L-Canceling

[Deleted member 245254]

The irony of this is that despite people touting that Melee is an elitists game that favours the egotistical by allowing them to win over their lesser players, you're absolutely right. At least, you're partially right. It doesn't matter results wise if the entry level barrier (which is already really low) is lowered because M2K will still be M2K. That doesn't mean the quality of the game, what makes the game interesting, deep, exciting, won't suffer for it. That's what I feel needs to be considered here. I'm speaking from an overall concept here, I'm not suggesting that removing L-Cancelling is going to have such negative effects.

Melee may have ended up being an amazing competitive game, and it's showing its salt up on the real stages of truly competitive play this very year, more than 10 years since it released, which says a lot.

That doesn't mean it isn't a fun game even for casuals. It just had that competitive niche that got tapped in to by figuring out all of those advanced techniques. I'm not unhappy that this happened, looking back, but I think that we've obviously learned a lot about ourselves as a community since then, and we have a better idea of, in our current position going in to the "platinum age" of smash, what the best next step is for furthering ourselves in the right direction to become an actual thing in competitive gaming.

And what you need to appreciate is that the only reason you're here, talking to me on a competitive forum, is because that "incredibly minute" competitive Smash community made a name for this game outside of just another one of Nintendo's launch release titles. How successful do you really believe Smash would have been as a competitive title if Brawl was the first iteration of the series? Do you think it would have ever made it to MLG? EVO? Do you think there would be a dedicated forum as large and active as this? This shouldn't be a legitimate question, this should be a rhetorical question because the answer is blatantly obvious. The community had to fight tooth and nail for exposure, not because it was too difficult, but because Nintendo and the FGC didn't lend their support. And now that we finally have it, you want to throw away what made that happen in favor of making an easy game even easier?

It's simple. You remove the qualities that made the game what it is today, you remove what will continue the games competitive future.

Just because melee was the catalyst for all of this coming to be, doesn't mean that all future iterations of Smash should be Melee with a new coat of paint. There are ways to improve the formula, just like any other competitive franchise has aimed to do over time with new iteration releases. Smash (and Melee especially) isn't exempt from the concept of improvement.

That's like saying that since the model t ford was a pivotal point in the automotive industry that cars would essentially die out unless the model t ford stayed in production for as long as cars are a competitive business. Of course they wouldn't. Cars are continually improved upon, even in areas we didn't think were possible, and they will continue to improve for as long as business competition exists.

I think it's a pretty streeeeeeeeeeetchy claim to say that Smashboards would not exists and we wouldn't be here if those techniques didn't exist. This board is for people who love Super Smash Bros, not people who love l-cancelling and wavedashing (or maybe I missed that in the description). The goal of discussion like this is to pin-point where we identify improvements in the franchise, despite how you feel about the changes in question.

 

[Snakeyes]

It's simple. You remove the qualities that made the game what it is today, you remove what will continue the games competitive future.

I disagree with this. Smash is home to so many other techniques with actual strategic value to them that the game would remain incredibly competitive even without L-canceling. All reduced landing lag would do is let everyone get to the fun stuff sooner.

 

[D-idara]

All reduced landing lag would do is let everyone get to the fun stuff sooner.

THIS, THIS! This will always be the definitive argument againist L-Cancelling.

 

[Shaya]

• Auto cancelling (AC) exists as a mechanic that is less about muscle memory timing execution (L cancelling) and more so reactive timing execution.
  • ACing exists in every Smash game and the standard is that it becomes available when the hitbox of a move ends. Instead of halving your landing lag, an auto cancel gives you standard landing (2 or more frames).
    
  • Successfully performing auto cancels requires consideration of what state you are in the air and the literal frame of an active hitbox you wish to aim to hit someone with. Timing of a fast fall, or where in the rise of your jump (where you cannot fast fall) and the position of your opponent. An efficient auto cancel can only be achieved under the right circumstances.
  • An analogy to auto cancelling (which has been used in the past to compare to L cancelling) is dribbling in ball sports (Basketball primarily [Australia's "national" sport also has it]). A constraint exists that the ball must be bounced on a timely basis, without doing so is breaking the rules, but the reason for it existing is to leave openings for an opponent to punish your execution, the player with the ball has to adjust his movements and how/where/etc he bounces the ball for it to not get stolen while still moving towards the goal. All those considerations and constraints on the player are auto cancelling, and I would say L cancelling is akin to removing them.
• L cancelling as a mechanic removes most, if not all reasons, for ACing. Leaving yourself OPEN in different ways to achieve a 2 frame landing just isn't worth it when you can go for that 8+ frame landing with muscle memory of "attack"->fast fall>press shield (or fast fall, attack, shield).
  • The exception is high aerial mobility characters who will/would get the most freedom of movement remaining in the air than on the ground (JIGGLYPUFF/Peach) and can hence abuse ACing frame advantages. Also aerials with on landing hitboxes/properties.
    
  • Otherwise, there are no situations in which you would not want to L cancel, making it a superfluous input. By all arguable means this doesn't add any competitive depth to the game in the bubble of theory crafting.
    • It adds depth to complicated actions as the more complex a sequence of inputs, the more likely an error in L cancelling would occur. Basically, Fox and Falco. Their technical boundaries are made several degrees higher due to L cancelling, to the point that it's considered a "necessary part" of the execution to be fair (as otherwise the punishment windows for these characters would be near nil, almost like a basketballer getting to hold the ball). Without that barrier it would be even easier and probably centralise character usage in Melee even further. The only pro-L cancelling argument for competitive depth that I'm partial to. However, very hard technical barriers still exist otherwise across all of the games, and will likely still exist in the new game in other (or maybe similar) forms. For the majority, it is meager and should not impact characters due to simplicity.
    • L cancelling in Smash 64 however, has no such "unintended depth" and for all bar 1 aerial in the entire game would change nothing if it were "automatic" (I think the 64 community are ever so slightly more anti-L cancelling than the melee fans are)

So here's the crux of it all:
L cancelling removes depth from the game (ACing) whilst adding no competitive depth beyond a semblance of "opportunity" of a punishment game against the technically broken characters of Melee (adds "dribbling" to an otherwise "I'm the 10 foot tall guy holding onto the ball above my head until I throw it into the hoop" ability that Fox/Falco have).

Also I'm not sure if I appreciate the ad hominem of the argument coming from both sides. Cool your heels imo.

 

[Ulevo]

Melee may have ended up being an amazing competitive game, and it's showing its salt up on the real stages of truly competitive play this very year, more than 10 years since it released, which says a lot.

That doesn't mean it isn't a fun game even for casuals. It just had that competitive niche that got tapped in to by figuring out all of those advanced techniques. I'm not unhappy that this happened, looking back, but I think that we've obviously learned a lot about ourselves as a community since then, and we have a better idea of, in our current position going in to the "platinum age" of smash, what the best next step is for furthering ourselves in the right direction to become an actual thing in competitive gaming.

You know what, this is a fair assessment. But there's an undertone here that needs to be addressed. Smash struggled to be a 'competitive thing.' Maybe not in amongst itself, because grassroot community OP. But as something that is sponsored, streamed, and mainstream (for better or worse), it really had an uphill battle. I don't attribute this to the problems Melee supposedly has. I attribute this to a couple of things:

1) Melee came in to being at a time before things like Twitch TV existed, YouTube was a thing everyone watched daily, and before the revival of the overall fighting game community ala Street Fighter IV. These were only things that happened very recently, and had they already transpired, Melee would have had a lot more exposure, and a much easier time getting noticed.

2) Brawl was a HUGE problem. It sucked away entrants in tournaments for Melee, it was the new shiny thing on the block everyone wanted to play with, and it divided the community. It also, no offense to Brawl players, made a pretty bad name for Smash as a series to those who were less inclined on what Smash was about. It took years before people gave it up and returned back to Melee as the competitive title of choice, and this pushed Melee's success back even further.

3) Nintendo's been a real hard ass up till now. Enough said.

These are the three majory contributing factors to why the entire scene as a whole, not just Melee, is getting attention only now. If these problems had not been present, I'm fairly confident Melee would have exploded earlier than it has. I do not attribute it's lack of success leading up till now as problems pertaining to the game, and if we've learned anything valuable in terms of the do's and don'ts of a Smash game (with more emphasis on the don't) it came from Brawl. Implying we have the information now to move Smash in the right direction, as if its not already heading there already now that these issues are out of the way, isn't seeing the bigger picture here.

Just because melee was the catalyst for all of this coming to be, doesn't mean that all future iterations of Smash should be Melee with a new coat of paint. There are ways to improve the formula, just like any other competitive franchise has aimed to do over time with new iteration releases. Smash (and Melee especially) isn't exempt from the concept of improvement.

That's like saying that since the model t ford was a pivotal point in the automotive industry that cars would essentially die out unless the model t ford stayed in production for as long as cars are a competitive business. Of course they wouldn't. Cars are continually improved upon, even in areas we didn't think were possible, and they will continue to improve for as long as business competition exists.

I think it's a pretty streeeeeeeeeeetchy claim to say that Smashboards would not exists and we wouldn't be here if those techniques didn't exist. This board is for people who love Super Smash Bros, not people who love l-cancelling and wavedashing (or maybe I missed that in the description). The goal of discussion like this is to pin-point where we identify improvements in the franchise, despite how you feel about the changes in question.

To clarify, I wasn't saying we wouldn't have what we have if we didn't have 'those techniques', whatever you want to contribute that to. I'm saying if Melee didn't function the way that it does at its core, even minus a technique or three, it wouldn't have seen success the way it has, and moving in the direction Brawl was heading...well. The proof is in the pudding. I don't even need to debate that. We're now at a point where TO's are talking about lowering stock counts to make it more exciting for spectators and to increase tournament entrants. lol

I agree that just because an old formula was successful doesn't mean it is infallible and should be immune to change. And Brawl coming up with a terrible formula doesn't change this either. I don't view Brawls atrocities as a reason to justify not changing Melee as a game in the event of a sequel to it. But you need to realize that core aspects of a franchise are important too. If you remove them, well then you're really just playing a new game. Which is fine, I like new games. But we're really talking about competitive Smash, right? I mean, look at the Sonic community. I don't think the fanbase there would be nearly as upset with Sega about all their silly spin off titles if it didn't mean that releasing them denied them one more year, one more title release, from finally getting that Sonic game they've waited patiently for that's good.

I disagree with this. Smash is home to so many other techniques with actual strategic value to them that the game would remain incredibly competitive even without L-canceling. All reduced landing lag would do is let everyone get to the fun stuff sooner.

Well the qualities I'm talking about don't just entail L-Cancelling, so yeah.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You know what, this is a fair assessment. But there's an undertone here that needs to be addressed. Smash struggled to be a 'competitive thing.' Maybe not in amongst itself, because grassroot community OP. But as something that is sponsored, streamed, and mainstream (for better or worse), it really had an uphill battle. I don't attribute this to the problems Melee supposedly has. I attribute this to a couple of things:

1) Melee came in to being at a time before things like Twitch TV existed, YouTube was a thing everyone watched daily, and before the revival of the overall fighting game community ala Street Fighter IV. These were only things that happened very recently, and had they already transpired, Melee would have had a lot more exposure, and a much easier time getting noticed.

2) Brawl was a HUGE problem. It sucked away entrants in tournaments for Melee, it was the new shiny thing on the block everyone wanted to play with, and it divided the community. It also, no offense to Brawl players, made a pretty bad name for Smash as a series to those who were less inclined on what Smash was about. It took years before people gave it up and returned back to Melee as the competitive title of choice, and this pushed Melee's success back even further.

3) Nintendo's been a real hard *** up till now. Enough said.

These are the three majory contributing factors to why the entire scene as a whole, not just Melee, is getting attention only now. If these problems had not been present, I'm fairly confident Melee would have exploded earlier than it has. I do not attribute it's lack of success leading up till now as problems pertaining to the game, and if we've learned anything valuable in terms of the do's and don'ts of a Smash game (with more emphasis on the don't) it came from Brawl. Implying we have the information now to move Smash in the right direction, as if its not already heading there already now that these issues are out of the way, isn't seeing the bigger picture here.

I really can't disagree with any of this. I will make some notes though...

1) Honestly, we might even be able to pin this on the rest of the FGC for being close-minded. There was a huge, loud, and very vocal number of people from the general FGC that were constantly deeming Smash to not not even be a fighting game for the longest time. It's probably counter-productive to try and play the blame game on the the very community we were vying for so many years to be accepted by, but I remember very clearly the incredibly long sting we had (as smashers) as sort of the red-headed step-child to the FGC. They even removed our section from the SRK forums (considered by most to be the fighting game hub of the world), and have since not re-added them, even with Melee going on its 2nd year at EVO and now it's first year back at MLG.

2) Brawl might have sucked players away from melee for a time but this is a pretty separatist way of thinking. As long as the players were there to play Smash, I guess I don't see what harm became of this aside from stinting Melee's individual and specific success. I would have preferred to see Brawl either be right up next to Melee, or had successfully dethroned it by being a better game purely by virtue of it being newer.

3) Well yeah.

To clarify, I wasn't saying we wouldn't have what we have if we didn't have 'those techniques', whatever you want to contribute that to. I'm saying if Melee didn't function the way that it does at its core, even minus a technique or three, it wouldn't have seen success the way it has, and moving in the direction Brawl was heading...well. The proof is in the pudding. I don't even need to debate that. We're now at a point where TO's are talking about lowering stock counts to make it more exciting for spectators and to increase tournament entrants. lol

I agree that just because an old formula was successful doesn't mean it is infallible and should be immune to change. And Brawl coming up with a terrible formula doesn't change this either. I don't view Brawls atrocities as a reason to justify not changing Melee as a game in the event of a sequel to it. But you need to realize that core aspects of a franchise are important too. If you remove them, well then you're really just playing a new game. Which is fine, I like new games. But we're really talking about competitive Smash, right? I mean, look at the Sonic community. I don't think the fanbase there would be nearly as upset with Sega about all their silly spin off titles if it didn't mean that releasing them denied them one more year, one more title release, from finally getting that Sonic game they've waited patiently for that's good.

Well now I'm curious...what defines a core aspect of a game, and how do you apply that definition to Smash? This could be an important factor of this debate.

 

[Ulevo]

Well now I'm curious...what defines a core aspect of a game, and how do you apply that definition to Smash? This could be an important factor of this debate.

When I talk about core aspects, I'm mainly talking about the mechanics. The problem with me mentioning this is people see "mechanics" in a Smash thread and they immediately think its a synonymous term to "L-Cancelling" or "Wavedashing", as if they mean the same damn thing. There are so, so, so many core mechanics in Smash, and in Melee especially. A lot of them were removed from Melee to Brawl, and unfortunately people are not inclined enough to know exactly what was removed or changed that detracted from the experience because they don't have the game knowledge or they simply are blinded by the L-Cancelling/Wavedash jargon.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Well...nowadays people are using actual player-frustration to market games (Dark Souls much...?). It's all part of the 'I'm too hardcore to be casual' mentality that has taken over the videogame world, what's wrong with begginers being able to stand a chance without dedicating years of their life to learning and utilizing the commands? I understand that practice must be an actual thing, but why can't that practice be for mindgames, reading and spacing? What's exactly the point of separating both sides with arbitrary barriers? To 'separate the child from the men'? Which IS an etilist, toxic mentality, BTW.

Beginners by merit of being beginner players should never be able to stand a chance against a good player. What is the point of dedicating years of one's life to learning and utilizing the commands if you stand a realistic chance of being beat by someone who hasn't worked for their ability?

Being good isn't the same thing as being elitist. Victory gives you bragging rights anyway. Sorry that you can't seem to handle it. Wanting an easier game just makes one a whiner. Put some back into it, son. Don't be a wimp.

It artificially divides casual and hardcore, it requires an extra press that could be made automatic and nobody would notice, and endlessly causes people to argue over it.

The l-cancel technique is just there to be used if you wanna, but it's not really an option in pretty much 100% of cases at the competitive level. This creates a divide between casual and competitive players that doesn't need to exist.

There are no actual and/or meaningful intersections of casual and competitive play, anywhere. Literally the only thing that I can think of in this series' history is the upcoming Best Buy event where the new game is both a massive demo and also likely to be a competitive event. The casual by definition do not want to play competitively and the competitively probably don't want to play casually most of the time. L-Cancelling is not keeping casuals from competitive play. There's no way to meet halfway. It's an idiotic suggestion.

I just have this vision of a Smash that is easy to play, but difficult to master, the difficult part being the spacing, mind games, and choices you make on the field. I'm not unfamiliar with difficult inputs but I'm also not a big fan of them, and I've played games with massively difficult inputs for the right combos that take infinite amounts of practice like Blazblue.

I just don't think it's necessary for a fun, Nintendo-based fighter. It's not even necessary for the combat to be deep. It just seems extraneous and people have grown a liking to it simply because it functionally makes things "harder", and these days people seem to be all about not wanting things to be easier for new players, which is in-directly killing pro-gaming and pro-gaming spectator-ship.

Sorry, I don't think anyone cares about your vision. You're not alone in that respect - No one cares about my or anyone else's vision. Smash is way beyond any one person's vision, even Sakurai's. Even he can't account for all the avenues a game will mechanically and culturally take. Also, whether or not you like it, speed will always be a part of mastery. This isn't chess or go. Like an RTS, Smash requires strategy, tactics, and also speed.

The game isn't going to be easy for new players anyway. They'll get their asses kicked with or without any X mechanic.

If the game has a flaw, the fact that my opponent's able to overcome that flaw though a technique to beat me doesn't make it any less flawed, it just turns into an obstacle that shouldn't be there in the first place. Yes, he's probably just better than me, but I would've had more of a chance if the aforementioned flaw was fixed, and I could've learned from the mistakes I made within my knowledge of the game, but now I have to deal with overcoming that flaw if I ever want to beat him.

What everyone is actually hearing: "I want the game built around me so that I don't actually have to learn anything." You are kidding yourself if you think you would have had a better chance if that "flaw" was fixed. You would have had a better chance if you stopped making excuses and learned how to play around or with that game mechanic. QED. You opponent has an apparent attitude advantage over you.

If the next iteration removes that flaw, we can truly see who's better, and the one who's worse can actually stand a chance and learn at their own pace.

I want to point out here something not related to L-Cancelling that I was going to touch upon earlier: Anyone that feels overwhelmingly inconvenienced by needing to learn what their opponent already knows will never be good at the game, period. If you want to be a stick in the mud, you will quickly become eclipsed by what's considered "good" for the game. So unless it's to prove a point, ("I bet I can beat you without using the shield button") then you probably don't have any business wanting to play competitively. If you're competitive then you're playing to win, and to win you have to be better and know more than your opponent, but if you're unwilling to know more than your opponent, you'll never win, so what's the point? You cannot complain about losing if you don't want to actually get better.

If it turns out you can't love the competitive game because of its barriers, then just don't play it. It's that simple. The game will never change. You'll never convince its existing player base to not love the game either.

Back when I was in Diamond for SC2 (at the time the highest league, winter 2010) the bane of any Terran player against Protoss was the Void Ray rush. From Gold to Diamond, it was the strongest general strategy to start off with against Terran because of the fast build order and the weak Terran early air game (which was already weak in general), and the way you could abuse the Void Ray cannon charge by rapidly alternating targets and prepping them on friendly units before moving in to cremate defenses, mineral lines and then the nexus. We're talking a strategy so strong that the void ray could destroy any SCV repairing a turret in two seconds, and you can't hide the SCVs because you need them to be out repairing because of just how fast those void rays do their job.

So what do you do? Do you throw your hands in the air in defeat or petition Blizzard to nerf the rush? Do you ask them to make some subtle changes to maps that enable a more able Terran response/defense? Sure, you could do any of these things - but I can guarantee you the only ones who got better were the ones that also sucked it up and focused on playing faster and smarter while playing around what their opponent knows to do.

 

[Ulevo]

Anyone that feels overwhelmingly inconvenienced by needing to learn what their opponent already knows will never be good at the game, period

Didn't even need to read the rest of the post.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

---

Honestly, I'm not even sure why you decided to post, because when you do it in the way that you seem to like doing, it's not even worth humoring or responding to.

Pass it off as being "honest" or "realistic" but really all I get from it is you being an ass.

 

[Ulevo]

Honestly, I'm not even sure why you decided to post, because when you do it in the way that you seem to like doing, it's not even worth humoring or responding to.

Pass it off as being "honest" or "realistic" but really all I get from it is you being an ***.

Well you're not making any headway by telling him that. As far as I can see, the post covers legitimate points. The underlying tone, given who it is direct to, is only inevitable.

 

[Khao]

Wanna add a tiny little thing to all this.

I really don't think L-Cancel adds anything to the game.

But seriously, learning to do it is an absolutely insignificant part of competitive play, the effort required to become a good player is humongous, and if you think L-canceling is too hard, then yeah, you probably just don't have what it takes.

And before any claims that I'm dismissing "casuals" with my competitive superiority complex, I'm not a competitive player by any stretch of the word, I mean, I can L-cancel when I'm actively thinking about it, I can wavedash anytime I want, I can also do other weird-ass techniques with nonsensical imputs like Brawl's DACUS, but correctly apply any of those things on a fight to help me win? Not a chance, and I don't have the patience to learn how to, and become better than more experienced players.

And that's just it, learning all those techniques, while taking a bit of practice, are nothing compared to taking the next step, I would be absolutely murdered at any serious tournament even though I can do these things, and that's because I haven't actually taken my time to get better at the game.

So yeah, L-Cancel can go for all I care, it's kinda worthless as far as deep mechanics go, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that it, and similar techniques like it are the only reason you're not a competitive player, because they're not.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Well you're not making any headway by telling him that. As far as I can see, the post covers legitimate points. The underlying tone, given who it is direct to, is only inevitable.

No, it's never constructive to demean or insult opposing view points, no matter how legitimate your point is.

It only serves to devalue your argument, legitimate or not. It just makes your side look all the more annoying and childish (when I know there are those of you who exist who are not) than casual players already pin you for being.

Of course you see nothing but legitimate points and innocence, you agree with everything he's saying, so his insults aren't directly targeted at you. Tell me it's easy for you respond neutrally to someone who attacks you personally during debate, and I won't believe you.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Let's not make it a flame war guys... Quilt had some good points imo but he was a bit insulting with his post as well. Ulevo, let's not insult people further shall we? Resorting to attacking an individual in the slightest is not inevitable in any circumstance.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

But seriously, learning to do it is an absolutely insignificant part of competitive play, the effort required to become a good player is humongous, and if you think L-canceling is too hard, then yeah, you probably just don't have what it takes.

I think this is only slightly missing the mark.

For example, Didaria and I seem to be on the "good riddance" side of l-cancel, yet we are both admitted regular users of it.

I don't think anybody here has claimed l-cancelling is difficult, just that it isn't fun and adds nothing to the game, nor does it add depth of difficulty or core mechanical function.

The game is just more fun without it, is what we're saying. The only reason the concept of "easy" and what not are floating around is because they are extrapolations used in order to make certain points.

L-cancelling is not difficult, but it's also not very fun, which is the whole reason I (or D) want it to go.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

The game isn't going to be easy for new players anyway. They'll get their ***** kicked with or without any X mechanic.

I think this is perhaps the most overlooked point in this argument. It's kinda sad too, because it goes aaaaaaall the way down to the fundamentals of playing a videogame. I still remember when I was a casual Brawl player who had only been playing Brawl for about 4 months (with my only other Smash experience being Smash 64, which I was so bad at that I just spammed Specials lol). I came to a friend's birthday party and started whooping people's butts with Dedede. All 3 of these guys had never played before and were getting pretty salty by the time we finished because I won every single match. At this point in time, I only knew what every character's Final Smash was. I didn't know any tricks, not DACUS, not even dodging in place! The only reason I won was because they were new, whereas I had experience and was in the process of learning how to get better at the game.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think this is perhaps the most overlooked point in this argument. It's kinda sad too, because it goes aaaaaaall the way down to the fundamentals of playing a videogame. I still remember when I was a casual Brawl player who had only been playing Brawl for about 4 months (with my only other Smash experience being Smash 64, which I was so bad at that I just spammed Specials lol). I came to a friend's birthday party and started whooping people's butts with Dedede. All 3 of these guys had never played before and were getting pretty salty by the time we finished because I won every single match. At this point in time, I only knew what every character's Final Smash was. I didn't know any tricks, not DACUS, not even dodging in place! The only reason I won was because they were new, whereas I had experience and was in the process of learning how to get better at the game.

I think that this is actually more in favor of not seeing l-cancel return.

If it has absolutely no effect on the difference between a good and bad player, than it serves to be even more useless than being supposed.

Removing it or leaving it in generally has no effect on anything. At all. So why is it a big deal if we leave it out, when the potential positives (many) of leaving it out are more substantial than any the positives (almost none) of bringing it back?

 

[Ulevo]

No, it's never constructive to demean or insult opposing view points, no matter how legitimate your point is.

It only serves to devalue your argument, legitimate or not. It just makes your side look all the more annoying and childish (when I know there are those of you who exist who are not) than casual players already pin you for being.

Of course you see nothing but legitimate points and innocence, you agree with everything he's saying, so his insults aren't directly targeted at you. Tell me it's easy for you respond neutrally to someone who attacks you personally during debate, and I won't believe you.

Nah, I see the post for what it is. Legitimate points with a lot of a slight touch of arrogance and a crude undertone. But it's necessary. I don't think he went any more overboard than I did replying to D-idara. I was likely worse. And that was on purpose. But an example needs to be set that you can't label people a particular way and justify your arguments therein because of the way people like to play, and their preferences and ideas on what is ideal for the success of the game they love. And you know what? It's that kinda crap that gets players acting 'high and mighty' because they're having to respond to stupid **** and wind up becoming incredibly frustrated. Not that I condone that under most circumstances, I'm just saying that's the way it's going to happen, and it's naive to expect a different result each time it happens.

 

[D-idara]

@ Ulevo Brawl taking players from Melee wasn't a problem for Brawl fans, and Sonic has got plenty of good games like Heroes, Unleashed, Colors and Generations, not to mention the Adventure games.

Beginners by merit of being beginner players should never be able to stand a chance against a good player. What is the point of dedicating years of one's life to learning and utilizing the commands if you stand a realistic chance of being beat by someone who hasn't worked for their ability?

Being good isn't the same thing as being elitist. Victory gives you bragging rights anyway. Sorry that you can't seem to handle it. Wanting an easier game just makes one a whiner. Put some back into it, son. Don't be a wimp.

There are no actual and/or meaningful intersections of casual and competitive play, anywhere. Literally the only thing that I can think of in this series' history is the upcoming Best Buy event where the new game is both a massive demo and also likely to be a competitive event. The casual by definition do not want to play competitively and the competitively probably don't want to play casually most of the time. L-Cancelling is not keeping casuals from competitive play. There's no way to meet halfway. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Sorry, I don't think anyone cares about your vision. You're not alone in that respect - No one cares about my or anyone else's vision. Smash is way beyond any one person's vision, even Sakurai's. Even he can't account for all the avenues a game will mechanically and culturally take. Also, whether or not you like it, speed will always be a part of mastery. This isn't chess or go. Like an RTS, Smash requires strategy, tactics, and also speed.

The game isn't going to be easy for new players anyway. They'll get their ***** kicked with or without any X mechanic.

What everyone is actually hearing: "I want the game built around me so that I don't actually have to learn anything." You are kidding yourself if you think you would have had a better chance if that "flaw" was fixed. You would have had a better chance if you stopped making excuses and learned how to play around or with that game mechanic. QED. You opponent has an apparent attitude advantage over you.

I want to point out here something not related to L-Cancelling that I was going to touch upon earlier: Anyone that feels overwhelmingly inconvenienced by needing to learn what their opponent already knows will never be good at the game, period. If you want to be a stick in the mud, you will quickly become eclipsed by what's considered "good" for the game. So unless it's to prove a point, ("I bet I can beat you without using the shield button") then you probably don't have any business wanting to play competitively. If you're competitive then you're playing to win, and to win you have to be better and know more than your opponent, but if you're unwilling to know more than your opponent, you'll never win, so what's the point? You cannot complain about losing if you don't want to actually get better.

If it turns out you can't love the competitive game because of its barriers, then just don't play it. It's that simple. The game will never change. You'll never convince its existing player base to not love the game either.

Back when I was in Diamond for SC2 (at the time the highest league, winter 2010) the bane of any Terran player against Protoss was the Void Ray rush. From Gold to Diamond, it was the strongest general strategy to start off with against Terran because of the fast build order and the weak Terran early air game (which was already weak in general), and the way you could abuse the Void Ray cannon charge by rapidly alternating targets and prepping them on friendly units before moving in to cremate defenses, mineral lines and then the nexus. We're talking a strategy so strong that the void ray could destroy any SCV repairing a turret in two seconds, and you can't hide the SCVs because you need them to be out repairing because of just how fast those void rays do their job.

So what do you do? Do you throw your hands in the air in defeat or petition Blizzard to nerf the rush? Do you ask them to make some subtle changes to maps that enable a more able Terran response/defense? Sure, you could do any of these things - but I can guarantee you the only ones who got better were the ones that also sucked it up and focused on playing faster and smarter while playing around what their opponent knows to do.

Well, first of all, thanks for the disgustingly condescending tone of your post, really lifts my spirits to see such tasteless cynism being delivered so tastelessly. You're taking most of my words terribly out of context and using them to the advantage of your argument, no, I do realize that you must learn from your mistakes and to some extent from your opponent, but the more even the playing grounds, the better, and no, I'm not bad at the game, so stop, I'm not bad, get it through your thick skull, I'm not 'a wimp'.

I don't dig your attitude and your 'PG-Rated Insults' that aren't any less demeaning because you use soft words, you think you sound smart and 'rugged' because you have big talk and treat everyone that doesn't agree with you with a condescending attitude, as if people disagreeing with you somehow makes them lesser or bad. I do want to actually get better, I just want getting better to be a little bit easier, that's reasonable and understandable, and it doesn't make me 'a wimp'. Not everything can or should be solved by 'sucking it up'...some things DO need fixing, people sometimes don't need to struggle.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

@ Ulevo Brawl taking players from Melee wasn't a problem for Brawl fans, and Sonic has got plenty of good games like Heroes, Unleashed, Colors and Generations, not to mention the Adventure games.

Off topic point here, but Unleashed and Heroes hold rather mixed opinions amongst Sonic fans. The other three however, do get a lot of praise from fans and critics alike.

 

[mimgrim]

This thread is stupid.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

This thread is stupid.

Posts like that only make it worse...(made me laugh though)

The only reason Brawl didn't have l-canceling is because you couldn't combo (if you could then it had to be within a few frames). If Smash 4 has combos (which it looks like it does) then l-canceling is inevitable as the rest of the Smash games that had combos had l-canceling.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Nah, I see the post for what it is. Legitimate points with a lot of a slight touch of arrogance and a crude undertone. But it's necessary. I don't think he went any more overboard than I did replying to D-idara. I was likely worse. And that was on purpose. But an example needs to be set that you can't label people a particular way and justify your arguments therein because of the way people like to play, and their preferences and ideas on what is ideal for the success of the game they love. And you know what? It's that kinda crap that gets players acting 'high and mighty' because they're having to respond to stupid **** and wind up becoming incredibly frustrated. Not that I condone that under most circumstances, I'm just saying that's the way it's going to happen, and it's naive to expect a different result each time it happens.

It's never necessary. That's a terrible excuse for misfit behavior.

I will go ahead and challenge Quilt's points anyway, despite my initial decision not to.

Beginners by merit of being beginner players should never be able to stand a chance against a good player. What is the point of dedicating years of one's life to learning and utilizing the commands if you stand a realistic chance of being beat by someone who hasn't worked for their ability?

Being good isn't the same thing as being elitist. Victory gives you bragging rights anyway. Sorry that you can't seem to handle it. Wanting an easier game just makes one a whiner. Put some back into it, son. Don't be a wimp.

It's not about allowing a beginner to easily best a professional player. Obviously this isn't going to happen, and it won't ever happen, and it shouldn't happen.

What it's really about is letting the newer player get to the point where they need to train and sharpen themselves on their current skill set quicker. Less learning, more refining. Refining is fun to do, it's fun to point out where you're weak and improve upon that weakness, and see results.

It's not fun to be back-slapped by more and more hidden techniques you are pretty much forced to learn in order to remain competitive. Maybe if wave dashing and l-cancelling were in the manual, I'd back this point less.

There are no actual and/or meaningful intersections of casual and competitive play, anywhere. Literally the only thing that I can think of in this series' history is the upcoming Best Buy event where the new game is both a massive demo and also likely to be a competitive event. The casual by definition do not want to play competitively and the competitively probably don't want to play casually most of the time. L-Cancelling is not keeping casuals from competitive play. There's no way to meet halfway. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Uh, Smash would have dropped dead after the 64 version if you eliminated the casual players leaving only the hardcore-minded tournament players. It's casual players you have to thank for melee even coming in to being.

Hardcore players should very much constantly be considering the state of the casual community, and how the game displays to them, because it directly affects the competitive community in so many important ways. They don't have to be playing with each other to affect one another in-directly.

Sorry, I don't think anyone cares about your vision. You're not alone in that respect - No one cares about my or anyone else's vision. Smash is way beyond any one person's vision, even Sakurai's. Even he can't account for all the avenues a game will mechanically and culturally take. Also, whether or not you like it, speed will always be a part of mastery. This isn't chess or go. Like an RTS, Smash requires strategy, tactics, and also speed.

No, you don't care about my vision, and that's your opinion to have. However, I do care about my vision, and ultimately believe it's logical to want to see it realized in more ways than just senseless reasoning backed by inexperience. As stated, many other concepts funnel in to mastery of a certain thing aside from speed and twitch reflexes, or in this case a game.

The game isn't going to be easy for new players anyway. They'll get their ***** kicked with or without any X mechanic.

What everyone is actually hearing: "I want the game built around me so that I don't actually have to learn anything." You are kidding yourself if you think you would have had a better chance if that "flaw" was fixed. You would have had a better chance if you stopped making excuses and learned how to play around or with that game mechanic. QED. You opponent has an apparent attitude advantage over you.

As stated before, nobody is suggesting otherwise. Strawman...

I want to point out here something not related to L-Cancelling that I was going to touch upon earlier: Anyone that feels overwhelmingly inconvenienced by needing to learn what their opponent already knows will never be good at the game, period. If you want to be a stick in the mud, you will quickly become eclipsed by what's considered "good" for the game. So unless it's to prove a point, ("I bet I can beat you without using the shield button") then you probably don't have any business wanting to play competitively. If you're competitive then you're playing to win, and to win you have to be better and know more than your opponent, but if you're unwilling to know more than your opponent, you'll never win, so what's the point? You cannot complain about losing if you don't want to actually get better.

If it turns out you can't love the competitive game because of its barriers, then just don't play it. It's that simple. The game will never change. You'll never convince its existing player base to not love the game either.

Back when I was in Diamond for SC2 (at the time the highest league, winter 2010) the bane of any Terran player against Protoss was the Void Ray rush. From Gold to Diamond, it was the strongest general strategy to start off with against Terran because of the fast build order and the weak Terran early air game (which was already weak in general), and the way you could abuse the Void Ray cannon charge by rapidly alternating targets and prepping them on friendly units before moving in to cremate defenses, mineral lines and then the nexus. We're talking a strategy so strong that the void ray could destroy any SCV repairing a turret in two seconds, and you can't hide the SCVs because you need them to be out repairing because of just how fast those void rays do their job.

So what do you do? Do you throw your hands in the air in defeat or petition Blizzard to nerf the rush? Do you ask them to make some subtle changes to maps that enable a more able Terran response/defense? Sure, you could do any of these things - but I can guarantee you the only ones who got better were the ones that also sucked it up and focused on playing faster and smarter while playing around what their opponent knows to do.

I'm not knowledgeable of Starcraft, but what I will say is that game has long since been acknowledged for its competitive gaming potential, certainly a looooooooong time before smash. It's likely because it is generally a very balanced game. So suggesting nerfs comes with a lot less credibility involved because the game is essentially designed to where both players have all the options available to them by clicking their mouse. Then you have pro players who perform so many APM...which make them skilled, but that's something any player can improve upon, and that doesn't even begin to touch on the strategy part of Starcraft which is something that's going on the whole time in those players heads, and props to them, I suck at Starcraft.

Smash (in particular, Melee) is not balanced. Melee extremists have a tendency to play in these arguments like as if while Melee was(is) an excellent competitive game, that it was perfect and flawless, when it actually has many very core flaws that really need to be addressed. I'm perfectly capable of admitting Brawl failed to do so, but I'm hopeful for Smash 4.

 

[mimgrim]

Posts like that only make it worse...(made me laugh though)

#Brutaltruth

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

The only reason Brawl didn't have l-canceling is because you couldn't combo (if you could then it had to be within a few frames). If Smash 4 has combos (which it looks like it does) then l-canceling is inevitable as the rest of the Smash games that had combos had l-canceling.

Brawl DID have hitstun cancelling though, which I'm pretty sure neither 64 nor Melee had. It's possible that Smash 4 has neither L-cancelling nor hitsun cancelling and that's why characters are able to combo in it (from what footage we've seen thus far anyway).

 

[D-idara]

Posts like that only make it worse...(made me laugh though)

The only reason Brawl didn't have l-canceling is because you couldn't combo (if you could then it had to be within a few frames). If Smash 4 has combos (which it looks like it does) then l-canceling is inevitable as the rest of the Smash games that had combos had l-canceling.

Well there does seem to be a lot of hitstun for some moves...I'd be all over smoother, softer, elegant combos like Sonic's spindash chains as opposed to frantic combos (A few of those couldn't hurt, though). I really like combo strings when you can clearly make out how each move beautifully transitions into the next one with perfect timing and precision within the game's own movement boundaries, like most Dedede combos.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Brawl DID have hitstun cancelling though, which I'm pretty sure neither 64 nor Melee had. It's possible that Smash 4 has neither L-cancelling nor hitsun cancelling and that's why characters are able to combo in it (from what footage we've seen thus far anyway).

You're right about the hitstun canceling in Melee and 64. You could be right about smash 4's mechanics. I think hitstun canceling was a glitch though. I could be wrong. I think that the floaty-ness of Smash 4 is going to limit combos enough to not have l-canceling if that makes any sense. Basically the physics will limit the combos if the ending lag of aerials isn't quickened in some form. Brawl's physics/mechanics limited combos too much. Melee had many combos and the mechanics and physics complimented combos. Smash 4 will be a balance of the two imo. There will be combos but none as lengthy as most Melee ones. The physics will be quicker than Brawls as to help give more room to combo. That is if hitstun canceling is out. If hitstun canceling is in then l-canceling doesn't matter.

#Brutaltruth

#Lol

Well there does seem to be a lot of hitstun for some moves...I'd be all over smoother, softer, elegant combos like Sonic's spindash chains as opposed to frantic combos (A few of those couldn't hurt, though). I really like combo strings when you can clearly make out how each move beautifully transitions into the next one with perfect timing and precision within the game's own movement boundaries, like most Dedede combos.

That combo that Sonic had in the direct on Marth was amazing. I hope that there are a lot of those in Smash 4 regardless of whether l-canceling is in or not.

 

[D-idara]

You're right about the hitstun canceling in Melee and 64. You could be right. I think hitstun canceling was a glitch though. I could be wrong. I think that the floaty-ness of Smash 4 is going to limit combos enough to not have l-canceling if that makes any sense. Basically the physics will limit the combos if the ending lag of aerials isn't quickened in some form.

One thing that makes me hopeful about combos is that Smash4 seems to be a much more horizontal game than all of the previous ones, you can see that most characters are often launched with greater horizontal than vertical distances, my guess would be that this is because the game's being balanced around FD, which is a pretty long stage.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I've played many casual Melee tourneys. Bzzt. Wrong. We use some of the same rules too. One of the most infamous is lack of Items.

Oh. Well, you learn something new every day, I suppose.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "elitism" refer to thinking that you're better than people, rather than simply wanting an unreleased game to be a certain way? The way I see it if someone were an "elitist" they would be going to parties and calling all the Smash players having a good time losers for playing the game the "wrong way" and that they will forever be below them until they do what the person does. Saying something along the lines of "I like L-Cancelling because it speeds up the gameplay and makes things more fluid. Man, I hope the next game has it or a similar feature" is NOT elitist.

Edit: Wording

Nononono, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people are elitist for wanting L-cancelling back because they like it. I'm saying, if people are saying (in any roundabout way) that they want it back because it creates more seperation between pros and casuals just for the same of a gaming version of classism, THAT'S elitist. I'm sure most people who support L-cancelling want it back BECAUSE they enjoy it, but I also fear that a select few only want it back so they can continue to have an advantage against "n00bs," and that's just plain stupid and egocentric.

EDIT: Also, I'm getting REALLY pissed off at one major assumption people are having. "Even without advanced techs, I'd still beat you."

Really.

Really?

Re-@#$&ing-ally?

That sounds like a whole lot of assumptions to me. Who is to say you'd beat me? Are you just assuming that I only play Smash Bros. once every few months? I played both Brawl AND Melee for countless hours! I'd gotten to the point in both games that I knew every character like the back of my hand! I've gotten to the point where I just Random all the time because I can play each character (okay, maybe not G-dorf) with equal skill, and have utterly thrashed my casual friends with little to no effort.

Can I compete in tournaments and get anywhere though? Hell no. Trust me, I've tried. Got my ass kicked by a waveshining Fox who farted and reflectored across FD like some sort of spastic furry on coke. So yes, Advanced Techs make a WORLD of difference. Don't belittle or insult my skill at the game simply to assuage your own egos.

Sorry if that came across as bitter or angry, I'm just getting tired of seeing the justification that even without the ATs, I'd still get trounced, because I'm fairly certain I could give anyone a run for their money on character knowledge alone.

 

[Divine Fist]

What it's really about is letting the newer player get to the point where they need to train and sharpen themselves on their current skill set quicker. Less learning, more refining. Refining is fun to do, it's fun to point out where you're weak and improve upon that weakness, and see results.

It's not fun to be back-slapped by more and more hidden techniques you are pretty much forced to learn in order to remain competitive. Maybe if wave dashing and l-cancelling were in the manual, I'd back this point less.

First, refining being more fun than learning is subjective. Surely people find learning or inventing new techniques fun and rewarding.

Second, competitive play isn't all about advanced techniques. While it might account for half (this point is debatable), the other half involves adaptability, reflexes, match-up knowledge, and mind games. So while L-Cancelling does give you an edge, there are other aspects that are just as important.

Last, not having the motivation to learn and master new techniques is laziness. Do you really expect to compete effectively when you're not willing to grind out hours of practice and perfect your skills? When you say things like "It's not fun to be back-slapped by more and more hidden techniques you are pretty much forced to learn in order to remain competitive" I get the impression that you're not a very competitive person to begin with. Most competitive players thrive off of discovering and mastering new things that make the game dynamic and give them a competitive edge.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Oh. Well, you learn something new every day, I suppose.

Well, not everybody knows. Tourney Mode is underused from my observation, though. Ironically, perhaps.

Nononono, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people are elitist for wanting L-cancelling back because they like it. I'm saying, if people are saying (in any roundabout way) that they want it back because it creates more seperation between pros and casuals just for the same of a gaming version of classism, THAT'S elitist. I'm sure most people who support L-cancelling want it back BECAUSE they enjoy it, but I also fear that a select few only want it back so they can continue to have an advantage against "n00bs," and that's just plain stupid and egocentric.

Now that I agree. Maybe not the same exact thing as elitism, but the attitude is bad regardless.

Elitism requires looking down on people. Knowing you have an advantage is just that, knowing more. That doesn't make you an elitist.(maybe you might be confusing Elite and Elitism? Elite itself just means you're one of the best(having high ratings, one of the top players. It's just a rank. Wearing the rank and being proud of it is fine. As long as you don't abuse it at all.). Elitism is the treatment of people as lesser than you. You can be one of the best while acting like a completely decent person regardless) I know they come from the same overall word, but they're different to a degree, enough to arguably matter.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

First, refining being more fun than learning is subjective. Surely people find learning or inventing new techniques fun and rewarding.

I was speaking from the perspective of a casual player (which we all were at one point). I, myself, play with a competitive mindset (I like to win and find out how to win), so obviously I'm aware that it's subjective, but the whole point is erring on the fact that the casuals' opinion is important for the Smash franchise.

Pointing out that something is subjective seems rather pointless in an opinion-based debate, does it not? Why don't we just assume that everything being stated in this entire thread is subjective...because it is.

Second, competitive play isn't all about advanced techniques. While it might account for half (this point is debatable), the other half involves adaptability, reflexes, match-up knowledge, and mind games. So while L-Cancelling does give you an edge, there are other aspects that are just as important.

Fifty percent is quite an incredible margin of substantiation. It may not mean all, but if it's fifty percent it seems a bit like heavy downplaying to bother saying that advanced play isn't all about advanced technique.

I think Smash should be 100% adaptability, reflexes, match-up knowledge, and mind games. Do you think the game would downright awful if that were the case? That pretty much covers every single important aspect of smash (in my opinion). The only odd man out being advanced techniques necessary to not get splooged on that over-take the default games movement, treating running as some form of mobility impairment, and the default landing of your aerials as "lag" simply because l-cancelling exists.

Last, not having the motivation to learn and master new techniques is laziness. Do you really expect to compete effectively when you're not willing to grind out hours of practice and perfect your skills? When you say things like "It's not fun to be back-slapped by more and more hidden techniques you are pretty much forced to learn in order to remain competitive" I get the impression that you're not a very competitive person to begin with. Most competitive players thrive off of discovering and mastering new things that make the game dynamic and give them a competitive edge.

Refusing to do them is laziness, simply not wanting to play the game as a result of their existence because it creates an environment where if they don't do it, they will just suck and be stuck forever in casual-ville is something the developers themselves want to avoid because it will prevent their game from selling better than it could.

Again, I feel as though this topic is being unfairly extrapolated to encompass all advanced techniques, when even myself and other proponents have said straight-out that we can deal with things like wave dash and l-cancel, they just aren't fun.

This is about l-cancelling and the mechanic in and of itself not being fun. Why do folks keep dragging us back in to a debate over being lazy and not wanting or not having the skill to do any of them in the first place?

Let me ask you, if you did an international poll somehow of every single person who's played smash, and they were all keenly aware of what l-cancel was but maintained their personal set of opinions, what do you think the vote would be? Keep it? Lose it?

 

[StriCNYN3]

I was speaking from the perspective of a casual player (which we all were at one point). I, myself, play with a competitive mindset (I like to win and find out how to win), so obviously I'm aware that it's subjective, but the whole point is erring on the fact that the casuals' opinion is important for the Smash franchise.

At what point does a casual even acknowledge an Advance Technique and the purpose it serves, let alone even care? They just wanna throw Pokeballs in Hyrule Castle's cave of life with Kirby, right?

There's a difference between "Casual Players" and "Competitive players - to - be".

Refusing to do them is laziness, simply not wanting to play the game as a result of their existence because it creates an environment where if they don't do it, they will just suck and be stuck forever in casual-ville is something the developers themselves want to avoid because it will prevent their game from selling better than it could.

That is not the problem for Sakurai as the AT's aren't even Smash's main focus. If anything, any player coming in with a competitive mindset is like an extra bonus for Sakurai's already fat pockets.

What you've described is more in line with how you guys, as in the Smash Community, discovered hidden and useful game quirks (that quite possibly the devs themselves have never known until after the fact) to gain the upper hand. The "actual problem" stems more towards the "competitive player - to - be" deciding if he/she can keep up with the rest or keep out. If a player is worrying about whether or not "X technique in Smash" is fun, with enough first hand experience to (hopefully) make a valid point, more likely than not, Nintendo already has said player's money, anyway.

And let's add in the fact that such a scenario like this is a niche within a niche as far as Smash's health and relevance goes. Competitive Smash in general, although growing ever so much, is like a pimple in comparison to the entirety of Smash's fan base. For Sakurai to lose an even smaller base of quitting competitive players - to - be is pretty much entirely irrelevant and nowhere near detrimental for Smash's health.

 

[Ulevo]

Well there does seem to be a lot of hitstun for some moves...I'd be all over smoother, softer, elegant combos like Sonic's spindash chains as opposed to frantic combos (A few of those couldn't hurt, though). I really like combo strings when you can clearly make out how each move beautifully transitions into the next one with perfect timing and precision within the game's own movement boundaries, like most Dedede combos.

Dedede doesn't have combos. He has a single binary chain grab that was likely a big design oversight and makes a good majority of the cast unviable in competitive play.

 

[Shaya]

Maybe he means Project M.

Dedede is beautiful.
His entire moveset and mindset is the
SWAN DANCE

Or he means what little footage we've seen from him in the game thus far, which was some side-b shenanigans?

 

[D-idara]

@ Ulevo
@ Shaya
I do mean Project M, I'm aware of Brawl's terrible balance, Dedede combos on PM are majestic.

 

[CRASHiC]

DDD has several true combos at early percents in vanilla Brawl.

 

[Ulevo]

DDD has several true combos at early percents in vanilla Brawl.

I was making a sweeping generalization. I realize there's probably a few combos associated with things like Nair you can do on certain characters at 0%-10%, but for all intents and purposes these aren't really redeeming qualities of the system. If he meant Project M, that's a different story.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I was making a sweeping generalization. I realize there's probably a few combos associated with things like Nair you can do on certain characters at 0%-10%, but for all intents and purposes these aren't really redeeming qualities of the system. If he meant Project M, that's a different story.

Yeah, most characters can follow up on an up/down throw at low percents or just up tilt someone to 30-40%. That's 99% of the combo game for anyone B tier and below. You can't even keep the ball rolling with low knockback moves.

 

[CRASHiC]

His combos are actually much more elaborate and have a far broader percent range. They don't see play often because their setups don't fit his playstyle.
Regardless you've already made it abundantly clear how incapable you are in this discussion throughout this thread so pointing out your baseless statements and ignorance doesn't really do much.

There's a reason that discussions about L-Canceling or no L-Canceling are a bannable topic now, and that's because it's an incredibly stupid topic that only brings out those who have a strong attachment to a game and culture as well as possessing a staunch need to defend every aspect of that game to defend what every other person already knows: that l-canceling is and will always be sub-par to naturally low landing lag. It's a topic done long ago, yet the internet has instilled a sense in people that any opinion - that their opinion is justified and valued and they have a right to not only have their malformed opinion but to celebrate and parade them. So here we go again as another heard are so eager to show off their oral impotence unable to greet truth. I pity those that have to deal with these chickens and snakes.