L-Canceling

[Dr. James Rustles]

There's a reason that discussions about L-Canceling or no L-Canceling are a bannable topic now

You say that like you're not the 440th post in a thread essentially about the merits of L-Cancelling (even if it the proposed mechanic doesn't have to be L-Cancelling itself) that's actively moderated not just with a moderator but also a senator.

 

[Priap0s]

I'm trying to say that l-canceling isn't the sole reason why a casual player won't be good at Smash Bros. I was expanding upon what Ulevo said.

Got ya!
I still don't realy see how it concerns the discussion of L-canceling at all. Do you mean that L-cancel should not be questioned as a needless barrier just because there are other barriers that are even harder to overcome? I think the tradeof complexity vs added depth is the most important aspect of any barrier and I'd say L-cancel get outshined heavily in this regard, by every other barrier in the game.

Ofcourse I agree though. Casuals will be casuals. Even in Mario Kart a good player still beats a bad one 99% of the time. Peronally I just think L-cancel is such an easy way to remove a barrier. While many of the other "barriers" give so much depth and flair to the game that I feel they warrent the complexity they add.

 

[Ulevo]

Got ya!
I still don't realy see how it concerns the discussion of L-canceling at all. Do you mean that L-cancel should not be questioned as a needless barrier just because there are other barriers that are even harder to overcome? I think the tradeof complexity vs added depth is the most important aspect of any barrier and I'd say L-cancel get outshined heavily in this regard, by every other barrier in the game.

Ofcourse I agree though. Casuals will be casuals. Even in Mario Kart a good player still beats a bad one 99% of the time. Peronally I just think L-cancel is such an easy way to remove a barrier. While many of the other "barriers" give so much depth and flair to the game that I feel they warrent the complexity they add.

The issue isn't the L-Cancelling. We've all gone through the debate about L-Cancelling's legitimacy. People like me are in favor for it, for very preference oriented and limited reasons, but legitimate in the face of specific game design intention, and others are against it on a much more objective notion with more legitimate reasoning. I mean, I think the intelligent people in here have come to terms with this before, and have already done so in this thread. The issue is that the conversation is extending beyond L-Cancelling as a needless tech barrier, and on to the bigger trend of how Melee is just "too hard." And the issue here is that people who were and are arguing against L-Cancelling with poor, lazy, and misguided intentions, while parroting other peoples legitimate perspectives, are now starting to seep their opinions and thoughts in to other matters of that topic that they themselves can't support. And that's why it was brought up that if you're ******** about L-Cancelling because it makes it unfair (which is asinine, your opponent has to L-Cancel just as much as you do) and prevents you from winning, then it's the least of your problems and you probably shouldn't be talking on the subject.

Now blue shells. Those things can go to hell.

 

[LancerStaff]

The issue isn't the L-Cancelling. We've all gone through the debate about L-Cancelling's legitimacy. People like me are in favor for it, for very preference oriented and limited reasons, but legitimate in the face of specific game design intention, and others are against it on a much more objective notion with more legitimate reasoning. I mean, I think the intelligent people in here have come to terms with this before, and have already done so in this thread. The issue is that the conversation is extending beyond L-Cancelling as a needless tech barrier, and on to the bigger trend of how Melee is just "too hard." And the issue here is that people who were and are arguing against L-Cancelling with poor, lazy, and misguided intentions, while parroting other peoples legitimate perspectives, are now starting to seep their opinions and thoughts in to other matters of that topic that they themselves can't support. And that's why it was brought up that if you're *****ing about L-Cancelling because it makes it unfair (which is asinine, your opponent has to L-Cancel just as much as you do) and prevents you from winning, then it's the least of your problems and you probably shouldn't be talking on the subject.

Now blue shells. Those things can go to hell.

Why don't you list what you think the pros and cons of L-canceling are? It'd be alot easier to tackle things point by point.

Oh, and Blue Shells are a necessary evil. Just look at what happened to Sonic All-Stars Racing 1, one guy would get out front and not be able to get knocked back down. I don't even see the big deal about them either. Either you're so far ahead it's the only thing that's giving others a chance, or you're neck-and-neck with somebody else and you should just hit the breaks when one is coming.

 

[Shaya]

I made a point by point list

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The issue isn't the L-Cancelling. We've all gone through the debate about L-Cancelling's legitimacy. People like me are in favor for it, for very preference oriented and limited reasons, but legitimate in the face of specific game design intention, and others are against it on a much more objective notion with more legitimate reasoning. I mean, I think the intelligent people in here have come to terms with this before, and have already done so in this thread. The issue is that the conversation is extending beyond L-Cancelling as a needless tech barrier, and on to the bigger trend of how Melee is just "too hard." And the issue here is that people who were and are arguing against L-Cancelling with poor, lazy, and misguided intentions, while parroting other peoples legitimate perspectives, are now starting to seep their opinions and thoughts in to other matters of that topic that they themselves can't support. And that's why it was brought up that if you're *****ing about L-Cancelling because it makes it unfair (which is asinine, your opponent has to L-Cancel just as much as you do) and prevents you from winning, then it's the least of your problems and you probably shouldn't be talking on the subject.

Honestly, what I tend to notice is melee players often playing victim in these arguments. Any problem one could have with Melee, it automatically must mean they are a noob, they have to suck it up, they can't learn how to play, and you're only using the mechanics to your advantage like a good little MLG/competitive/tourney player should.

We aren't hating on the player, we're hatin' the game, just as the old creed suggests.

Smash is an amazing franchise, and for that I'm happy that Melee is seeing so much publicity lately, because I love Smash as a series, but beneath all of the excuses there is a Melee VS Brawl undertone, in that you are presenting Melee as an ultimately superior game "cuz wave-dashing and l-cancel" and that is something that many of us are sick to death of on either side.

Why does it matter if it's "lazy" to not want to l-cancel? The mechanic has already proven to be useless fun-wise, and given that it's useless, it presents itself as a pain in the butt to do, so some would rather avoid doing it if they had the option to.

Nobody thinks melee is too hard. Of course anybody can recognize how inherently difficult it is to be a professional player, but playing Melee in and of itself is not difficult.

People are trying to make the game better, it has nothing to do with making it easier. To you, what they would suggest makes it easier, which I guess in correlation makes it worse in your eyes. That's your perspective and you're free to have it. Essentially, both issues you've brought up above are legitimate. Neither one is less justified than the other for existing.

However...

I come from the perspective that specifically for Smash, it needs to be inviting to new players, it needs to give total, reckless newbies a feeling like they can one day stand among the champs. It needs to create a feeling that all of their failures can easily be over come with practice.

I hate to break it to you, but some players literally throw in the towel when they see what it takes to be a professional melee player. Those players are GOOD, and they are SO damn good and have been the best for so long that we've been seeing the same damn names floating around the scene as the top players since the game released, with an occasional new force to be reckoned with every now and then. At the Olympics we see fresh, new a-grade athletes compete for the gold medal at a similar professional level every single year, because the activities they love are simple and trainable, and just because for example track running isn't exactly mechanically difficult at its core to understand, doesn't make it any less both exciting to watch, or competitive to experience.

Smash needs to be like that, a simple core experience, with an in-depth and progressive, and most important : rewarding experience for practicing that simple core experience. I'm not saying practicing and learning advanced techniques is not rewarding, but you have to get it through your head, casual players just don't like that stuff. It adds depth of strategy and depth of core mechanics in high level play, for sure, but they are absolutely unnatural-feeling techniques that the developers themselves have admitted they had no idea would be the core part of the game play.

This can be hit and miss, but I find more often than not, hardcore gamers want the tough tech stuff, and more casual gamers really don't. Unfortunately I think Smash, both as a scene competitively and its general presence as a game, stands to succeed more catering to the casual gamers. This doesn't mean competitive are out of luck. Melee was aimed at casual gamers as well and look where we are today. Melee is precisely why there's literally zero reason to question the intention of wanting Smash 4 to be more casual-friendly, because if Melee is any indication it certainly doesn't rule out the games potential competitive value.

 

[Empyrean]

Gotta love how so many people here talk about "casuals" and "competitive players" as if they're some sort of separate species or something.

Casual players don't care about getting better, hence them playing the game casually. I don't agree with the mentality that things should be toned down just for them, as that will practically change nothing. Just look at Brawl, widely considered to be the most "uncompetitive" and casual of all Smash games. If lower skill ceiling = more casuals entering the competitive scene, like so many people here like to pretend, then Brawl would've easily had the largest scene. But as we've all seen, that is not the case.

Now, if a casual player has the will and motivation to become better (not necessarily top-level), then by all means, he/she is not considered a casual anymore, as they will have developed the competitive mindset by then.

The only barrier that exists between casual and competitive play is the will to get better at the game, and consequently, learn everything necessary to do so. A casual will not look at high-level play and say "well ****, this game has L-cancelling, better go play some other stuff then". Something more in the lines of "well ****, these players are doing so many stuff that I didn't even know existed" would be more probable. But if these casuals truly wanted to get better, then they would simply do so. No doubt they will encounter hardships along the way, and they will either overcome them or choose to complain. Chances are complaining won't get you anywhere, and unless it's something that truly everyone couldn't get past (clearly not the case with L-cancelling), then nothing will change.

I am not arguing whether L-cancelling adds depth or not. But claiming that it alone serves to drive people away from the competitive scene is absurd.

Now you can all go back to the pointless discussion at hand.

 

[Divine Fist]

I hate to break it to you, but some players literally throw in the towel when they see what it takes to be a professional melee player. Those players are GOOD, and they are SO damn good and have been the best for so long that we've been seeing the same damn names floating around the scene as the top players since the game released, with an occasional new force to be reckoned with every now and then. At the Olympics we see fresh, new a-grade athletes compete for the gold medal at a similar professional level every single year, because the activities they love are simple and trainable, and just because for example track running isn't exactly mechanically difficult at its core to understand, doesn't make it any less both exciting to watch, or competitive to experience.

"I hate to break it to you, but some players literally throw in the towel when they see what it takes to be a professional melee player."

Those people do not deserve to have the game catered to them. If I wanted to play basketball competitively, but after seeing how remarkably talented NBA players are, I decided to "throw in the towel", should basketball then be made easier so I'm not inconvenienced? You know, maybe we could lower the net so it would be nice and easy for me to dunk.

No. There are two kinds of people in this context: those who see professional level play and become inspired, and those who see professional level play and give up. The reason Melee is still so popular after 13 years is because of its hardcore competitive players—those who were inspired—and it continues to grow because more and more people want to reach that level. People enjoy a challenge, and the skill gap separates people willing to put in the effort vs. people who aren't (as it should).

Smashboards is the very last place I thought I'd be having this debate. Where is Dr. PeePee when you need him?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Gotta love how so many people here talk about "casuals" and "competitive players" as if they're some sort of separate species or something.

Casual players don't care about getting better, hence them playing the game casually. I don't agree with the mentality that things should be toned down just for them, as that will practically change nothing. Just look at Brawl, widely considered to be the most "uncompetitive" and casual of all Smash games. If lower skill ceiling = more casuals entering the competitive scene, like so many people here like to pretend, then Brawl would've easily had the largest scene. But as we've all seen, that is not the case.

Now, if a casual player has the will and motivation to become better (not necessarily top-level), then by all means, he/she is not considered a casual anymore, as they will have developed the competitive mindset by then.

Brawl has faltered competitively for reasons we all already know but just in case you missed the boat, Brawl was the best selling fighting game of all time. Not Melee. It was even reviewed better than Melee as a game overall.

Apparently you believe that you hold all the insight in to how a casual player thinks, but where do you feel you have the right to out right state that casual players can't/don't care about getting better? Are you really saying that the moment you bother to care about improving even the slightest bit, you're automatically a competitive player and need to buck up and stop whining?

Even casual players want to improve, and the future prospect of being able to get good enough to actually be a pro is what makes kids dream about one day being the president, and actually doing it.

The only barrier that exists between casual and competitive play is the will to get better at the game, and consequently, learn everything necessary to do so. A casual will not look at high-level play and say "well ****, this game has L-cancelling, better go play some other stuff then". Something more in the lines of "well ****, these players are doing so many stuff that I didn't even know existed" would be more probable. But if these casuals truly wanted to get better, then they would simply do so. No doubt they will encounter hardships along the way, and they will either overcome them or choose to complain. Chances are complaining won't get you anywhere, and unless it's something that truly everyone couldn't get past (clearly not the case with L-cancelling), then nothing will change.

I am not arguing whether L-cancelling adds depth or not. But claiming that it alone serves to drive people away from the competitive scene is absurd.

Nobody is saying that it alone drives people away from the competitive scene, this is you making a blanket generalization of the argument. Being rid of l-cancel contributes, if ever so slightly, to the overall goal of the game being more approachable for someone who isn't interested in applying that kind of (worthless, un-fun, and depth-less) technique.

Now you can all go back to the pointless discussion at hand.

Right then, see ya.

Those people do not deserve to have the game catered to them. If I wanted to play basketball competitively, but after seeing how remarkably talented NBA players are, I decided to "throw in the towel", should basketball then be made easier so I'm not inconvenienced? You know, maybe we could lower the net so it would be nice and easy for me to dunk.

Actually, your rationale is faulty, because you can't just go and buy a position in the NBA for $60 to have a go at it. You are already an NBA-level player before you even get asked to join a team in the NBA. Ultimately, it's still your opinion on who you think the game should be catered to, but in the end it's Nintendo's opinion that matters (most) towards the game's actual development. Where do you think they stand?

No. There are two kinds of people in this context: those who see professional level play and become inspired, and those who see professional level play and give up. The reason Melee is still so popular after 13 years is because of its hardcore competitive players—those who were inspired—and it continues to grow because more and more people want to reach that level. People enjoy a challenge, and the skill gap separates people willing to put in the effort vs. people who aren't (as it should).

You're over-stating things a bit here. Melee is popular because it's a fantastic game, period. You have absolutely zero proof that it would lack any competitive scene at all without l-cancelling. In fact, it's almost absurd to assert that this would be the case.

Notice how I keep trying to bring the conversation back to l-cancelling in this l-cancelling thread, while you just keep dragging it back out in to the open so your argument looks better defending advanced mechanics as a whole...but sorry. L-cancelling doesn't need to be in the game. It's an un-fitting mechanic for Smash for many justified, and well explained reasons.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

This might be off topic, and if it is too off topic, I apologize and will take the warning gracefully.

Why make things more complicated? Was the original game not good enough? Was it too easy, and only by the addition of 'tech barriers' and 'advanced techniques' and other competitive buzzwords people like to toss around that it finally attained greatness? Why does harder always equal better, and the concept of 'easy' always considered to be taboo? Assuming that Smash Bros. never had advanced techs like L-cancel and Wavedashing, would we not have this forum? Would Smash Bros. not be a success?

Is harder always better?

Maybe I don't get it. Maybe I never will. But to me, Smash Bros. will always be a fighting game that never relied on twitching fingers and abnormally high speed gameplay to be fun. It never needed to be BlazBlue or Guilty Gear. It never needed to be Street Fighter. Maybe these things evolved because people needed a way to artificially create barriers between themselves and more casual players? Maybe they always wanted a hardcore fighting game, but got Smash Bros instead, so they played until their fingers bled and they found their skill gates and their 'depth,' whatever that means. (Seriously, the word depth is thrown around so much with so many meanings I've given up on trying to find out what it means besides 'depth = whatever I like')

Apparently simplicity is the devil.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

We're not saying the game should be harder for the sake of being harder. To stay on topic, that being L-Cancelling, need I remind you that it has existed since the first game in the series in the form of Z-Cancelling? Brawl is the only currently released Smash game to not have an aerial attack landlag-lowering single-button-press function. Brawl (as explained by Sakurai) was made "easier" because the target audience was Wii owners, who as he says, includes many people who will never have touched a fighting game before in their life. So yes, the first game was "good enough" for us, and some people believe that Smash 4 should bring back the feature included in it that was taken out for Brawl.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

We're not saying the game should be harder for the sake of being harder. To stay on topic, that being L-Cancelling, need I remind you that it has existed since the first game in the series in the form of Z-Cancelling? Brawl is the only currently released Smash game to not have an aerial attack landlag-lowering single-button-press function. Brawl (as explained by Sakurai) was made "easier" because the target audience was Wii owners, who as he says, includes many people who will never have touched a fighting game before in their life. So yes, the first game was "good enough" for us, and some people believe that Smash 4 should bring back the feature included in it that was taken out for Brawl.

Brawl ended up being more successful overall, so using this logic, it would be more rational to assume they wouldn't re-implement l-cancel.

 

[RODO]

I go to look at mk8 stuff and see people complaining about how 150cc looks too easy. I come here and people complain about techniques such as L-cancelling making smash unnecessarily hard (even though they aren't that hard). It's like people don't want to be challenged but at the same time if they aren't then it's boring. Idk what people want anymore lol

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I go to look at mk8 stuff and see people complaining about how 150cc looks too easy. I come here and people complain about techniques such as L-cancelling making smash unnecessarily hard (even though they aren't that hard). It's like people don't want to be challenged but at the same time if they aren't then it's boring. Idk what people want anymore lol

I really wish it didn't have to be reiterated for the millionth time that this has nothing to do with the difficulty of performing l-cancel.

It is the opposite of fun to many. It is what you might refer to as arbitrary. It's the Smash equivalent of "busy work" when you're at your job.

It doesn't mean the difference between a win and a loss at any reasonable amount compared to the other mechanics, it doesn't decide a match. It's just unnecessary.

 

[StarshipGroove]

Brawl was the best selling because it was for the 100 million selling Wii and it had Mario Bros, Zelda and that Metroid dude on the cover

 

[Ulevo]

Why don't you list what you think the pros and cons of L-canceling are? It'd be alot easier to tackle things point by point.

Oh, and Blue Shells are a necessary evil. Just look at what happened to Sonic All-Stars Racing 1, one guy would get out front and not be able to get knocked back down. I don't even see the big deal about them either. Either you're so far ahead it's the only thing that's giving others a chance, or you're neck-and-neck with somebody else and you should just hit the breaks when one is coming.

It's because they are a major competitive design flaw.

If you look at most of the items in Mario Kart, they're specifically designed to help you as the player either take a lead off a player who's further ahead, or to keep a lead from a player that's further behind. If I'm in 2nd place, items I obtain will help me to get in to first, while also helping to prevent my opponents from taking my 2nd place from me and dropping me in 3rd, 4th, et cetera.

Blue Shell does none of this. It's specifically designed to **** over one player, the person in first. That means that you're actually at a disadvantage of being in first for the majority of the game, leading up until the finish line, unless you're so far ahead that it won't matter if you get hit (which from a competitive stand point isn't good balance because you assume players will be relatively even in skill and thus will show similar performances.) More over, the person who fires off the blue shell gets basically no benefit from this. Since the player typically getting one is in something like 8th - 12th place, taking out only one player in 1st place is not going to improve your odds of finishing any better. It doesn't help you to go from 8th to 7th, as an example.

It feels like a very spiteful mechanic. "Oh, I'm in last place, and I can't win, but I might as well have some fun while I'm here and distort the results." Probably the worst part of this is there is no counterplay to the item either. Even with the warning, you can't stop the blue shell (not reliably) and there's no incentive to stop unless you're going to get hit while air borne. And it doesn't feel like a good time for the casual player either except for the one who uses it because they hold all the power.

Blue Shell (as of MKW) is bull**** and needs to be tweaked.

And I'm not going to list the pros and cons of L-Cancelling because I've already stated my position. Clearly my post just now identified that.

Honestly, what I tend to notice is melee players often playing victim in these arguments. Any problem one could have with Melee, it automatically must mean they are a noob, they have to suck it up, they can't learn how to play, and you're only using the mechanics to your advantage like a good little MLG/competitive/tourney player should.

We aren't hating on the player, we're hatin' the game, just as the old creed suggests.

And that's fine, but legitimate reasons for hatin' on the game would be nice. And as I've shown, I'll admit. You have a case with L-Cancelling, despite preferences varying. You don't have a case for much else though, honestly.

Smash is an amazing franchise, and for that I'm happy that Melee is seeing so much publicity lately, because I love Smash as a series, but beneath all of the excuses there is a Melee VS Brawl undertone, in that you are presenting Melee as an ultimately superior game "cuz wave-dashing and l-cancel" and that is something that many of us are sick to death of on either side.

No, you are being presumptuous and taking our criticisms in that narrow view. Again, this is the problem. Any time a conversation about mechanics and intricacies of Melee come up, you tout all day about L-Cancelling, Wavedashing, and then your arguments taper off. Why? Because you got nothing else. You're either not informed enough on Melee to make an opinion about it from a knowledge perspective, understanding all the mechanics of the characters and the stage layouts and the interactions, or you're parroting the opinions of other people who probably fall under the former description.

When was the last time I saw someone talk about how crouch cancelling is a faulty mechanic that needs to be redesigned in a debate with Brawl versus Melee undertone? Probably never. Does anyone bring up the differences of ledge mechanics, and the risk versus reward benefits of auto cling in Brawl versus having to choose your recovery in Melee. Yeah, don't see that either. What about the shields, and thoughts about them? I don't see anyone talking about how shields in Melee needed to be changed. What about the tech system, did it need to be revamped? Should ledge techning be allowed, for example? What are the benefits? There's so much more that could be covered.

I'm not saying Melee's system is perfect, and I'm not providing you with strawmans. I'm saying that I don't see any of this **** in your arguments. You (not just you specifically, just this general position) predictably go back to the same old whine session about L-Cancelling and Wavedashing because that's all you know, make your claim and position, and the conversation leads to nowhere.

Why does it matter if it's "lazy" to not want to l-cancel? The mechanic has already proven to be useless fun-wise, and given that it's useless, it presents itself as a pain in the butt to do, so some would rather avoid doing it if they had the option to.

I'm not arguing about L-Cancelling anymore for reasons I've repeatedly stated in the last two pages or so.

Nobody thinks melee is too hard. Of course anybody can recognize how inherently difficult it is to be a professional player, but playing Melee in and of itself is not difficult.

Um, no, I'm pretty sure that's not what other people are saying. Is that the truth, well that might be a different story.

People are trying to make the game better, it has nothing to do with making it easier. To you, what they would suggest makes it easier, which I guess in correlation makes it worse in your eyes. That's your perspective and you're free to have it. Essentially, both issues you've brought up above are legitimate. Neither one is less justified than the other for existing.

If you want to have a panel discussion about improving the game and making it better, than I suggest you start talking about topics that haven't been beaten to death to make your case so you can be taken seriously. The game isn't called Super Smash Bros. L-Cancelling & Wavedashing.

However

...

I come from the perspective that specifically for Smash, it needs to be inviting to new players, it needs to give total, reckless newbies a feeling like they can one day stand among the champs. It needs to create a feeling that all of their failures can easily be over come with practice.

I hate to break it to you, but some players literally throw in the towel when they see what it takes to be a professional melee player. Those players are GOOD, and they are SO damn good and have been the best for so long that we've been seeing the same damn names floating around the scene as the top players since the game released, with an occasional new force to be reckoned with every now and then. At the Olympics we see fresh, new a-grade athletes compete for the gold medal at a similar professional level every single year, because the activities they love are simple and trainable, and just because for example track running isn't exactly mechanically difficult at its core to understand, doesn't make it any less both exciting to watch, or competitive to experience.

You're comparing competitive athletics to gaming. Your body has a time stamp. Me at 25 is not going to be the same as me at 35. It has nothing to do with the rules of the game, so long as physical prowess and exertion are what is being tested and competed. Gaming, outside of maybe reaction time, doesn't have that limitation. That should be viewed as a blessing, and not made as a comparison point as to how we should be more like sports. If you're smart, and you practice, you will succeed.

The irony of you bringing this up is that me, as a white, male, 5'10 and 185 lbs individual (along with most people reading this) have clear limitations on what I can and cannot do in the realm of sports. In gaming there are no such limitations. If you're passionate, hard working, studious, and willing to put in the practice (the same practice an athlete needs to put in to be proficient), you can succeed. Sports have more limitations than a game like Melee will for the casual Joe Blow any day of the week.

Smash needs to be like that, a simple core experience, with an in-depth and progressive, and most important : rewarding experience for practicing that simple core experience.

So, what it is now?

I'm not saying practicing and learning advanced techniques is not rewarding, but you have to get it through your head, casual players just don't like that stuff. It adds depth of strategy and depth of core mechanics in high level play, for sure, but they are absolutely unnatural-feeling techniques that the developers themselves have admitted they had no idea would be the core part of the game play.

So, again. L-Cancelling and Wavedashing. You got anything else? Because I'm not seeing it.

First of all, while it's okay and definitely preferable to cater to a casual audience for the sake of exposure, recruiting people, and making the game a more relatable experience to all audience, you don't completely talor fit that game experience to the casual demographic because then you come up with an competitive atrocities. Riot Games knows this. Other companies know this too. And Sakurai and Nintendo are starting to see this perspective as well.

For anyone familiar with League of Legends, a recent patch hit the PBE where one of the champions, LeBlanc, was nerfed in to the ground. A champion hasn't see a round of nerfs that heavy in quite a long time. The interesting thing about LeBlanc is that her win rate in solo que is very low, one of the lowest in the game. However, in high stakes competitive matches, LeBlanc dominates, and is often ban or pick priority. And a lot of casual players are crying about how this doesn't make sense, because LeBlanc's win rate is down the tubes in solo que, so clearly she's not a problem champion, which isn't the reality. Riot Games is making the active decision to tune a champion for competitive play (they'll be reworking her at some point) at the cost of causing a portion of the playerbase who play the champion casually some grief, but it's because they know this is the correct decision in the long run for the games success, and that they can talor the champion to be an appropriate champion in solo que and lower level play.

You need to recognize that in the competitive sphere, casuals are not #1 priority. They're not. They're a priority, but they're don't trump everything else. Smash is a casual competitive game, and it caters to both. When we're talking about the competitive aspects that, honestly, don't affect the casual demographic very much, you don't talor fit them to the casual play because then you have a lesser experience, and you keep the casual crowd just as happy as they were with or without the changes, and the competitive crowd pretty unhappy. This leads to less competition, and the game fails to reach more exposure as a result.

This can be hit and miss, but I find more often than not, hardcore gamers want the tough tech stuff, and more casual gamers really don't. Unfortunately I think Smash, both as a scene competitively and its general presence as a game, stands to succeed more catering to the casual gamers.

And I think that's wrong. If it were left up to Brawl to carry the torch, we wouldn't have gone anywhere. Like, I don't even need to argue with you on this, because the test was already made. Telling me Brawl sold better does nothing to describe Brawls success as a competitive game, and competitive Melee has and is doing better.

You hinge this whole idea on the fact that Smash needs to be accessible enough to allow players to feel like they can do what the pros do, and again I have no idea why this even comes up. You talk about how it's accessible, then turn around and say it's not. The only reason it's as successful as it is now is because it's accessible.

This doesn't mean competitive are out of luck. Melee was aimed at casual gamers as well and look where we are today. Melee is precisely why there's literally zero reason to question the intention of wanting Smash 4 to be more casual-friendly, because if Melee is any indication it certainly doesn't rule out the games potential competitive value.

Melee was aimed more to harcore gamers. Sakurai specifically stated this this. And on a scale of Melee to Brawl from a competitive to casual comparison, he's tuning it more in the other direction this time around. So yeah, I'd say that invalidates this point.

Brawl has faltered competitively for reasons we all already know but just in case you missed the boat, Brawl was the best selling fighting game of all time. Not Melee. It was even reviewed better than Melee as a game overall.

Yeah, because reviews at IGN really speak for a games competitive value. * Facepalm *

Not to mention that saying it's the best selling fighting game is basically misleading and wrong. If you want to talk about sales, which I hope you are, you can't really make that comparison because of the amount of people that buy the game for reasons outside of...playing it as a genuine fighting game. If you're going to talk about it as being simply better as a fighting game than other fighters then you have me totally lost.

If you gave me just 30 minutes in the IGN office, I would make everyone in that office hate that game just by abusing everything that's wrong with it.

 

[Empyrean]

Brawl has faltered competitively for reasons we all already know but just in case you missed the boat, Brawl was the best selling fighting game of all time. Not Melee. It was even reviewed better than Melee as a game overall.

I am aware of all of this, and I'm not here arguing about which game is better. Also, I wasn't addressing why Brawl's scene faltered over the years. If anything, the fact that Brawl sold the most and therefore has the largest pool of casuals just further supports that lower technical ceiling =/= more casuals entering the scene.

Apparently you believe that you hold all the insight in to how a casual player thinks, but where do you feel you have the right to out right state that casual players can't/don't care about getting better? Are you really saying that the moment you bother to care about improving even the slightest bit, you're automatically a competitive player and need to buck up and stop whining?

Even casual players want to improve, and the future prospect of being able to get good enough to actually be a pro is what makes kids dream about one day being the president, and actually doing it.

Yes, as soon as a casual cares enough about improving to the point of wanting to enter the scene, then he simply isn't a casual anymore. Is it so hard to believe? Unless you believe that "casual" and "competitive" are some sort of unchangeable status, then that's all it takes. Also, I didn't say that people should stop whining. By all means, if something deserves to be complained about, then do so, nobody is stopping you. If it has such a negative impact on the game to the point of catching on with everyone, then it probably is something really bad. (once again, not the case here, since there are people arguing for both sides, with little success I might add.)

Nobody is saying that it alone drives people away from the competitive scene, this is you making a blanket generalization of the argument. Being rid of l-cancel contributes, if ever so slightly, to the overall goal of the game being more approachable for someone who isn't interested in applying that kind of (worthless, un-fun, and depth-less) technique.

Indeed, many people have claimed so, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Personally, I believe that having relatively simple and easy-to-master tech like L-cancelling will make it easier for new players to start somewhere. If the game didn't have such techniques, then the new player would be faced with a much steeper wall of harder techniques to understand and apply (wavedash, etc). That would potentially drive him away more so than the prospect of learning a simple and depth-less tech that will instantly make him better at little cost. But of course, this is just my opinion, and you and everyone else obviously have another approach to the matter. We can't claim which one is objectively more "right".

 

[LancerStaff]

It's because they are a major competitive design flaw.

If you look at most of the items in Mario Kart, they're specifically designed to help you as the player either take a lead off a player who's further ahead, or to keep a lead from a player that's further behind. If I'm in 2nd place, items I obtain will help me to get in to first, while also helping to prevent my opponents from taking my 2nd place from me and dropping me in 3rd, 4th, et cetera.

Blue Shell does none of this. It's specifically designed to **** over one player, the person in first. That means that you're actually at a disadvantage of being in first for the majority of the game, leading up until the finish line, unless you're so far ahead that it won't matter if you get hit (which from a competitive stand point isn't good balance because you assume players will be relatively even in skill and thus will show similar performances.) More over, the person who fires off the blue shell gets basically no benefit from this. Since the player typically getting one is in something like 8th - 12th place, taking out only one player in 1st place is not going to improve your odds of finishing any better. It doesn't help you to go from 8th to 7th, as an example.

It feels like a very spiteful mechanic. "Oh, I'm in last place, and I can't win, but I might as well have some fun while I'm here and distort the results." Probably the worst part of this is there is no counterplay to the item either. Even with the warning, you can't stop the blue shell (not reliably) and there's no incentive to stop unless you're going to get hit while air borne. And it doesn't feel like a good time for the casual player either except for the one who uses it because they hold all the power.

Blue Shell (as of MKW) is bull**** and needs to be tweaked.

And I'm not going to list the pros and cons of L-Cancelling because I've already stated my position. Clearly my post just now identified that.

As off topic as this is getting, the Blue Shell is a necessary devil that has been proven to be such. Look at SaSASR1. And how's MKW's Blue Shell any different from DD's or DS's? And it's been tweaked. As of 7 you no longer lose your held item. I'll be honest, I don't remember the last time I've been screwed out of winning by a Blue Shell and I used to race online alot on MKW and 7. You should just get better at dealing with it, if by more acceleration or by simply learning how to handling it better.

Now, I asked you to list what you believe are the pros and cons of L-canceling so we wouldn't have to sift through ten pages of nonsense and so we can understand what you think of it better. Are you afraid of effectively incriminating yourself or something? Pressing the same button in the same exact situation doesn't take any skill at all. I learned how to effectively L-cancel in Melee in less then a week, and that's after not really playing Melee pretty much sense Brawl came around. It requires no skill, only further divides casual and hardcore, (which is a BIG deal when trying to get competitive and your friends just want to compete and otherwise much more common then you claim it to be,) requires an extra button press for the sake of an extra button press, and offers S-Q-U-A-T over un-canceling because it takes just as much skill to press a button as to not press a button. (Un-canceling is an idea I came up with in this topic awhile ago. Every aerial is effectively L-canceled automatically and pressing L when you normally would adds the lag back in, along with hitboxes that would of been canceled.) Name one thing L-canceling offers over un-canceling.

 

[Ulevo]

As off topic as this is getting, the Blue Shell is a necessary devil that has been proven to be such. Look at SaSASR1. And how's MKW's Blue Shell any different from DD's or DS's? And it's been tweaked. As of 7 you no longer lose your held item. I'll be honest, I don't remember the last time I've been screwed out of winning by a Blue Shell and I used to race online alot on MKW and 7. You should just get better at dealing with it, if by more acceleration or by simply learning how to handling it better.

SaSASR1? DD'S? DS'?

The blue shell is not a necessary devil. If you're trying to imply that it is necessary to ensure that the player in 1st doesn't always win, you're implying the better player doesn't deserve to always win. Which from a competitive stand point is nonsense. MK has always had random factors associated with it, but the beauty of it was that you still had elements of control and choice associated with what was randomly assigned to you in order to reward you for utilizing those options properly. There is absolutely no skill in using the blue shell. None. And it doesn't help the person using it either.

I'm talking specifically about the MKW Blue Shell. I haven't played the new Mario Kart 8. But if you're going to continue to argue with me on this, you're basically doing the equivalent of trying to argue the competitive value of tripping in Brawl to me, and you might as well drop it.

Now, I asked you to list what you believe are the pros and cons of L-canceling so we wouldn't have to sift through ten pages of nonsense and so we can understand what you think of it better. Are you afraid of effectively incriminating yourself or something?

No. What exactly do I have to prove to you? You especially. I've summarized my thoughts on the matter in abbreviated versions multiple times in the last 2 pages or so, and I'm sure I've responded to posts of yours pertaining to the matter specifically. Maybe I'm wrong. There's no value in talking about it anymore.

 

[LancerStaff]

SaSASR1? DD'S? DS'?

The blue shell is not a necessary devil. If you're trying to imply that it is necessary to ensure that the player in 1st doesn't always win, you're implying the better player doesn't deserve to always win. Which from a competitive stand point is nonsense. MK has always had random factors associated with it, but the beauty of it was that you still had elements of control and choice associated with what was randomly assigned to you in order to reward you for utilizing those options properly. There is absolutely no skill in using the blue shell. None. And it doesn't help the person using it either.

I'm talking specifically about the MKW Blue Shell. I haven't played the new Mario Kart 8. But if you're going to continue to argue with me on this, you're basically doing the equivalent of trying to argue the competitive value of tripping in Brawl to me, and you might as well drop it.



No. What exactly do I have to prove to you? You especially. I've summarized my thoughts on the matter in abbreviated versions multiple times in the last 2 pages or so, and I'm sure I've responded to posts of yours pertaining to the matter specifically. Maybe I'm wrong. There's no value in talking about it anymore.

Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing 1, Double Dash's, and Mario Kart DS's. The Blue Shell simply isn't the unstoppable race ender you think it is, and is completely necessary to keep first place in check. Play SaSASR1 if you don't believe me. Any noob with some luck can get, and stay, ahead because of the lack of the Blue Shell. And yes, I am implying the most skilled player isn't supposed to win in Mario Kart. Mario Kart's very design is so that any Joe shmoe who can press A and L has a shot at winning. Don't tell me you think otherwise.

Implying Mario Kart has a palpable competitive value in the first place. Ever notice the lack of IRL Mario Kart tournaments? That's because MK has nearly zero competitive value. Any competitive MK player will tell you the same thing. (Unless they're talking about the horribly untested mechanics that DD and DS had.)

What do you have to prove to me? L-canceling's worth. That's why you're here, right? If not, why are you even here? If you want to prove it to me that badly, then clearly list out what you think of it instead of making the rest of us go on a scavenger hunt. If you leave, you prove nothing. If you stay and clearly tell us what you think of it, then you could get somewhere.

 

[Ulevo]

Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing 1, Double Dash's, and Mario Kart DS's. The Blue Shell simply isn't the unstoppable race ender you think it is, and is completely necessary to keep first place in check. Play SaSASR1 if you don't believe me. Any noob with some luck can get, and stay, ahead because of the lack of the Blue Shell. And yes, I am implying the most skilled player isn't supposed to win in Mario Kart. Mario Kart's very design is so that any Joe shmoe who can press A and L has a shot at winning. Don't tell me you think otherwise.

Implying Mario Kart has a palpable competitive value in the first place. Ever notice the lack of IRL Mario Kart tournaments? That's because MK has nearly zero competitive value. Any competitive MK player will tell you the same thing. (Unless they're talking about the horribly untested mechanics that DD and DS had.)

I'm not familiar with Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing, Double Fash's, or Mario Kart DS. I'm going to say this one more time, I'm talking about Mario Kart Wii, and in a competitive light. And as far as that game is concerned, it is not necessary. Even if there was a necessity to ensure 1st place can't always win, which is ridiculous under competitive context, the blue shell is an incredibly horrible solution by design.

I'm speaking about this from a competitive perspective because Mario Kart is a game that has always had the potential to bolster competitive value, but has been held back by very specific issues, such as Blue Shell, Lightning, . If you want to talk about casual play, blue shell still isn't a very good item, but I mean I don't care about it in that regard.

What do you have to prove to me? L-canceling's worth. That's why you're here, right? If not, why are you even here? If you want to prove it to me that badly, then clearly list out what you think of it instead of making the rest of us go on a scavenger hunt. If you leave, you prove nothing. If you stay and clearly tell us what you think of it, then you could get somewhere.

I may have started my conversation here pertaining to L-Cancelling, but my thoughts and the threads progression have gone way beyond its conclusion. Your approval of what I think means literally nothing to me. You're egging me on and baiting me in to a debate I've already had to try and establish yourself in this thread. If you care so much about my thoughts that you have to do that, then you can go through my posts and read to your hearts content.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'm not familiar with Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing, Double Fash's, or Mario Kart DS. I'm going to say this one more time, I'm talking about Mario Kart Wii, and in a competitive light. And as far as that game is concerned, it is not necessary. Even if there was a necessity to ensure 1st place can't always win, which is ridiculous under competitive context, the blue shell is an incredibly horrible solution by design.

I'm speaking about this from a competitive perspective because Mario Kart is a game that has always had the potential to bolster competitive value, but has been held back by very specific issues, such as Blue Shell, Lightning, . If you want to talk about casual play, blue shell still isn't a very good item, but I mean I don't care about it in that regard.



I may have started my conversation here pertaining to L-Cancelling, but my thoughts and the threads progression have gone way beyond its conclusion. Your approval of what I think means literally nothing to me. You're egging me on and baiting me in to a debate I've already had to try and establish yourself in this thread. If you care so much about my thoughts that you have to do that, then you can go through my posts and read to your hearts content.

You were wondering what the acronyms were, so I spelt them out for you. And yes, it's necessary. SaSASR1 is effectively Mario Kart minus Blue Shell and is horribly unbalanced because of it. And it's important because whoever gets a decent lead, wins, without the Blue Shell. No Blue Shell in MK is the same as not banning MK's IDC, whoever gets the lead first, wins. And the most skilled player will not always get to first the fastest, mostly because of items. Competitive Mario Kart? You're looking for Time Trials, because random items will always be horribly unbalanced. Are SSB tournaments run with items? No. Games with luck elements built-in are horrible tests of skill. Turn them off, and you have the most boring racing game ever.

1st place is so safe even in MK they further nerfed it in MK8 by removing the ability to drag items and making triple bananas orbit you like shells, on top of spin boosting. So yes, the Blue Shell and the other anti-1st mechanics are 100% necessary. Lightning? It's effectively a reverse Blue Shell, hurting everybody but the user and only significantly effecting those in higher places.

So you're choosing to say nothing and get nowhere?

 

[Ulevo]

You were wondering what the acronyms were, so I spelt them out for you. And yes, it's necessary. SaSASR1 is effectively Mario Kart minus Blue Shell and is horribly unbalanced because of it. And it's important because whoever gets a decent lead, wins, without the Blue Shell. No Blue Shell in MK is the same as not banning MK's IDC, whoever gets the lead first, wins. And the most skilled player will not always get to first the fastest, mostly because of items. Competitive Mario Kart? You're looking for Time Trials, because random items will always be horribly unbalanced. Are SSB tournaments run with items? No. Games with luck elements built-in are horrible tests of skill. Turn them off, and you have the most boring racing game ever.

1st place is so safe even in MK they further nerfed it in MK8 by removing the ability to drag items and making triple bananas orbit you like shells, on top of spin boosting. So yes, the Blue Shell and the other anti-1st mechanics are 100% necessary. Lightning? It's effectively a reverse Blue Shell, hurting everybody but the user and only significantly effecting those in higher places.

So you're choosing to say nothing and get nowhere?

Selectively ignoring you to avoid repetitive conversation is far from getting no where.

 

[LancerStaff]

Selectively ignoring you to avoid repetitive conversation is far from getting no where.

Who's to say you aren't 'selectively' ignoring everybody? And you're ignoring my points about the Blue Shell.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm not going to heave this debate in to the next year, because you're right, it's been debated to death. We're all surely tired of it, and to be honest I respect your points despite the fact I disagree with you on a very base level, and many of your assertions.

It's a bit unfair to keep asking for more from me than just l-cancel though, because this is...well...the l-cancel thread. So that's really the only thing that's necessary to discuss.

Just because Sakurai stated that Melee fared more towards hardcore players doesn't mean he meant that the game was developed for hardcore players. Have you considered the fact he is just stating an observation based on what ended up actually happening. Melee was popular among casuals and hardcores.

Accessibility is a balancing act, it doesn't have to either be accessible, or not accessible. There are varying levels of accessibility. It's not so black and white.

Also saying that everyone is equally capable of the techniques necessary is false. There are a literal variety of things that can lead to not being able to do them, starting with simple lack of good hand-eye coordination, and many types of conditions that prevent good muscle-driven dexterity.

Also...who's to say you aren't a Mario Kart whiner for not just learning to deal with the inevitable blue shell? All of your arguments can be made almost identically for the blue shell. You just don't like the blue shell because you think it's stupid. Just like some think l-cancel is stupid.

You really have to learn to approach arguments more neutrally instead of post atomic-sized "like" fly catchers for casual hating players.

 

[Priap0s]

The issue isn't the L-Cancelling. We've all gone through the debate about L-Cancelling's legitimacy. People like me are in favor for it, for very preference oriented and limited reasons, but legitimate in the face of specific game design intention, and others are against it on a much more objective notion with more legitimate reasoning. I mean, I think the intelligent people in here have come to terms with this before, and have already done so in this thread. The issue is that the conversation is extending beyond L-Cancelling as a needless tech barrier, and on to the bigger trend of how Melee is just "too hard." And the issue here is that people who were and are arguing against L-Cancelling with poor, lazy, and misguided intentions, while parroting other peoples legitimate perspectives, are now starting to seep their opinions and thoughts in to other matters of that topic that they themselves can't support. And that's why it was brought up that if you're *****ing about L-Cancelling because it makes it unfair (which is asinine, your opponent has to L-Cancel just as much as you do) and prevents you from winning, then it's the least of your problems and you probably shouldn't be talking on the subject.

Thank you, well written. I'm on board now!

I wonder, do most of us in here even care if L-cancel is manual or automatic? I mean, I figure most of us that hang around here have it in our muscle memory and do it without difficulty. Even if it was automatic I'd probably still be pressing the L-button in Smash4 Personally I'd prefer it automatic, as I explained before I got alot of casual playing friends and I don't really see the point of L-canceling. Gives me even more advantage than I already have, just cause I have alot shorter landing lag than them. So I do think it's a pointless mechanic but I'd be lying if I said I care very much about if its in or not.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Thank you, well written. I'm on board now!

I wonder, do most of us in here even care if L-cancel is manual or automatic? I mean, I figure most of us that hang around here have it in our muscle memory and do it without difficulty. Even if it was automatic I'd probably still be pressing the L-button in Smash4 Personally I'd prefer it automatic, as I explained before I got alot of casual playing friends and I don't really see the point of L-canceling. Gives me even more advantage than I already have, just cause I have alot shorter landing lag than them. So I do think it's a pointless mechanic but I'd be lying if I said I care very much about if its in or not.

The players who really care that much about having l-cancel will probably continue playing Melee/Project M, giving Smash 4 the "brawl treatment" despite the release of Smash 4 anyway, so it's irrelevant. Might as well keep it as a habit if you're a proponent.

 

[Ulevo]

Also saying that everyone is equally capable of the techniques necessary is false. There are a literal variety of things that can lead to not being able to do them, starting with simple lack of good hand-eye coordination, and many types of conditions that prevent good muscle-driven dexterity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83nSodg-HTU

Human beings can learn languages, learn how to walk, run, ride a bicycle, drive automobiles and fly planes, perform open heart surgery, play a variety of music instruments, and a myriad of seemingly simple to amazingly complicated feats. Most of them we take for granted because they're expectations, or part of our development because they're needed to function in life. You know how complicated your neuroanatomy is just to be able to do something like walk? Smash is not an expectation, it's a luxury. You don't need to function or conform to Smash to fit in to society, and you don't have any one to help you along with it either, but 99% of people are more than capable of playing it at a relatively decent mechanical level.

I said capable, not willing. And that's what you're not getting. Most of you are not willing to.

Also...who's to say you aren't a Mario Kart whiner for not just learning to deal with the inevitable blue shell? All of your arguments can be made almost identically for the blue shell. You just don't like the blue shell because you think it's stupid. Just like some think l-cancel is stupid.

I just gave you reasons why the blue shell is poorly designed. Repeating them isn't going to increase their validity, so I suggest you read them and consider them. I didn't just come out and call it a stupid inclusion without justification. If you think I'm a whiner, whatever, but address the rationale before asserting your criticism.

You really have to learn to approach arguments more neutrally instead of post atomic-sized "like" fly catchers for casual hating players.

I approach arguments objectively. I look at the rationale, see if it makes sense, and I make note of my biases where they're due. I don't need to approach things neutrally because within your context that presumes I haven't thought things through and come up with my own conclusions. Which I have. I expect you, if you have a good argument, to be able to sway me from that opinion. Especially when I'm openly and articulately arguing mine.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83nSodg-HTU

Human beings can learn languages, learn how to walk, run, ride a bicycle, drive automobiles and fly planes, perform open heart surgery, play a variety of music instruments, and a myriad of seemingly simple to amazingly complicated feats. Most of them we take for granted because they're expectations, or part of our development because they're needed to function in life. You know how complicated your neuroanatomy is just to be able to do something like walk? Smash is not an expectation, it's a luxury. You don't need to function or conform to Smash to fit in to society, and you don't have any one to help you along with it either, but 99% of people are more than capable of playing it at a relatively decent mechanical level.

I said capable, not willing. And that's what you're not getting. Most of you are not willing to.

Of course humans are capable of doing those things, but not every human is capable of doing all of those things. Smash, luxury or not, is no exception to this rule. It's one thing among many things that a person can either be capable or incapable of doing better than another person just plain depending on who they are. I feel like this was the most obvious wrench in this really lame excuse for a point you just tried to make with this paragraph.

I just gave you reasons why the blue shell is poorly designed. Repeating them isn't going to increase their validity, so I suggest you read them and consider them. I didn't just come out and call it a stupid inclusion without justification. If you think I'm a whiner, whatever, but address the rationale before asserting your criticism.

And I've given you plenty of reasons why l-cancelling is poorly designed, and I have repeated them. Ironically, l-cancelling (in my opinion) is a stupid inclusion without justification, and this is just another reason why I think it's better off gone.

I just don't get how when you give reasons for something being worthless and stupid in a game, it's legitimate and valid, yet when I have given many reasons why something is worthless and stupid in a game, it just means me, as the player, is flawed. Look in the mirror, man. The circumstance is no different between the two subjects.

I approach arguments objectively. I look at the rationale, see if it makes sense, and I make note of my biases where they're due. I don't need to approach things neutrally because within your context that presumes I haven't thought things through and come up with my own conclusions. Which I have. I expect you, if you have a good argument, to be able to sway me from that opinion. Especially when I'm openly and articulately arguing mine.

I don't intend to sway you. At the end of the day I acknowledge a certain impossibility to the idea of actually getting you to think my way. For you to agree with me, you would have to think that catering the games mechanics to casual players can be a good thing, which you don't and never will. You would have to think that making things easier for the sake of making the game better would, in Smash's case, be a good thing even for the overall competitive aspect of Smash, as it would bring in more people to the scene, which you don't and never will.

It's out of the question that I could possibly sway you without those necessitated factors, therefore I only seek to make a point. Even if you don't and never will agree with it.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I have an alternative idea to z/l-canceling. Remove the mechanics completely. Let the beginning and end parts be auto-cancelable as its been since at least melee (I am not sure if it was in n64). Then, allow the move to be recoverable depending upon fall speed. If you fell from a great height it takes you more time to recover than compared to falling form like a short hop. So, you get what amounts to a full L-cancel from a short hop, but falling from say a full hop removes bits of the L-cancel timing.

 

[Ulevo]

Of course humans are capable of doing those things, but not every human is capable of doing all of those things. Smash, luxury or not, is no exception to this rule. It's one thing among many things that a person can either be capable or incapable of doing better than another person just plain depending on who they are. I feel like this was the most obvious wrench in this really lame excuse for a point you just tried to make with this paragraph.

I'm not implying every human is capable of every feat, I'm saying that most human beings overall are capable of accomplishments more complicated than Smash, and this includes every day mundane tasks. Smash, by contrast, is not as difficult. We're not talking about getting 100% on Through The Fire And The Flames in GH3; most mechanical tasks in Smash, barring a couple, are not super complicated or demanding.

And I've given you plenty of reasons why l-cancelling is poorly designed, and I have repeated them. Ironically, l-cancelling (in my opinion) is a stupid inclusion without justification, and this is just another reason why I think it's better off gone.

Okay? Good for you. I'm long and past beyond the L-Cancelling debacle. I've given my 2 cents on it, and gave credit where it is due. You're acting like I haven't in favor of making it seem like my arguments against blue shell don't make sense, which...doesn't make sense.

You're bringing it up again, not me.

I just don't get how when you give reasons for something being worthless and stupid in a game, it's legitimate and valid, yet when I have given many reasons why something is worthless and stupid in a game, it just means me, as the player, is flawed. Look in the mirror, man. The circumstance is no different between the two subjects.

Except that wasn't my argument, or have you just omitted that from your memory bank? And to be fair, there is a difference between the two because the inclusion for the two mechanics serve different purposes, not that either of those provide validity for their inclusions.

Get this straight so there isn't confusion, and to anyone else who quotes me. Just because I disagree with whatever you're talking about in this thread doesn't mean you can assume I'm against or for L-Cancelling based on what side of the argument you sit on. Refer to my actual posts on that.

I don't intend to sway you. At the end of the day I acknowledge a certain impossibility to the idea of actually getting you to think my way. For you to agree with me, you would have to think that catering the games mechanics to casual players can be a good thing, which you don't and never will. You would have to think that making things easier for the sake of making the game better would, in Smash's case, be a good thing even for the overall competitive aspect of Smash, as it would bring in more people to the scene, which you don't and never will.

It's out of the question that I could possibly sway you without those necessitated factors, therefore I only seek to make a point. Even if you don't and never will agree with it.

I can agree with a point without agreeing with a perspective, and I can agree with a perspective while thinking a point is moot or poorly made.

 

[DunnoBro]

L-cancel is a cheap, arbitrary approach to making a game more technical.

If it's that or nothing, fine whatever keep it. It isn't hard, just silly.

But let's not pretend like it is by any means a good idea over objective techs for each character(s) with universal necessities.

Making players incorporate techs like DACUS, pivot grab combos, crouch cancels, glide tossing, etc and when to use them is a far superior approach. L-cancel where you use it mindlessly as often as you can teaches nothing.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm not implying every human is capable of every feat, I'm saying that most human beings overall are capable of accomplishments more complicated than Smash, and this includes every day mundane tasks. Smash, by contrast, is not as difficult. We're not talking about getting 100% on Through The Fire And The Flames in GH3; most mechanical tasks in Smash, barring a couple, are not super complicated or demanding.

Point made. Agree to disagree however, because if my wife is any indication, no amount of practice can save her Smash Bros. ability.

Okay? Good for you. I'm long and past beyond the L-Cancelling debacle. I've given my 2 cents on it, and gave credit where it is due. You're acting like I haven't in favor of making it seem like my arguments against blue shell don't make sense, which...doesn't make sense.

You're bringing it up again, not me.

If we aren't talking about l-cancel anymore then honestly, I forgot what this argument was about.

Are we talking about the implication of advanced techniques on Smash Bros as a franchise? Are we under the impression that I believe advanced techniques as a whole are not good for Smash Bros?

On the contrary, I think advanced techniques are great, but mostly where we begin to disagree is on what constitutes an acceptable application of those advanced techniques.

Your argument is they simply are not difficult to do anyway. Well, okay then. Considering difficulty is subjective I think we've reached quite the impasse here, especially when you're attempting to overrule with broad, all-encompassing arguments like "Humans are capable of learning many things". Yeah, I get that, seems a bit grandiose for the discussion though.

Except that wasn't my argument, or have you just omitted that from your memory bank? And to be fair, there is a difference between the two because the inclusion for the two mechanics serve different purposes, not that either of those provide validity for their inclusions.

Get this straight so there isn't confusion, and to anyone else who quotes me. Just because I disagree with whatever you're talking about in this thread doesn't mean you can assume I'm against or for L-Cancelling based on what side of the argument you sit on. Refer to my actual posts on that.

Not about l-cancelling (or just l-cancelling), got it.

I can agree with a point without agreeing with a perspective, and I can agree with a perspective while thinking a point is moot or poorly made.

Okay, then my last paragraph is where I definitively stand. I personally believe Smash, as a game & franchise, benefits from easier to execute mechanics, with a focus on depth that is easily accessible. In my mind, things like l-cancel, wave dash, add a bit too much to the wrong kind of complexity that, while hardcore players eat it up, shut out other types of players who may not want to concern themselves with such things.

You think this means they are un-deserving of being skilled, but I wholeheartedly disagree, because with a game like Smash I think everyone deserves to have that chance to feel like they can be a pro. It ultimately is better for competitive Smash. This brings my Olympic athlete example in to play. Simplistic activities, and even almost arguably mundane depending on the sport (running straight, swimming from one side of a pool to another), being demonstrated at a high professional level is both exciting and thrilling both to spectators, and enjoyable for the competitors on a passion-able level. This can and does translate to gaming in many forms. They are incredibly easy for anyone to execute, with their own smorgasbord of in-depth factors to consider (your swimming form, your running posture, etc) that simply require tons of practice to achieve tip-top performance in. Smash can and should be the same way.

This is ultimately where I believe difficulty and complexity is completely and utterly irrelevant to a games competitive potential.

 

[Ulevo]

Point made. Agree to disagree however, because if my wife is any indication, no amount of practice can save her Smash Bros. ability.

Consider this for a moment.

When someone sees me playing a video game, particularly someone who isn't experienced in video games or isn't familiar, and they watch me perform, they might say "wow, you're really good at this." They might even say things like "he's talented at video games" or "he has a knack for gaming." What they're implying is that I have a natural affinity for this, that it's 'in my veins'. What people don't understand is that this is still a development of skill, and they're lacking the mindset to see it that way. Instead they judge it on appearance and face value. I've been playing video games since I was 6, and thus been developing good eye-hand coordination and associated problem solving skills since that age, along with an neuro association and proprioception with a controller and the mechanics necessary for it. And because of this, and because the skill translates, when I hop in to a new game, even though it may be different, the medium and the requirements are similar. That makes it easier and faster to learn. Even though I don't play FPS games for example, I would pick it up faster and easier than someone who doesn't have any experience playing games because there are less barriers for me to walk through because I'm already familiar with them, such as the eye-hand coordination, the controller familiarity, responding to sound cues, strategy, et cetera.

Something I am not familiar with is fightsticks. I've used a controller all my life. I've also never played PC games with the exception of League of Legends in the last couple years as well. Needless to say, my ability to perform with a controller is better than with a fightstick or a mouse, even within the same game. Does this mean that I will never be good at League of Legends, or be able to play traditional fighters arcade style? No. It just means there's a discrepancy in skill required to be as good at it as if I were to be playing with a controller, and the man hours need to be put in until I'm up to snuff.

The point I am making is that this is an accumulation of skill that is acquired, not given. I didn't come out of the womb with a controller in my hand born to play.

And even though sometimes cases will come up where someone appears talented, as if they're exceptional despite having no experience, you really have no idea on what they're life story and experiences are. Someone who plays piano, for instance, might find it easier to play something like Melee even if they've never played video games simply because their neuro pathyways from their CNS to their hands is more established and refined. But most people wouldn't make that association. They'll just sit there and say "wow Bob, you're really good at this!"

I don't know what your wife is like, but I can make a couple of assumptions. She's likely in between her early 20's to mid 40's, based on the demographic and age group this site attracts. Being married, she probably has responsibilities outside of her interests, even assuming gaming is one of them. She's also a woman, and culturally speaking men and women are very different. Most women don't have nearly the equivalent amount of play time that men do from an early age up to adolescence or adulthood. Even if a girl does play games, they're usually not playing them to the same degree simply because they have other interests in mind, and those interests rarely translate in to something that can be utilized in gaming context. Rarely do you find girls fixated on games, and that's because the gaming industry has been primarily targeted to a male audience. So what is most likely is that your wife is someone with limited to no gaming experience, little life experience that translates to gaming, or at contrast is not as someone with experience as significant as most male gamers, and is someone with a limited amount of time to dedicate to becoming better, presuming she even has the interest to do so.

I don't see that as "my wife is incapable." I see that as a skill deficiency. Whether or not your wife will ever make the attempt to be good at any one given thing is another matter entirely, but the question of whether or not she can be? I think the statements like this

because if my wife is any indication, no amount of practice can save her Smash Bros. ability.

need to be rethought.

If we aren't talking about l-cancel anymore then honestly, I forgot what this argument was about.

Are we talking about the implication of advanced techniques on Smash Bros as a franchise? Are we under the impression that I believe advanced techniques as a whole are not good for Smash Bros?

On the contrary, I think advanced techniques are great, but mostly where we begin to disagree is on what constitutes an acceptable application of those advanced techniques.

Your argument is they simply are not difficult to do anyway. Well, okay then. Considering difficulty is subjective I think we've reached quite the impasse here, especially when you're attempting to overrule with broad, all-encompassing arguments like "Humans are capable of learning many things". Yeah, I get that, seems a bit grandiose for the discussion though.

If you want to go way back, where this thread really started to branch off in to a new direction was when I made the claim that you will lose depth when technical aspects are removed. Or at least I believe that was the undertone of the theme I was presenting. This of course doesn't really apply to L-Cancelling for obvious reasons.

Okay, then my last paragraph is where I definitively stand. I personally believe Smash, as a game & franchise, benefits from easier to execute mechanics, with a focus on depth that is easily accessible. In my mind, things like l-cancel, wave dash, add a bit too much to the wrong kind of complexity that, while hardcore players eat it up, shut out other types of players who may not want to concern themselves with such things.

You think this means they are un-deserving of being skilled, but I wholeheartedly disagree, because with a game like Smash I think everyone deserves to have that chance to feel like they can be a pro. It ultimately is better for competitive Smash. This brings my Olympic athlete example in to play. Simplistic activities, and even almost arguably mundane depending on the sport (running straight, swimming from one side of a pool to another), being demonstrated at a high professional level is both exciting and thrilling both to spectators, and enjoyable for the competitors on a passion-able level. This can and does translate to gaming in many forms. They are incredibly easy for anyone to execute, with their own smorgasbord of in-depth factors to consider (your swimming form, your running posture, etc) that simply require tons of practice to achieve tip-top performance in. Smash can and should be the same way.

This is ultimately where I believe difficulty and complexity is completely and utterly irrelevant to a games competitive potential.

I don't believe anyone deserves to feel like they can be a pro without the will power to achieve that and time spent to bear the fruit. I believe everyone deserves the opportunity, though. And what I am saying is that while the opportunity might not necessarily exist for everyone to be a pro, per say, the opportunity to play at a higher level than average has always been there for anyone who's wanted to. This doesn't invalidate arguments against problematic game design, and that's been shown in the L-Cancelling discussion, but such examples are not so conveniently translated throughout the whole of Smash. Most mechanics, complicated or simple, have a definitive, deep, and worthwhile purpose, and when removed, will detract from the game. What makes the game complicated at times is the fact that these technical aspects, because of the nature of their execution, provide more windows of play than the simplistic aspects do. Therefore, if you remove the more technical mechanics, you remove more windows on how the game is played, and you reduce the quality of the game substantially.

Basically what I'm saying is that it is very difficult to design a game like Smash in such a way where it is easy-peasy to play (much more so than Melee is) while making it incredibly deep. There's a relationship between the two that needs to be respected. And my problem with people who talk about this is that they don't even see the relationship, and just see the complexity of what they have to do rather than what it offers, and in turn believe that it is being favoured for the sake of some superfluous reason like elitism, or something equivalently ridiculous.

 

[LancerStaff]

@ Ulevo

"IGN: Mario Kart has increasingly added items like the Blue Shell or Bullet Bill that allow players coming in last to surge ahead, even if they aren't playing well. Are you worried items like these take too much away from skill-based play? Have you ever considered allowing players to turn off specific items like these?

Konno: I believe that Mario Kart is enjoyed by a wide range of players, including both new and veteran gamers. Ideally, we would like to allow players of different experience levels to play Mario Kart together. We don't want to create a game in which more experienced players will always win; we want to create a game in which when less experienced players are lucky, they can win too sometimes. That's why we use items to add an element of chance to the game. I think it's fun to play Mario Kart as if you were checking your horoscope. Even if your luck isn't good today, it might turn around tomorrow if you keep trying."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/05/why-blue-shells-are-mandatory-in-mario-kart-7

The creator of Mario Kart himself outright says MK is a luck-based game where the best player doesn't always win. SaSASR added a Blue Shell for the sequel, and MK8 is further nerfing first place. So first place is obviously too strong in Kart Racing games. You said there's better ways of knocking down first place. Care to share? Because it'd all be 'arbitrary' anyway.

Blue Shells, L-canceling... I find it kind of ironic you like the outright more arbitrary option and brand the thing that's 100% necessary as arbitrary.

Back on topic, what do you think of un-canceling?

 

[Ulevo]

@ Ulevo

"IGN: Mario Kart has increasingly added items like the Blue Shell or Bullet Bill that allow players coming in last to surge ahead, even if they aren't playing well. Are you worried items like these take too much away from skill-based play? Have you ever considered allowing players to turn off specific items like these?

Konno: I believe that Mario Kart is enjoyed by a wide range of players, including both new and veteran gamers. Ideally, we would like to allow players of different experience levels to play Mario Kart together. We don't want to create a game in which more experienced players will always win; we want to create a game in which when less experienced players are lucky, they can win too sometimes. That's why we use items to add an element of chance to the game. I think it's fun to play Mario Kart as if you were checking your horoscope. Even if your luck isn't good today, it might turn around tomorrow if you keep trying."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/05/why-blue-shells-are-mandatory-in-mario-kart-7

The creator of Mario Kart himself outright says MK is a luck-based game where the best player doesn't always win. SaSASR added a Blue Shell for the sequel, and MK8 is further nerfing first place. So first place is obviously too strong in Kart Racing games. You said there's better ways of knocking down first place. Care to share? Because it'd all be 'arbitrary' anyway.

Blue Shells, L-canceling... I find it kind of ironic you like the outright more arbitrary option and brand the thing that's 100% necessary as arbitrary.

Back on topic, what do you think of un-canceling?

And what exactly does this prove? That the creator has a different intention for his audience? So what?

Blue Shells are basically the tripping of Mario Kart. Their sole, singular purpose, is to **** over 1st place. They provide an opportunity for the winning player to lose. Tripping did the same thing. Are these arguably fun mechanics to have? Sure. You can always argue that. And for a game that the designer specifically wants to avoid competitive play in, seems like an okay feature in that regard.

It doesn't make it good game design though. That mentality the designer has, in my firm opinion, is flawed. Much in the same was Masahiro Sakurai's views were flawed. He believed that revoking the privilege of having a competitively good game away from the hard core to make sure every player had equal footing regardless of how skilled they were was a way to be fair to everyone in a game that was already extremely accommodating to all groups and all ages, and he ostracized his most loyal fan base as a result. Now we're here, in 2014, talking about seeing Smash Wii U in the competitive spectrum because him and the development team are taking a step back from that view. We as a player base should be thankful for that.

As far as a game that rewards the player for skillful racing is concerned, the Blue Shell is flawed. The Bullet Bill, even though it requires 0 skill to use, at the very least helps the player using it get ahead in to a better placement.

You're extremely foolish if you think this is a good, healthy mechanic to have, because it doesn't stop skillful players from winning. It just means that out of the top 3 skillful players racing, the one who gets hit the least with blue shells wins, and you're being punished for trying to succeed. Ironically, that's anti-fun in and of itself.

Citing things like this is a crapshoot, I'm sorry. There are many other different things you could employ to allow for comebacks that actually help the player who is behind (some of them are already in the game) that would still be better than this. L-Cancelling might be seemingly arbitrary, but at least it isn't designed to ruin the experience for a player outright.

 

[LancerStaff]

And what exactly does this prove? That the creator has a different intention for his audience? So what?

Blue Shells are basically the tripping of Mario Kart. Their sole, singular purpose, is to **** over 1st place. They provide an opportunity for the winning player to lose. Tripping did the same thing. Are these arguably fun mechanics to have? Sure. You can always argue that. And for a game that the designer specifically wants to avoid competitive play in, seems like an okay feature in that regard.

It doesn't make it good game design though. That mentality the designer has, in my firm opinion, is flawed. Much in the same was Masahiro Sakurai's views were flawed. He believed that revoking the privilege of having a competitively good game away from the hard core to make sure every player had equal footing regardless of how skilled they were was a way to be fair to everyone in a game that was already extremely accommodating to all groups and all ages, and he ostracized his most loyal fan base as a result. Now we're here, in 2014, talking about seeing Smash Wii U in the competitive spectrum because him and the development team are taking a step back from that view. We as a player base should be thankful for that.

As far as a game that rewards the player for skillful racing is concerned, the Blue Shell is flawed. The Bullet Bill, even though it requires 0 skill to use, at the very least helps the player using it get ahead in to a better placement.

You're extremely foolish if you think this is a good, healthy mechanic to have, because it doesn't stop skillful players from winning. It just means that out of the top 3 skillful players racing, the one who gets hit the least with blue shells wins, and you're being punished for trying to succeed. Ironically, that's anti-fun in and of itself.

Citing things like this is a crapshoot, I'm sorry. There are many other different things you could employ to allow for comebacks that actually help the player who is behind (some of them are already in the game) that would still be better than this. L-Cancelling might be seemingly arbitrary, but at least it isn't designed to ruin the experience for a player outright.

It proves you're playing MK for all the wrong reasons, and this is exactly what the true audience wants.

You want a skill-based game? Go play practically any other game. MK's mechanics never left room for any kind of competitive play outside of TTs, and you're not convincing anybody that MK should be a competitive game either. Like I said, the Blue Shell isn't hard to handle. You grumbling over it is comparable to somebody whining over Kirby's stone in my book. You're the only person older then ten that I've met that thinks MK has competitive value. Why is that?

Make items fair? Now you've just alienated 99.999% of the fanbase. "Fair Mario Kart" cannot exist. You think it can? Then what's you're bright idea to make it so? And why aren't you chastising Board Games for using dice rolls? That's not fair and removes all skill in Monopoly. Let's make it competitive because I want it to be!

Your Bullet Bill example is flawed. Just because it doesn't zap other players doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them. It indirectly hurts all the other players because it makes him catch up. It's just as unfair as the Blue Shell. Imagine you're in 11th and the 12th place guy, who's two feet behind you, gets a bullet while you get a mushroom. How the heck is that fair? The game rewards luck, not skill. Always has, always will. You're effectively standing alone in the matter, so there's no way this'll turn out like SSB4 did.

Yaknow what's unfun? The lottery. It's a stupid luck-based game that anybody lucky enough can win. Really, it's laughable that you think they should make MK more competitive. Anyway, the mechanic fits right in with the rest of the luck-based series. I'm not sure how you've deluded yourself into thinking this? Got hit by a blue turtle too many times? Too bad. Life Mario Kart ain't fair.

Again, helping last hurts first. That's just how it works. How is giving everybody but first a boost any different from hitting first? And yes, L-canceling would ruin it for me and many others. What? We're a minority? We don't matter? Hah! Again, you've deluded yourself. The very fact that it's basically half-and-half in this topic proves that simply adding it back in would upset just as many people as leaving it out. And you still haven't said a word about my idea, heh.

 

[Ulevo]

It proves you're playing MK for all the wrong reasons, and this is exactly what the true audience wants.

It proves you're playing Smash Bros. for all the wrong reasons, and this is exactly what the true audience wants.

See what I did there? You see how stupid that sounds?

There is no true audience, no real purpose. It's a game, it caters to a lot of people, some people enjoy it casually, and some would like to enjoy it competitively. Mario Kart has the potential for both with some very minor tweaks, just like Smash does, and I think it is a waste to not cater to both parties.

You want a skill-based game? Go play practically any other game. MK's mechanics never left room for any kind of competitive play outside of TTs, and you're not convincing anybody that MK should be a competitive game either. Like I said, the Blue Shell isn't hard to handle. You grumbling over it is comparable to somebody whining over Kirby's stone in my book. You're the only person older then ten that I've met that thinks MK has competitive value. Why is that?

Your scope is narrow?

Make items fair? Now you've just alienated 99.999% of the fanbase. "Fair Mario Kart" cannot exist. You think it can? Then what's you're bright idea to make it so? And why aren't you chastising Board Games for using dice rolls? That's not fair and removes all skill in Monopoly. Let's make it competitive because I want it to be!

To fix the items, you'd have to change Blue Shell so it hits every single player without fail on the track ahead of the launcher, and modify Lightning so it gives warning. That's basically it. It would make the game much better competitively, and I highy doubt the casuals will come crying to Nintendo about how their favourite racer is ruined since they won't even know how to properly assess the change to begin with.

Telling me modifications like that are going to alienate a player base is asinine.

Your Bullet Bill example is flawed. Just because it doesn't zap other players doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them. It indirectly hurts all the other players because it makes him catch up. It's just as unfair as the Blue Shell. Imagine you're in 11th and the 12th place guy, who's two feet behind you, gets a bullet while you get a mushroom. How the heck is that fair? The game rewards luck, not skill. Always has, always will. You're effectively standing alone in the matter, so there's no way this'll turn out like SSB4 did.

You're not even bothering to use your brain to think of the difference. If a player in 12th fires of a Bullet Bill, it helps him get in 9th, 8th, maybe 7th place or higher, all depending on how far away he is. It hurts the other players, but as a means to get the 12th player ahead. If a player in 12th fires off a Blue Shell, he stays in 12th, has to wait for another, more useful item, and only gets to see the top 2-3 racers shuffle around in placement. It doesn't them at all.

You're blind if you can't see the difference.

Yaknow what's unfun? The lottery. It's a stupid luck-based game that anybody lucky enough can win. Really, it's laughable that you think they should make MK more competitive. Anyway, the mechanic fits right in with the rest of the luck-based series. I'm not sure how you've deluded yourself into thinking this? Got hit by a blue turtle too many times? Too bad. Life Mario Kart ain't fair.

I'm not going to grace this with a response since it's wasted on you.

Again, helping last hurts first. That's just how it works. How is giving everybody but first a boost any different from hitting first? And yes, L-canceling would ruin it for me and many others. What? We're a minority? We don't matter? Hah! Again, you've deluded yourself. The very fact that it's basically half-and-half in this topic proves that simply adding it back in would upset just as many people as leaving it out. And you still haven't said a word about my idea, heh.

I don't care to humor you.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm not going to grace this with a response since it's wasted on you.

You can't seem to imbibe that your perception is basically hypocritical. If you can come to terms with the arguments presented for l-cancel, you should be capable of no less on the subject of blue shell.

You've cited l-cancel of being similarly not important to winning, despite its usefulness, and yet still express that it takes away depth to get rid of a technique that is not so much a technique but a necessitated annoyance in combat. I can basically say removing the blue shell removes depth from Mario Kart to complete the cycle if you wish, to make it obvious.

The blue shell is basically that, a necessitated annoyance in its actual design, and so that's a worthless mechanic worth being removed?

I don't care to humor you.

Then you've lost the argument. I honestly find it baffling that you cannot see the blatant contradiction.

 

[Ekaru]

I don't mind L-Cancelling, but I would be worried if it was in because of the 3DS version. The OG 3DS has pretty frail shoulder buttons so tapping the L button so often could kill it off quickly. That would be my only real concern though. I don't think L-Cancelling is that hard to learn.

SaSASR added a Blue Shell for the sequel, and MK8 is further nerfing first place.

1) Sonic and All-Stars Racing: Transformed doesn't have a blue shell-type item. Instead, it has an item, the Swarm, that can either be thrown backward or sent forward in front of 1st. The difference between this and the blue shell is that good players can avoid the Swarm very consistently. So what it does is essentially determine if the person in 1st is skilled enough to deserve 1st. This is very different from the blue shell, which can only be avoided if 1st has a specific item (or, in MKDS, through some other MT-related shenanigans but that's super advanced, super precise stuff). Furthermore, the Swarm affects everybody who's directly behind 1st, and not just 1st, so that's another huge difference.

2) They nerfed the Blue Shell hard in MK8. Also, all the "nerfs" 1st got also apply to 2nd - like, 1st can get the coin item and be left defenseless but so can 2nd, for example, and 2nd still has to worry about 3rd getting triple red shells. 1st also has a small chance of getting an item that can destroy, like, everything, including the blue shell. Finally, the fastest bike combos in the game have about half of the maximum possible acceleration, which reduces the impact of getting hit for bike users. These are the good bikes, too, the sport bikes.

EDIT: And 1st place's "nerfs" were because the blue shell hit 1st more often than 2nd place's items. That is stupid on principle.