no point in having a mechanic that amounts to an extra button push". This is something I once argued when I was a Brawl-only player, but I now believe that this is a misconception and I am not sure I agree.

L-cancelling rewards the skill of situational awareness. Your timing changes depending on whether you hit your opponent, hit your opponent's shield, hit a light shield, hit a projectile and opponent, or hit nothing, because these change the timing of when you hit the ground at the last possible second.

These things change your timing a lot, and knowing whether you are going to hit a shield at the last minute or not is required to L-cancel properly.

If you trade L-cancelling for halving all aerial reduction, what happens is that knowing whether you are going to hit your opponent's shield or not no longer matters. So people who are situationally aware (i.e. know whether the hit is guaranteed or is going to hit a shield) no longer have an advantage over people who are just throwing the move out blindly. No L-cancelling thus massively reduces the skill gap between low and medium level players, but in a way that they wouldn't be able to put their finger on. The player who is being situationally aware does not have as large of an advantage over a player who is doing a scripted series of bread-n-butter attacks. A player spamming Fox nairs brainlessly in Melee will do exceptionally well if the game auto-L-cancels, whereas if he has to pay attention and change his timing if the opponent holds their shield, he has to be a lot more aware of what is going on and what options his opponent has.



Situational awareness is a major skill that Smash tests (because combos are so fluid and improv, and you never see the same thing twice), so you can argue that this actually does increase the game's depth, and making it automatic reduces the thought required, not just tech skill, to shield pressure and combo.

I think when people complain that removing L-cancelling makes the game "too easy", they're not actually talking about the button inputs becoming too easy, but the fact that thought processes become easier when you don't have to judge what you are going to hit on the way down.

However, people often have a hard time articulating why they feel the game is now "too easy", and people who don't get it think they're just being elitist because they're good at hitting buttons.


That said- it's very unlikely Smash 4 will have L-cancelling and I'd be quite happy with just low landing lag. I'm very worried about the current state of landing lag in the game.



Bonus post that someone else said on Reddit:

For some reason, many people think Smash should be much more like chess, i.e. more about strategy and mindgames than execution. I can understand the sentiment, but I think execution is equally as important, particularly in a competitive fighting game.

Offensive/defensive pressure is a huge aspect of Smash. You want to keep your opponent from feeling comfortable. Why do you think people run around spamming tech after they take their opponent's stock? It's mainly to keep warm - to get into that comfort zone where your hands flow and don't mess up the little things. You're recapturing thatfeel of your character to ensure you don't mess up.

This pressure works on multiple levels. It can affect you mentally, to the point of being discouraged or surprised. And it can be detrimental to your ability to execute your tech. It is a skill to be able to handle yourself under pressure. While the L-cancel is one of many techniques you could screw up in a match, I feel that it's is such a necessary "barrier" because of how intensive Smash's aerial game is. Good players can identify when to use certain options because of how pressured their opponent is. Such options become irrelevant if L-cancelling is free.

I think L-cancelling ties in nicely with missed tech rolls. If you hit someone who thought they were about to land and L-cancel an aerial, you'll get more out of your combo/techchase because they won't be able to instantly techroll the first hit. And yes, we all know you can minimize your missed techs by not pushing L/R down all the way to the click when you L-cancel. This situation still happens often enough.

I'm gonna use a basketball analogy we all might have seen before (I don't remember if I read this somewhere).

In basketball, shooting guards put a lot of practice into their 3-pointers. They make the majority of those shots. Cut to a game: the shooter is wide open; they pass him the ball; he takes the shot unhindered, and misses. Do you think he should've just been given the 3 points because he was wide open? I mean, the team's strategy worked right? Maybe he just needs more practice.

By a similar token, should he miss when someone jumps in front of him? Not necessarily. Like Smash, sports are very precise games. There's lots of variation in the way techniques can be executed. If a guy gets in the shooter's way, he could adjust his trajectory to shoot a bit higher, and compensate with the amount of force he applies on the ball. That would be a very skillful way of handling the situation. He could also mindgame the blocker by faking his first shot. This is also skillful, but in a different sense.

TL;DR If you want chess, play chess. If you want a hard, rewarding game with both mental and physical aspects of competition, they play Smash!

 

[Kati]

Did anyone play brawl+? that had super low landing lag. It wasn't fun being able to pressure with short hopped aerials and get away every time. I was against l cancelling until I played smash without it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think we can all agree that decision making should be the most important thing in deciding who wins, but tech skill should not be discounted. There are many cases where there is only one proper decision to make, but the player's hands just don't execute.

If you want a game with only decision making, and no tech skill, I would recommend chess. Video games have decision making and tech skill. You don't always succeed in executing your choice. It is part of the beauty of playing fast paced games.

I'm not saying tech skill shouldn't matter I'm saying if you going to to make it matter, it really should ave a point and choice and create options or additional gameplay.

Counter Argument. (reposting from my own post on reddit)

People keep saying L-cancelling is a bad mechanic because it's just a routine. To repeat their argument: "You never want not to L-cancel, so there's no point in having a mechanic that amounts to an extra button push". This is something I once argued when I was a Brawl-only player, but I now believe that this is a misconception and I am not sure I agree.

L-cancelling rewards the skill of situational awareness. Your timing changes depending on whether you hit your opponent, hit your opponent's shield, hit a light shield, hit a projectile and opponent, or hit nothing, because these change the timing of when you hit the ground at the last possible second.

Some of these overlap in timing, I don't know the exact frame data outside of you got 7 frames to L-cancel but some of these aren't that different in timing, speaking from personal here on this mind you.

These things change your timing a lot, and knowing whether you are going to hit a shield at the last minute or not is required to L-cancel properly.

If you trade L-cancelling for halving all aerial reduction, what happens is that knowing whether you are going to hit your opponent's shield or not no longer matters. So people who are situationally aware (i.e. know whether the hit is guaranteed or is going to hit a shield) no longer have an advantage over people who are just throwing the move out blindly. No L-cancelling thus massively reduces the skill gap between low and medium level players, but in a way that they wouldn't be able to put their finger on. The player who is being situationally aware does not have as large of an advantage over a player who is doing a scripted series of bread-n-butter attacks. A player spamming Fox nairs brainlessly in Melee will do exceptionally well if the game auto-L-cancels, whereas if he has to pay attention and change his timing if the opponent holds their shield, he has to be a lot more aware of what is going on and what options his opponent has.

See this argument I hate because it's flawed on the concept you're trying to say some character is balanced because mistakes can be made.

Melee, Fox can nair with giving a damn? That's an issue with Fox himself. Brawl, Ice Climbers can do a CG but still drop it? They still are a problem even if they need tech skill to be used. If Fox can through out a nair with little to no counter play and high reward that problem is on Fox and how the game is set-up.

As for the making the gap between low and mid. Then really that makes me ask if that's even needed in the first place or even if L-cancelling situations happen enough at high levels of play or mid level to make this actually worthwhile.

Situational awareness is a major skill that Smash tests (because combos are so fluid and improv, and you never see the same thing twice), so you can argue that this actually does increase the game's depth, and making it automatic reduces the thought required, not just tech skill, to shield pressure and combo.

I think when people complain that removing L-cancelling makes the game "too easy", they're not actually talking about the button inputs becoming too easy, but the fact that thought processes become easier when you don't have to judge what you are going to hit on the way down.

However, people often have a hard time articulating why they feel the game is now "too easy", and people who don't get it think they're just being elitist because they're good at hitting buttons.

That's increasing the complexity not the depth by any meaningful amount.

Did you know difficulty is a legitimate complaint with Melee for people trying to get into it and PM actually improved on this quite a but? I've heard other players say this and I have to agree.

That said- it's very unlikely Smash 4 will have L-cancelling and I'd be quite happy with just low landing lag. I'm very worried about the current state of landing lag in the game.

We don't know for this and I think it is for the best L-cancelling never comes back.

 

[Thor]

Definitely a fair argument. I can understand how failing an l-cancel on purpose isn't viable at top level play (lol 20xx) and the current and obviously future metagame won't allow my use of the mechanic, but I maintain the position that it does add to the game (even if it requires low level play to be useful).

I can agree with this.

@ EPsilon933

While I respect the fact you were willing to put out a video talking about L-Cancelling, its just plain wrong in many regards.

1. L-Cancelling lacks a risk/reward dynamic

This criticism is warranted when a mechanic is implemented with the intention to create risk/reward but failed to do so. There are no signs this was ever the case. Calling L-cancelling out for lacking risk-reward is like disliking wavedashing because of it.

2. L-cancelling turns players away

This is entirely your speculation. One could just as easily argue that L-cancelling can draw players who like pushing buttons. In fact, I would contend that L-cancelling is a great entry technique because it lacks theory; the implications are obvious and mastery gives immediate gratification. Couldn't that suffice for foot in the door?

Regardless, at the time that video was produced Melee, had eclipsed its predecessor in popularity in spite of the L-cancelling barrier. Saying it turns away players when this is the case only serves to discredit your argument.

3. L-cancelling makes the game campy

This comes off as speculation once again. Melee currently has the most aggressive meta out of the three smash games (probably due to the fact its punish game isn't as extreme as either 64 or Brawl so "going in" isn't as risky).

4. New players like Project: M because it easier

Again, speculation. You fail to cite that Project: M still has L-cancelling. If anything, you only prove that L-cancelling is a non-factor when it comes to impeding players.

5. Reacting to a missed L-Cancel is outside of human reaction time

Wrong, because you are reacting to what your opponent is doing after they hit their aerial. If they are stuck in landing lag and aren't shining/dashing/etc. after 12 frames you would notice.

6. L-Cancelling is an arbitrary input and its interaction with a shielding opponent is its only marginal contribution to depth

Arbitrary or not, it still affects the player and still adds depth. If the player has to L-cancel after they land an aerial, can they fully react to how the aerial interacted with their opponent? Even if L-cancelling is habitual, its still an instance of multi-tasking. The implication of L-cancelling affecting reaction times is a perfect example of technical and mental depth interacting.

You see, I think the main area where you falter is you fail to address the merit of technical depth. Why can't inputs be just as valuable as mind games? Is there nothing to be said about mastery of the controller as well as the mental battle outside the game? Do you feel that the ultimate reality would be the day we can just plug our brains into a computer and control fighting game characters with our minds? Inputs/execution, no matter how arbitrary you feel they are, add depth to the game because they create a limitation. This isn't to say they shouldn't be balanced, but through limitation, we create metnal/technical interaction and thus, more depth.

1. No there is a risk-reward, because you can wavedash too far or wavedash when you should regular dash or jump - it opens up ledge options as well [landing onstage]. L-cancelling doesn't have an alternative option in many cases (ex: SH aerials mostly don't have any other kind of cancel expect going offstage with them which isn't a cancel at all) and it does lack the risk-reward dynamic (as compared to wavedash fsmash versus dash-crouch-fsmash or dash-crouch-dsmash - can go further etc.).

2. There might be even MORE players who would play the game if they didn't have to L-cancel - I know I've heard several players from my school who were like "I play Brawl, and I WOULD play Melee, but I can't L-cancel well, so I don't like it." It certainly has prevented some from working to play Melee, though the scope of that is unclear. This is also something that can be done by just teaching wavelanding or waveshining or various CGs, L-cancelling isn't something that uniquely provides this.

3. I'll admit I don't understand this contention entirely, but my play-style tends to vacillate between shooting a lot of lasers, shooting lasers and going in hard, or just standing backwards and looking to utilt or bair an approach - and even when bair is shielded, I can often shine and jump away. In this sense, it can be made campy, although I don't think it necessarily adds to campiness (this claim does seem a bit off to me as well).

4. Project M is easier and most characters are better - if one wants no hitstun-cancelling, but wants parts of the game to be easier [SH, dashing, sweetspotting ledge with certain characters like Marth/Captain Falcon] and/or want Ness or Zelda or whomever to not suck, PM is going to be an obvious choice over Melee.

5. "After 12 frames"? Well, Samus missing an L-cancel usually adds 8 frames (Since they're all 15/7 I believe). So if they notice from the start, they get 3 frames to notice and act - if not they'll get -3 to notice and act - not very helpful.

6. You can master a character in a variety of other ways, with wavedashing, DDing, moonwalking (for some), and proper execution of various combos - just mashing shield every time you land isn't very deep (if you can hit shield 10 times a second, you will ALWAYS L-cancel every aerial). Also for what it's worth, most people can still auto-pilot L-cancel, because it's a visual thing usually and they can tell when they'll hit, but it can frustrate newer players. I don't think a mechanic that frustrates certain newer players and is mostly automatic for more experienced players but doesn't actually get noticed much except when missed (you can note a good wavedash OoS (or a good waveland usmash), especially with someone like Luigi or Fox, but you'll never note a good L-cancel) is a well-designed mechanic.

I specifically said he's in the endzone and the ball hits him in the chest. There is no choice, catching the ball is always best. When you mention defensive pressure, that is analogous to people throwing off the timing of an l-cancel with angled shields and spot dodges. Even pros drop the ball once in a while, just like pros miss l-cancels once in a while.

Finishing the combo is always the best, but it doesn't always happen - my explanation of events also holds.

And on defense, if you've got guys surrounding you trying to pick it out of your arms, hitting it into the dirt may be a better option still [as I already said].

Angled shields and dodges don't throw off a solid pro's timing - Mango is never like "Oh if he spotdodges I won't get this L-cancel!" If you're not running on auto-pilot you'll hit your cancels anyway because you are already aware of these things, and the timing and practice put in on them causes people to respond to those things with L-cancels more or less naturally [and sometimes the timing varies so little it is hit even if it was assumed to hit shield and hit a spotdodge or something] - people here are like "you say you don't like L-cancelling so it must be so hard", I'm saying "I think L-cancelling is a bad mechanic - it's not terribly hard, but it shuts some people out and the game wouldn't lose anything without it and reduced landing lag, except perhaps one's self-satisfaction that they have high APM, which in my opinion doesn't constitute a good game or a well-designed mechanic."

 

[Praxis]

Some of these overlap in timing, I don't know the exact frame data outside of you got 7 frames to L-cancel but some of these aren't that different in timing, speaking from personal here on this mind you.

Overlap does not mean they're the same. If Tech 1 has a frame 1-7 window and Tech 2 has a frame 6-13 window, there is two frames where they overlap, but it's actually difficult to always time your moves in those two frames- you'll be targetting different windows.

See this argument I hate because it's flawed on the concept you're trying to say some character is balanced because mistakes can be made.

Melee, Fox can nair with giving a damn? That's an issue with Fox himself. Brawl, Ice Climbers can do a CG but still drop it? They still are a problem even if they need tech skill to be used. If Fox can through out a nair with little to no counter play and high reward that problem is on Fox and how the game is set-up.

No, with this you are simplifying the argument. This is true of most characters in Melee/PM. Link can nair without giving a crap with auto L-cancelling. Tons of characters have safe automatic shield pressure and the player gets to turn their brain off. Marth, Sheik, Puff, etc can all pressure like crazy if the player doesn't have to pay attention to when they hit the ground and can just short hop spam moves.

It's not about artificially forcing timing, it's about rewarding a player who is situationally aware enough to know whether their attack is going to hit or not. That means knowing when your opponent's landing lag ends and whether they are going to shield or evade. In other words, it rewards the player with more game knowledge. It's more than just automatic muscle memory.

As for the making the gap between low and mid. Then really that makes me ask if that's even needed in the first place or even if L-cancelling situations happen enough at high levels of play or mid level to make this actually worthwhile.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Mechanics that reward awareness of what is happening in the game are a good thing. Differentiation between skill gaps, where even a slight difference in skill results in a player consistently doing better, are signs of good competitive game design.

Brawl is definitely a good game because you see consistent results among top players. But in my experience, one of the biggest issue Brawl has is that there is very little skill gap between low and mid level players- the game gives the players so many options that you have to be really good to control their options to get strings and frame traps (just landing followups is very cerebral). At low and mid levels it's just a hit trading fest.

The reason L-cancelling shows off skill gaps between low and medium players is that it's the first big skill one has to master to progress, not because high level players don't have to think about it, and it only rewards the player who is more aware of what is going on rather than the one who is throwing out moves he knows is good.

That's increasing the complexity not the depth by any meaningful amount.

Did you know difficulty is a legitimate complaint with Melee for people trying to get into it and PM actually improved on this quite a but? I've heard other players say this and I have to agree.

As someone who mains PM, not Melee, I agree.

PM did not remove L-cancelling. I don't think it would be a great game if they removed it.

 

[Thor]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Mechanics that reward awareness of what is happening in the game are a good thing. Differentiation between skill gaps, where even a slight difference in skill results in a player consistently doing better, are signs of good competitive game design.

Differentiation is good? Then PM should add the up+b double-L-cancel c-stick lag reduction, where if you hit up+b at any point during the animation, then C-stick down and both trigger buttons all at once within 3 frames of hitting the ground you get 4 frames of landing lag regardless of what move you did, because it will result in more tech skill -> skill differentiation -> good competitive game design. Right?

 

[Praxis]

Differentiation is good? Then PM should add the up+b double-L-cancel c-stick lag reduction, where if you hit up+b at any point during the animation, then C-stick down and both trigger buttons all at once within 3 frames of hitting the ground you get 4 frames of landing lag regardless of what move you did, because it will result in more tech skill -> skill differentiation -> good competitive game design. Right?

Straw Man Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy

You're exaggerating my position to the point of silliness. I am not asking for arbitrary tech skill to be added. I'm saying that it's good to have techniques that give rewards to players who are situationally aware. DI is a similar technique that rewards the person who knows which direction is the best and reacts correctly. L cancelling is similar as it rewards the player who knows when he is going to hit the ground. Teching is similar as well.

I'm not saying making things more difficult is better. If L cancelling only had a one frame window, it would be worse. If L cancelling took extra inputs for no reason, it would be worse.

But what I'm saying that making things easier detracts from depth if it reduces the thought you have to put in to it. If the game automatically L-cancels for you, it wouldn't increase the depth at all, only decrease. What time you land is irrelevant without L-cancelling. (Especially if buffering is on.) If landing lag is super low, you can just spam a bread n' butter (I'm going to use a nair plane as an example, Marth, Fox, Link, Falco, etc can all do it, but waveshining is another example) like mashing X+A and ignore whether you hit a player or shield.

Even Brawl's autocancelling system is better than auto-L-cancelling, because it rewards spatial awareness. (Yes, Melee had autocancelling too, but fastfall L cancel produces better results in 90% of scenarios. Probably more than that.)


AT NO POINT DID I EVER SAY MORE TECH SKILL = SKILL DIFFERENTIATION. My entire post was about how L cancelling forces game knowledge and situational awareness and is not just dumb tech. The fact that you're strawmanning me in to saying harder input = better game makes me think you're just being dishonest in this discussion.

 

[Thor]

Straw Man Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy

You're exaggerating my position to the point of silliness. I am not asking for arbitrary tech skill to be added. I'm saying that it's good to have techniques that give rewards to players who are situationally aware. DI is a similar technique that rewards the person who knows which direction is the best and reacts correctly. L cancelling is similar as it rewards the player who knows when he is going to hit the ground. Teching is similar as well.

I'm not saying making things more difficult is better. If L cancelling only had a one frame window, it would be worse. If L cancelling took extra inputs for no reason, it would be worse.

But what I'm saying that making things easier detracts from depth if it reduces the thought you have to put in to it. If the game automatically L-cancels for you, it wouldn't increase the depth at all, only decrease. What time you land is irrelevant without L-cancelling. (Especially if buffering is on.) If landing lag is super low, you can just spam a bread n' butter (I'm going to use a nair plane as an example, Marth, Fox, Link, Falco, etc can all do it, but waveshining is another example) like mashing X+A and ignore whether you hit a player or shield.

Even Brawl's autocancelling system is better than auto-L-cancelling, because it rewards spatial awareness. (Yes, Melee had autocancelling too, but fastfall L cancel produces better results in 90% of scenarios. Probably more than that.)


AT NO POINT DID I EVER SAY MORE TECH SKILL = SKILL DIFFERENTIATION. My entire post was about how L cancelling forces game knowledge and situational awareness and is not just dumb tech. The fact that you're strawmanning me in to saying harder input = better game makes me think you're just being dishonest in this discussion.

Nope, this would increase situational awareness - you have a tighter window than regular L-cancelling, so opting for this and trying to act out of means you might still have commands "Eaten up by lag" and thus hurt yourself. It also would be a question of throwing out aerials higher above the ground than trying to do it on the last possible frame so you have the time needed to input all those inputs (might only be a few frames, but that can make all the difference).

And this would add a boon - Ganondorf would go from 20ish frames of lag (at least in Melee) to 4 - I didn't say replace L-cancelling, I said ADD up+b double-L-cancel c-stick lag reduction because it would increase skill differentiation (those who can do it > those who L-cancel > those who can't). And you'd put in more thought - try this, or just go for regular lag cancels, AND on the defensive end, are you willing to gamble that they can't do this if you want to buffer a roll out (because if you do buffer it and they do it properly, you're likely just getting hit out of roll startup).

I occasionally just nairplane over and over on bad players anyway who roll with timing to make me L-cancel at different timings and don't miss L-cancels and I'm not that good at it - top players could do this too, they don't because it's punishable EVEN WITH low landlag, NOT because it's hard to adjust for hitting a player or shield - but it IS hard for lower-level players and can be a barrier for playing at a higher level.

Yes you did -

MORE TECH SKILL = SKILL DIFFERENTIATION

Less sarcastically:

Differentiation between skill gaps, where even a slight difference in skill results in a player consistently doing better, are signs of good competitive game design.

Tech skill is a differentiation of skill gaps, so adding more technical barriers or things that add depth necessarily great more differentiation between those who can and those who can't, which would be a sign of "good competitive game design". So you clearly implied it as a direct consequence of your statement, even if you didn't explicitly state it, and my example WOULD create that differentiation between perfect/obscenely good shield pressure and the regular kind that is produced by L-cancelling versus not being able to L-cancel. I'm also stating separating between low and mid-level players is silly and unhelpful, and I sincerely doubt removing L-cancelling would somehow close gaps between any of the top 5 on any given day - it's not like they're just missing all their L-cancels when they lose to each other, it's because they're outplayed.

L-cancelling IS dumb tech - if people aren't playing the game while being aware [auto-pilot], they are GOING to lose to any player who is just as technically proficient and not on auto-pilot, because EVERYONE has habits and the aware player will exploit them - they don't need the tech skill gap to win, and inserting it for lower levels is dumb.

My mechanic actually WOULD add more depth to shield pressure choices, but I agree it's entirely stupid because it's needlessly technical. Maybe if it were just depressing both trigger buttons or hitting the L-cancel and the cstick in the same 6 frame window? The up+B and one of the extra commands is probably excessive.

 

[luigijerk]

2. There might be even MORE players who would play the game if they didn't have to L-cancel - I know I've heard several players from my school who were like "I play Brawl, and I WOULD play Melee, but I can't L-cancel well, so I don't like it." It certainly has prevented some from working to play Melee, though the scope of that is unclear. This is also something that can be done by just teaching wavelanding or waveshining or various CGs, L-cancelling isn't something that uniquely provides this.

Angled shields and dodges don't throw off a solid pro's timing - Mango is never like "Oh if he spotdodges I won't get this L-cancel!" If you're not running on auto-pilot you'll hit your cancels anyway because you are already aware of these things, and the timing and practice put in on them causes people to respond to those things with L-cancels more or less naturally [and sometimes the timing varies so little it is hit even if it was assumed to hit shield and hit a spotdodge or something] - people here are like "you say you don't like L-cancelling so it must be so hard", I'm saying "I think L-cancelling is a bad mechanic - it's not terribly hard, but it shuts some people out and the game wouldn't lose anything without it and reduced landing lag, except perhaps one's self-satisfaction that they have high APM, which in my opinion doesn't constitute a good game or a well-designed mechanic."

Do you see the contradiction?

First you use new players not wanting to learn it as a reason l-canceling is bad. Then, to counter the argument that people CAN throw off timing of l-cancels as a strategic part of their game, you use Mango as an example of how that doesn't work. Once you are Mango skill, I doubt you are not playing the game because of l-canceling lol.

 

[luigijerk]

double post...

 

[Thor]

Do you see the contradiction?

First you use new players not wanting to learn it as a reason l-canceling is bad. Then, to counter the argument that people CAN throw off timing of l-cancels as a strategic part of their game, you use Mango as an example of how that doesn't work. Once you are Mango skill, I doubt you are not playing the game because of l-canceling lol.

There isn't a contradiction - it's a barrier at low levels (and because of simple mechanics for newer players) and irrelevant at the highest levels - that's a bad mechanic.

Even IF it allows people to throw off timing, that's ONLY at lower levels, which is bad design for a game that's designed for high-level competition, which is what I've been saying the whole time. You're looking for something that isn't there - my argument has been consistent the entire time.

And for what you MIGHT be trying to highlight, L-cancelling's difficulty varies - for at least one person in here, they found it very easy. I find it took a fair bit of trying to implement it mid-match (and being a Link main when I started trying to do so helped, because I'd always be like "MUST L-CANCEL DAIR!!!"), and some people can't get into the game at all because they find themselves unable to L-cancel (or unwilling to learn). It blocks people out but it doesn't cause some sort of separation of skills at the highest level. I have stated I think that is bad game design, and I have been consistent in that and these explanations the entire time.

Or else you need to do a MUCH better job of explaining this so-called "contradiction" I've presented.

 

[SpiderMad]

There's hard techs to hit, and there's hard L-cancels to hit

 

[EPsilon933]

@ EPsilon933

While I respect the fact you were willing to put out a video talking about L-Cancelling, its just plain wrong in many regards.

It sucks. I tried tailoring my speech for competitive Smashers and it turned out abysmally. If I could rewrite it, I would focus on how it's bad game design more than how it's not a good thing for the competitive scene. That's what the real problem with it is

 

[1MachGO]

I can agree with this.
1. No there is a risk-reward, because you can wavedash too far or wavedash when you should regular dash or jump - it opens up ledge options as well [landing onstage]. L-cancelling doesn't have an alternative option in many cases (ex: SH aerials mostly don't have any other kind of cancel expect going offstage with them which isn't a cancel at all) and it does lack the risk-reward dynamic (as compared to wavedash fsmash versus dash-crouch-fsmash or dash-crouch-dsmash - can go further etc.).

2. There might be even MORE players who would play the game if they didn't have to L-cancel - I know I've heard several players from my school who were like "I play Brawl, and I WOULD play Melee, but I can't L-cancel well, so I don't like it." It certainly has prevented some from working to play Melee, though the scope of that is unclear. This is also something that can be done by just teaching wavelanding or waveshining or various CGs, L-cancelling isn't something that uniquely provides this.

3. I'll admit I don't understand this contention entirely, but my play-style tends to vacillate between shooting a lot of lasers, shooting lasers and going in hard, or just standing backwards and looking to utilt or bair an approach - and even when bair is shielded, I can often shine and jump away. In this sense, it can be made campy, although I don't think it necessarily adds to campiness (this claim does seem a bit off to me as well).

4. Project M is easier and most characters are better - if one wants no hitstun-cancelling, but wants parts of the game to be easier [SH, dashing, sweetspotting ledge with certain characters like Marth/Captain Falcon] and/or want Ness or Zelda or whomever to not suck, PM is going to be an obvious choice over Melee.

5. "After 12 frames"? Well, Samus missing an L-cancel usually adds 8 frames (Since they're all 15/7 I believe). So if they notice from the start, they get 3 frames to notice and act - if not they'll get -3 to notice and act - not very helpful.

6. You can master a character in a variety of other ways, with wavedashing, DDing, moonwalking (for some), and proper execution of various combos - just mashing shield every time you land isn't very deep (if you can hit shield 10 times a second, you will ALWAYS L-cancel every aerial). Also for what it's worth, most people can still auto-pilot L-cancel, because it's a visual thing usually and they can tell when they'll hit, but it can frustrate newer players. I don't think a mechanic that frustrates certain newer players and is mostly automatic for more experienced players but doesn't actually get noticed much except when missed (you can note a good wavedash OoS (or a good waveland usmash), especially with someone like Luigi or Fox, but you'll never note a good L-cancel) is a well-designed mechanic.

1. You misread my point( though to be fair, it could have been worded a bit better). To clarify, I was saying that criticizing L-Cancelling for lacking risk/reward is like criticizing wavedashing because it has risk/reward. I was never saying wavedashing lacked risk reward, I'm saying its silly to criticize l-cancelling for not being something it was never trying to be.

L-cancelling should be evaluated as an instance of execution, not an action.

Actions: Shffling, wavedashing, dashing, etc. (things which change the state of your character and have risk/reward)
Execution: pressing the A button, moving the control stick, L-cancelling (things which you are required to do when deciding to perform a certain action)

2. Might is a key word here. We don't know if it would have been a lateral move, a step forward, or even a step backward. Its a moot point because its entirely speculation. Plus Melee/P:M (games which have L-cancelling) are more popular than Brawl.

And dude, you are the king of strawman lol. I never said L-cancelling was the only instance of no-theory in the game. However, it is ubiquitous (Peach probably using it the least).

3. It seems off to you because the point of L-cancelling making the game campier doesn't make any sense lol. Options which promote campiness (such as lasers) or skewed risk/reward (such as zero-death punishes in 64 or no combos in Brawl) are what make a game campier. There is no empirical evidence to suggest L-cancelling does this and stating so is simply grasping at straws.

4. And your point is? You seem to be attacking ideas I never gave opinions for. Here is the problem I was targeting here:

>Person says L-cancelling makes Melee harder and turns away players
>Says P:M is easier and draws more players
>Doesn't say the other game still has L-cancelling
>Doesn't reconsider the implications of L-cancelling in the context of deterring players in light of this information

Other aspects (such as character balance) have more impact on drawing players for P:M than its difficulty.

5. I originally was going to talk about hitlag frames adding to your preparation and how reacting to aerials is more complex but I thought of a better response: do you really think a pro (or even a mid/high level player) will let a missed L-cancel go unpunished on their shield? Do you really think Samus could nair, not L-cancel, and jab to make her aerial safe?

6. The game is thirteen years old. We will marvel less and less feats of technical skill as the game progresses. That still doesn't mean that being required to do certain inputs doesn't detract away from our ability to process other information (even if its minuscule). You can argue that L-cancelling is an odd addition (and I would agree) but I ultimately believe that it adds more to the game than it takes.