L-Canceling

[Deleted member 245254]

It artificially divides casual and hardcore...

I really feel like this point is often glossed over by proponents of l-cancel. It really can't be overstated how important this point is.

 

[Ulevo]

I really feel like this point is often glossed over by proponents of l-cancel. It really can't be overstated how important this point is.

I'm not going to argue this isn't discouraging to the casual player. I will say however that most players who play casually won't concern themselves with it regardless, and those who would concern themselves with it (casual competitive players) will never progress as players if they have issues with L-Cancelling because there are many other facets of the game in terms of mechanics and knowledge that they just won't sully there hands with. Bottom line is they don't care enough. If it's not L-Cancelling, it's gonna be something else.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'm not going to argue this isn't discouraging to the casual player. I will say however that most players who play casually won't concern themselves with it regardless, and those who would concern themselves with it (casual competitive players) will never progress as players if they have issues with L-Cancelling because there are many other facets of the game in terms of mechanics and knowledge that they just won't sully there hands with. Bottom line is they don't care enough. If it's not L-Cancelling, it's gonna be something else.

You're ignoring the fact that SSB is supposed to be played by all skill levels. Is it really such a good idea to add something that only snowballs the skill gap?

 

[Priap0s]

I really feel like this point is often glossed over by proponents of l-cancel. It really can't be overstated how important this point is.

I agree. Alot of people say "oh well, casuals don't even know or care about it", but I have mates that are among those so called 'casuals'. I'm sure alot of people, like me, have friends that play casually only. They are not bothered finding out about L-canceling, practising/learning it or performing it and man I wreck them. And a part of it is because I have so much shorter landing lag then them (sure, I would still beat them. But it would be closer and feel more fair). In this regard I think the complexity of manual L-canceling is huge for the little, if any (to be honest I still don't know any viable advantage with having it manual over automatic. And Ive read alot of these arguments ), advantages it gives.

I like the Mario Karty feel Smash has in that you can play it witch casual friends and non gamers. Just give them some advantages and it will be fine. Removing this little barrier that is L-canceling for casuals would cater nicely to that feel.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

I'd say that short-hopping and fast falling are bigger barriers to casuals than l-canceling is.

 

[Priap0s]

I'd say that short-hopping and fast falling are bigger barriers to casuals than l-canceling is.

Yup. Wavedashing, Dashdancing, DI, SDI, crouchcanceling, ledgecanceling and alot of other things aswell.
They are different options and add strategic depth though. So your point is?

 

[LancerStaff]

I'd say that short-hopping and fast falling are bigger barriers to casuals than l-canceling is.

Those actually add palpable depth, though.

 

[Ulevo]

I really feel like this point is often glossed over by proponents of l-cancel. It really can't be overstated how important this point is.

I'm not going to argue this isn't discouraging to the casual player. I will say however that most players who play casually won't concern themselves with it regardless, and those who would concern themselves with it (casual competitive players) will never progress as players if they have issues with L-Cancelling because there are many other facets of the game in terms of mechanics and knowledge that they just won't sully there hands with. Bottom line is they don't care enough. If it's not L-Cancelling, it's gonna be something else.

You're ignoring the fact that SSB is supposed to be played by all skill levels. Is it really such a good idea to add something that only snowballs the skill gap?

L-Cancelling doesn't stop you from playing at all skill levels. Whether or not the justifications for a mechanics inclusion are worth a 'snowball in skill gap' are worth it is a matter of perception, but I still think that this is greatly exaggerated anyway.

 

[LancerStaff]

L-Cancelling doesn't stop you from playing at all skill levels. Whether or not the justifications for a mechanics inclusion are worth a 'snowball in skill gap' are worth it is a matter of perception, but I still think that this is greatly exaggerated anyway.

No, but it makes things very unfun quickly for those not in the know. Kinda opposite of the point of bringing people of all skill levels together, don't 'cha think? L-canceling is an anti-casual mechanic in a casual game.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Yup. Wavedashing, Dashdancing, DI, SDI, crouchcanceling, ledgecanceling and alot of other things aswell.
They are different options and add strategic depth though, while L-cancel serves only as an always optimal to do/must do-barrier while offering nothing to those who can handle it (that it wouldn't offer if automated). Your point is?

Being good at smash involves more than just l-canceling. If someone doesn't know about l-canceling they can still be good at the game. Has anyone seen Borp play? He is good but he hardly uses any tech skill. L-canceling is a barrier in a sense but it is still possible to be good without it.

 

[Priap0s]

Being good at smash involves more than just l-canceling. If someone doesn't know about l-canceling they can still be good at the game. Has anyone seen Borp play? He is good but he hardly uses any tech skill. L-canceling is a barrier in a sense but it is still possible to be good without it.

Yes it sure is! It is possible to be good at the game without some of the things I mentioned as well.
I still have to admit that I don't get what point you are trying to make? Or in what context your first comment was relevant to the discussion.

 

[LancerStaff]

Being good at smash involves more than just l-canceling. If someone doesn't know about l-canceling they can still be good at the game. Has anyone seen Borp play? He is good but he hardly uses any tech skill. L-canceling is a barrier in a sense but it is still possible to be good without it.

But in the end it requires more skill to fight the mechanic, and he'd undoubtedly be better if he used it.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Yes it sure is! It is possible to be good at the game without some of the things I mentioned as well.
I still have to admit that I don't get what point you are trying to make? Or in what context your first comment was relevant to the discussion.

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.

 

[D-idara]

No L-Cancelling would automatically make a much faster game, and since gamespeed is always being glorified on here, the only explanation I have is that some people want their game to be faster, not everyone's game. Again, another toxic mentality that only serves to further separate the casuals and make the 'elite' even more compact and closed.

 

[Uzima (Uzi)]

Can you name any other circumstance where not using l-cancel is better than using it?

I don't need any more examples.
I'm simply saying this is the answer to the question .

Give characters and option when they miss an l-cancel instead of JUST a punish.
My example is something thats even been used in the real games, and that could have similar applications in future smash games.

Give the characters a sort of slamming hitbox on all the air moves, maybe some percents its more or less useful than just l-canceling.
This could fairly easily be the answer of why to keep l-canceling around, and what added depth it gives the games.
But it does require a lot of very purposeful addition to the series and is likely beyond the current scope.

 

[Khao]

I'd say that short-hopping and fast falling are bigger barriers to casuals than l-canceling is.

Really? Lightly pressing the jump button vs holding it to adjust your height is a basic feature in nearly every platformer ever, and I knew of fast-falling ever since I was a kid playing at my cousin's house every other weekend.

It wasn't until I started going online until I ever heard of L-Cancel, and I could barely do it properly at first.

Edit:

Also, for an idea on how to have the L-cancel have some risk.

Have the window for it be something stupidly big, like 20 frames, so it's now actually super easy to do.

Except.

The closer you press the button to the frame where you actually touch the floor, the faster will the landing animation be.

Like, press it on frame 1, and there's barely a change at all, press it at frame 15, and you get it cut in half, press it at frame 20 and you get nearly no landing lag at all. And of course, press it on frame 21, and you get the full speed of the animation, as if you didn't press the button at all.

You could try going for frame 20 every time, but a frame difference would mean nearly no lag, or keeping all the lag. If you don't want that risk, aim for one of the easier frames, to make it even riskier, pressing the button after you touch the floor will make the animation slower.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

No L-Cancelling would automatically make a much faster game, and since gamespeed is always being glorified on here, the only explanation I have is that some people want their game to be faster, not everyone's game. Again, another toxic mentality that only serves to further separate the casuals and make the 'elite' even more compact and closed.

You do realize you're acting like the elitists you keep whining about, right? Your mentality is actually very toxic at this exact moment.

Fact of the matter is, trying to get any kind of gameplay(competitive or casual) banned or unwanted isn't any better of an attitude. There is nothing wrong with Competitive or Casual gameplay at all. We have different rules that cater to different players. And that's okay. Why wouldn't it be at all? Want to know why we want a faster game in Competitive tourneys? It's because we have time limits that must be met. It's far less to do with "everybody wants to go fast" because slower gameplay is quite enjoyed too by many. It's just a time thing, nothing more. It's even an issue because we chose to repeat Melee's rule set for Brawl instead of making our own. Some day we might fix this issue(like having 2 stock lives, since Brawl is naturally slower as is, and is too defensive for people to KO fast enough to not hit the time limit).

You do need to stop assuming everything is because of some "elitist" mentality. It's not. There's a lot more reasons for things. Items aren't usually on because they can sway the match too much. It's not the fact that it's a match alone, it's a match with money on the line. There's a justifiable reason by that alone to try and cut out random factors a bit more so it relies more on the player. If there was no money or prizes on the line, it would be less of a big deal. Some might still enjoy it that way, but it wouldn't have to be enforced. Another is that item capsules explode. If you can make only certain balanced items go on without that(and test it, respectively), that wouldn't be a real issue. There's few items that'll be usable, but it's a nice option. Well, in a non-money Tourney at the very least.

Lastly, Elitism has nothing to do with Casual or Competitive players. It's a mentality that any player has. It's when they refuse to respect other people's way of playing and treat yours as superior. Nothing more.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

You do realize you're acting like the elitists you keep whining about, right? Your mentality is actually very toxic at this exact moment.

Fact of the matter is, trying to get any kind of gameplay(competitive or casual) banned or unwanted isn't any better of an attitude. There is nothing wrong with Competitive or Casual gameplay at all. We have different rules that cater to different players. And that's okay. Why wouldn't it be at all? Want to know why we want a faster game in Competitive tourneys? It's because we have time limits that must be met. It's far less to do with "everybody wants to go fast" because slower gameplay is quite enjoyed too by many. It's just a time thing, nothing more. It's even an issue because we chose to repeat Melee's rule set for Brawl instead of making our own. Some day we might fix this issue(like having 2 stock lives, since Brawl is naturally slower as is, and is too defensive for people to KO fast enough to not hit the time limit).

1.) There are no "casual" tournaments, so any rules that are official for that, aren't.
2.) If speed is so amazing, why not just remove landing lag? If it's not that important, why does everyone want everything to go faster and faster? People hate Brawl because it's so slow, but then turn around and insist that L-cancelling stay in, when removing it and removing landing lag would make everything faster for everyone. I agree with what D-idara said, it does seem like people don't want the game as a whole faster, they want THEIR game faster. And that would be elitist, if it were true.

 

[Ulevo]

No L-Cancelling would automatically make a much faster game, and since gamespeed is always being glorified on here, the only explanation I have is that some people want their game to be faster, not everyone's game. Again, another toxic mentality that only serves to further separate the casuals and make the 'elite' even more compact and closed.

I normally don't like to call people out, but the only toxicity going on in these forums is from people like you and posts like this that consistently have to imply that anyone that doesn't share your perception is an elitist asshole bentout on destroying your dreams of what Smash is supposed to be like.

You need to start respecting the fact that players better than you, smarter than you, have been in the community longer, and have played the game longer have different and likely more informed arguments and views than the ones you spew out about 'elitism this' and 'elitism that.' Not that I'm necessarily speaking for myself, but this needs to be made an example of the kind of stuff that shouldn't be happening. Especially from someone who doesn't like competitive tournament play and doesn't compete.

No, but it makes things very unfun quickly for those not in the know. Kinda opposite of the point of bringing people of all skill levels together, don't 'cha think? L-canceling is an anti-casual mechanic in a casual game.

Smash isn't a casual game. It's a game that has the means to please a casual medium. There's a difference. It's no different than saying Soccer is a casual sport, when it has events like the Fifa World Cup, just because some 3 year old likes to play it with his dad on Sunday. And this needs to be considered when you start talking about what's best for everyone, and about something as subjective as fun.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

1.) There are no "casual" tournaments, so any rules that are official for that, aren't.

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

2.) If speed is so amazing, why not just remove landing lag? If it's not that important, why does everyone want everything to go faster and faster? People hate Brawl because it's so slow, but then turn around and insist that L-cancelling stay in, when removing it and removing landing lag would make everything faster for everyone. I agree with what D-idara said, it does seem like people don't want the game as a whole faster, they want THEIR game faster. And that would be elitist, if it were true.

Why even allow you to reduce landing lag, then? I can do that same type of question too. I'd rather either have zero landing lag, a type you can't remove, or the option to remove it. At this point, why even bother having the landing lag period if you can't even control how good it is. Might as well remove the thing period. Automatic Landing Lag cancel is worthless as an idea as it just means you might as well never have had Landing Lag in the first place. They're almost entirely the same. That's how I view it. It's fine if you see it differently. It boils down to this;

1. There is no Landing Lag period(arguably a problem due to balance of moves)
2. You can't control it and everyone has full Landing Lag
3. You can reduce it manually
4. There is less Landing Lag than normal

Note how 1, 2, and 4 are almost entirely the same thing. The only difference is how much is there period. Otherwise, everybody is reduced the exact same amount. No matter how you do it, everybody suffers(or doesn't suffer at all) the same. There is no reason to have any over the other, and why the question is worthless in itself and always will be. Why have reduced lag instead of no lag? Why haven't any lag at all instead of tons of lag? It's just a matter of whether you want lag to exist or whether you want to reduce it yourself. They're separate questions at this point and less related than people think. This is also why many have suggested in the past; Make it an option for a Name. The player either gets reduced landing lag(which means essentially there was never tons of lag, just a little lag, in the first place. Redundancy and all), or does it themselves and feels better when they do so.(and no, they don't feel better because they do it so other people can't, but just because they mastered a technique they liked. That's the type of feel better, the good kind. Also, people who brag about it just to put down others are the problem, not those who enjoy using L-Cancel period. Not the same kind of people. Things aren't black and white, after all)

That's why I more or less ignore that type of question. It's pointless. You've been told multiple times people prefer to control the landing lag themselves. No matter how many times you ask it, it'll be the same answer as that. Being in control makes you feel better, because you've gotten your style down pat and you know what to do. It doesn't matter how arbitrary it is either. It is what it is. It's fine if you don't feel that way, but stop acting like we're wrong for feeling that way instead. That's the type of elitism that is a problem in this thread at the moment. That you can't just accept the answer and stop asking it over and over again. It will not change. Let it go already.

And no, D-Idara is not right about it at all. The main reason for speed is just for the time limits. It has nothing to do with personal preference of the game speed itself. If we weren't on a time limit, we wouldn't even care or set time as an option along with stock. It's there due to that alone(and why Melee allowing us to set a time limit during Stock matches was given quite a bit of praise). We don't need to go fast, we just need to go fast enough to end the tourneys on time(if the tourney has no money, which might as well be a casual tourney if it lacks prizes, it's not as big of a deal as others). And of course some do like faster games, and some like slower games. If we could have slower games and not worry about a time limit, that'd be great. But that's not an easy option to have these days. People have lives, too. The more days spent doing a full tourney, the more money is spent to keep renting the place. It's rarely even a legitimate option(as sad as it is) overall. It doesn't matter which four games you play when it comes to Tourneys in this case either; Speed is absolutely necessary even then. I've played Fast and Slow games. Both are fun. But at any tourney with a time limit(even casual ones, to note), you have to play fast enough regardless. That's just how it is. I do realize a lot of this paragraph sounds redundant, but it's kind of necessary to say.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I don't know why I see so much pressure being put on the time factor of tournaments as they reason they prefer a faster game but there are less in-direct methods to hypothetically shorten a match than having a faster game.

The most obvious one being, lower the stocks.

All they would have to do is put stock at 3 in melee and all the sudden boom! Your tournies go quicker by a huge margin. Not that difficult to think up, and melee matches surely would not suffer much competitively from 3 stock.

Brawl swapped to 1-stock for some pretty moderate success, don't know why melee would be invulnerable to a change of similar vein.

People would hate it. Why? Change.

 

[Ulevo]

I don't know, I think 'shorter matches' is a cop out for preferring a faster game. I mean, it's a reason, but a very superfluous one. Faster play, especially in fighting games, just naturally feels better to play with and more entertaining to watch for most people. I think this speaks volumes for why Melee has gotten the recent recognition it's gotten from other communities on the competitive circuits.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

I agree with what D-idara said, it does seem like people don't want the game as a whole faster, they want THEIR game faster. And that would be elitist, if it were true.

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

Edit: Wording

 

[Khao]

2.) If speed is so amazing, why not just remove landing lag? If it's not that important, why does everyone want everything to go faster and faster? People hate Brawl because it's so slow, but then turn around and insist that L-cancelling stay in, when removing it and removing landing lag would make everything faster for everyone.

Removing landing lag entirely would probably make slow, strong characters have an advantage, even when L-Canceled, every attack has a different recovery speed, and that affects game balance a lot. Of course more powerful attacks should take longer to recover from than weaker ones, without landing lag, there's no distinction, just attacks that do more damage than others.

 

[Ulevo]

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

Edit: Wording

I'll illuminate this, especially since I thought it was funny.

Certain people, won't point fingers, like to believe that because a group of players passionately like Melee and want to see a return of what they loved about that game in the series in the next sequel, that this is mostly due in part to the fact that Melee caters to their ability to be simply better than other people. They also like to believe that these players want to see the return of Melee's essence because it helps them fulfill their fantasies of elitism and superiority by giving them a game with mechanics that give them an innate edge over the next guy.

What these certain people, won't point fingers, don't realize is that if a player like me who enjoys tournament play faces a player like them, who doesn't go to tournaments, and doesn't like tournament play, and decides to post on a competitive Smash forum about competitive topics, he'll likely roll them equally as hard even if the medium is something as simple as Brawl, or as intricate as Melee, and that it's simply a passionate love for something great that makes these players wanting more, like any fans do.

 

[D-idara]

I normally don't like to call people out, but the only toxicity going on in these forums is from people like you and posts like this that consistently have to imply that anyone that doesn't share your perception is an elitist ******* bentout on destroying your dreams of what Smash is supposed to be like.

You need to start respecting the fact that players better than you, smarter than you, have been in the community longer, and have played the game longer have different and likely more informed arguments and views than the ones you spew out about 'elitism this' and 'elitism that.' Not that I'm necessarily speaking for myself, but this needs to be made an example of the kind of stuff that shouldn't be happening. Especially from someone who doesn't like competitive tournament play and doesn't compete.

Are you denying that wanting the game to be harder to play doesn't look etilist? So because they've practiced a lot at a game they're smarter than me? Good one. Look, buddy, like it or not, wanting the game to be harder for the sake of 'separating the pros' IS a toxic mentality, going so far as to add a mechanic without any tangible depth JUST to make the game harder to play at higher levels? That's like the antithesis of good game design.

You do realize you're acting like the elitists you keep whining about, right? Your mentality is actually very toxic at this exact moment.

Fact of the matter is, trying to get any kind of gameplay(competitive or casual) banned or unwanted isn't any better of an attitude. There is nothing wrong with Competitive or Casual gameplay at all. We have different rules that cater to different players. And that's okay. Why wouldn't it be at all? Want to know why we want a faster game in Competitive tourneys? It's because we have time limits that must be met. It's far less to do with "everybody wants to go fast" because slower gameplay is quite enjoyed too by many. It's just a time thing, nothing more. It's even an issue because we chose to repeat Melee's rule set for Brawl instead of making our own. Some day we might fix this issue(like having 2 stock lives, since Brawl is naturally slower as is, and is too defensive for people to KO fast enough to not hit the time limit).

You do need to stop assuming everything is because of some "elitist" mentality. It's not. There's a lot more reasons for things. Items aren't usually on because they can sway the match too much. It's not the fact that it's a match alone, it's a match with money on the line. There's a justifiable reason by that alone to try and cut out random factors a bit more so it relies more on the player. If there was no money or prizes on the line, it would be less of a big deal. Some might still enjoy it that way, but it wouldn't have to be enforced. Another is that item capsules explode. If you can make only certain balanced items go on without that(and test it, respectively), that wouldn't be a real issue. There's few items that'll be usable, but it's a nice option. Well, in a non-money Tourney at the very least.

Lastly, Elitism has nothing to do with Casual or Competitive players. It's a mentality that any player has. It's when they refuse to respect other people's way of playing and treat yours as superior. Nothing more.

I never said that competitive matches should be played with items, and I actually love watching Project M competitive matches (Melee makes me feel like I'm having a seizure inside a microwave). I'm talking about the attitude that dictates that the game should be made harder at higher levels for the sake of being harder at higher levels...the only purpose of that attitude has always been making the pros pro-er and the noobs noobier. I accept competitive styles of play, I just think they could be improved because I'd like to get into them.

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

Edit: Wording

The thing: Why do you need to speed up the gameplay yourself? Why can't the gameplay just be faster overall? Competitive players get their low landing lag for their fancy combos, and casual/competitive-casual players get an overall faster game without having to go through the painful, annoying process of having to learn all those techs that only serve to distract from the game's core mechanics (The only worthwhile techniques are Wavedash and Dashdance, although wavedash should be simplified). I guess the control of your character argument can be used but it's still just a simple illusion of control, you're simply making up for one of the game's shortcomings, why should the game punish the player for not doing an arbitrary button press?

I'll illuminate this, especially since I thought it was funny.

Certain people, won't point fingers, like to believe that because a group of players passionately like Melee and want to see a return of what they loved about that game in the series in the next sequel, that this is mostly due in part to the fact that Melee caters to their ability to be simply better than other people. They also like to believe that these players want to see the return of Melee's essence because it helps them fulfill their fantasies of elitism and superiority by giving them a game with mechanics that give them an innate edge over the next guy.

What these certain people, won't point fingers, don't realize is that if a player like me who enjoys tournament play faces a player like them, who doesn't go to tournaments, and doesn't like tournament play, and decides to post on a competitive Smash forum about competitive topics, he'll likely roll them equally as hard even if the medium is something as simple as Brawl, or as intricate as Melee, and that it's simply a passionate love for something great that makes these players wanting more, like any fans do.

What some people don't understand, won't point fingers, we casual-competitive (Read: People who play with items and crazy stages but also care about their skill level) would like to enter the competitive scene sometime too, if it wasn't filled with such a huge amount of high-effort/low-reward traits, you learned how to L-Cancel? Now you've gotta do it midfight? You learned how to do that? Good, now practice on your wavedash and maybe some day you can actually start practicing your reads and combos, see what I'm getting at? Most of us want to get invested, just not THAT invested, good game design isn't based on the player's willpower to get better, good game design keeps the player entertained so they can get better naturally. Difficulty curves are essential to help the player get better, why would you force gamers to claw their way up a wall when you can give them a nice slope that rewards them for their effort of climbing up?

What I'm saying: I DO want to get better than my hypothetical opponent, I'd just like us to be closer and more evenly matched so I can eventually learn how to beat that opponent by applying what I already know more efficiently, yes, learning new things will always come, but I don't think that there should ever be player 'tiers'...yes, he's better than me, he knows all I know, he just applies it better, he doesn't know some ancient Xiaolin technique that instantly puts him in a completely different level, he doesn't do more things than me, he just does them better, and I'm OK with that because I know I can get better that way if I practice, but with tech barriers, it's a whole new dimension of struggling and sucking the fun out of getting better by playing.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Are you denying that wanting the game to be harder to play doesn't look etilist? So because they've practiced a lot at a game they're smarter than me? Good one. Look, buddy, like it or not, wanting the game to be harder for the sake of 'separating the pros' IS a toxic mentality, going so far as to add a mechanic without any tangible depth JUST to make the game harder to play at higher levels? That's like the antithesis of good game design.

And wanting the game to be easier for the sake of easiness isn't any better, actually. What's the difference? It goes both ways. Melee is a very easy game to play period. With the techs too. They aren't not difficult at all, especially L-Cancelling. How is it hard? At all? Harder than Wavedashing? Really? It isn't. And we already have shown why Landing Lag is needed.

And are you saying that wanting to challenge yourself instead of doing everything easily is somehow elitist? Because it isn't. It just means you don't find easy styles fun. Everybody likes what they like. No, they aren't being elitist for preferring stuff to be harder to do. They're just people who want to be challenged or prefer "practice makes perfect" as a mentality. If they're not pushing that mentality on you, they can't be elitist. No, I don't think they look elitist at all. Just people with a different preference, nothing more. And I see tons of depth in L-Cancelling, I always saw it as being full of depth. You don't. Okay. Why bother asking that over and over when not everyone agrees. That's the point you stop asking and move on and respect that opinion. I understand some disagree and that's exactly why I stopped mentioning it over and over too.

I never said that competitive matches should be played with items, and I actually love watching Project M competitive matches (Melee makes me feel like I'm having a seizure inside a microwave). I'm talking about the attitude that dictates that the game should be made harder at higher levels for the sake of being harder at higher levels...the only purpose of that attitude has always been making the pros pro-er and the noobs noobier. I accept competitive styles of play, I just think they could be improved because I'd like to get into them.

Good thing I didn't say you did. You're taking it out of context. I told you why many things are as they are for competitive gameplay. That's all it is, just a different rule set for different people. If Sakurai didn't want us to have the option of turning items off, he wouldn't have allowed that. He clearly wants us to play it how we like, and that's fine.

Melee is way easier for me to get into Brawl, btw. Brawl I can't work with. The lack of the (very easy for me, at least) techs, the tripping, they destroy my ability to have any real control of my character. It's no illusion, either. I am actually fully in control with Melee and do my stuff with good practice. I do not like auto-stuff, yes. I prefer to perfect it myself. Not everybody does. I didn't say everybody should accept the "no auto-stuff" either. That's not the same thing as preferring it, after all. Pushing the "you can't do auto-stuff at all" would be elitist. Disagreeing with it is the opposite of elitist, it's just having an opinion. I'm not pushing that opinion on anyone either. Explaining why I prefer it is fine. As long as they understand, what's the issue. I don't expect them whatsoever to prefer it. Just to respect my opinion on it.

I hope you can understand the difference now; Having an opinion is fine, making it so people accept your opinion is fine, making it so people must follow your opinion(as in style of play or whatever) is not fine.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

And wanting the game to be easier for the sake of easiness isn't any better, actually. What's the difference? It goes both ways. Melee is a very easy game to play period. With the techs too. They aren't not difficult at all, especially L-Cancelling. How is it hard? At all? Harder than Wavedashing? Really? It isn't. And we already have shown why Landing Lag is needed.

Ugh. Everytime we try to have this discussion your camp tries to null and void out the other camp by saying "It's not difficult at all!".

We get it, but your narrow minded observation of "all" players that seems to eclipse everybody else aside from yourself, and other professional players does not account for the strong majority of players who do not do any advanced techs. That's why they are called advanced techs. It's one thing to learn about them, but then you have to to learn to do them. Then it's one thing to learn how to do them, then you have to learn how to apply them. It's one thing to apply them but then you have to learn how to apply them better than your opponent on a per match basis.

That stuff is not easy for casual competitive players, it's an annoying, frustrating, and needless barrier for entry for the overall fun of the game among competitive players.

 

[Shaya]

I'm sure someone's mentioned it here over the course of 10 pages (I really hope so... but it would be understandable at this point that the anti-brawl is too strong)

Auto cancelling aerials has existed in every game thus far. It's frame data which Sakurai personally altered/set for every single aerial (and some specials) in the game. In a game with L cancelling, that entire mechanical facet of aerials are ignored. L cancelling as a mechanic literally removes depth from the game, in my opinion a very critical point, while being a mechanic that doesn't add any competitive depth to the game itself (I think most people agree with this, the counter argument being the "esteem" of it, which is fine).

Its hard to change opinions, but in my mind, the paradoxical nature of it is not really arguable in favour of L-cancelling existing again. Many ignore this and continue to make anecdotes of faster game play, while at higher levels of Brawl (and smash in general: auto canceling is standard fare for Marth, Sheik and Jiggs in melee) people know that auto cancelled aerials will have higher frame advantages when used correctly, while being of a higher challenge than just L cancelling. It took a very long time for the meta to adjust "Oh, so fast falling an aerial isn't always the best option? That's INSANELY UNLIKE MELEE@!!KE!KW".

Sakurai's auto cancel frames match visual ques and tend to be "the moment the hitbox ends", a more logical/sensical mechanic that users would "notice" themselves throughout playing, while something like L cancelling is/was always an advanced technique.

 

[D-idara]

And wanting the game to be easier for the sake of easiness isn't any better, actually. What's the difference? It goes both ways. Melee is a very easy game to play period. With the techs too. They aren't not difficult at all, especially L-Cancelling. How is it hard? At all? Harder than Wavedashing? Really? It isn't. And we already have shown why Landing Lag is needed.

And are you saying that wanting to challenge yourself instead of doing everything easily is somehow elitist? Because it isn't. It just means you don't find easy styles fun. Everybody likes what they like. No, they aren't being elitist for preferring stuff to be harder to do. They're just people who want to be challenged or prefer "practice makes perfect" as a mentality. If they're not pushing that mentality on you, they can't be elitist. No, I don't think they look elitist at all. Just people with a different preference, nothing more. And I see tons of depth in L-Cancelling, I always saw it as being full of depth. You don't. Okay. Why bother asking that over and over when not everyone agrees. That's the point you stop asking and move on and respect that opinion. I understand some disagree and that's exactly why I stopped mentioning it over and over too.


Good thing I didn't say you did. You're taking it out of context. I told you why many things are as they are for competitive gameplay. That's all it is, just a different rule set for different people. If Sakurai didn't want us to have the option of turning items off, he wouldn't have allowed that. He clearly wants us to play it how we like, and that's fine.

Melee is way easier for me to get into Brawl, btw. Brawl I can't work with. The lack of the (very easy for me, at least) techs, the tripping, they destroy my ability to have any real control of my character. It's no illusion, either. I am actually fully in control with Melee and do my stuff with good practice. I do not like auto-stuff, yes. I prefer to perfect it myself. Not everybody does. I didn't say everybody should accept the "no auto-stuff" either. That's not the same thing as preferring it, after all. Pushing the "you can't do auto-stuff at all" would be elitist. Disagreeing with it is the opposite of elitist, it's just having an opinion. I'm not pushing that opinion on anyone either. Explaining why I prefer it is fine. As long as they understand, what's the issue. I don't expect them whatsoever to prefer it. Just to respect my opinion on it.

I hope you can understand the difference now; Having an opinion is fine, making it so people accept your opinion is fine, making it so people must follow your opinion(as in style of play or whatever) is not fine.

Well, when I say cut landing lag, I'm talking more about all attacks having less landing lag overall, strong attacks would have slightly more landing lag to balance them out, but they'd still be naturally faster than the previous games, not so much as 'automatic' and more like 'overall faster' without the need for the player to actually make things faster on their own, yes, I do understand that you like your practice being rewarded, but I do believe there's some way to please both sides, I just think there's too much stuff going on to focus on a single button press every time you shorthop+attack. And to make that thing muscle memory, you'd have to practice for millenia, I would like L-Cancel if it was actually doable without practicing it religiously for at least a year.

Also, playing Brawl, I feel like I can fully control my character, much more than Melee, so that's just an opinion, I won't call any names, but there's some certain someones on this forum who think that there's such a thing as an objective definition of fun (Not talking about you!).

 

[Ulevo]

Are you denying that wanting the game to be harder to play doesn't look etilist? So because they've practiced a lot at a game they're smarter than me? Good one. Look, buddy, like it or not, wanting the game to be harder for the sake of 'separating the pros' IS a toxic mentality, going so far as to add a mechanic without any tangible depth JUST to make the game harder to play at higher levels? That's like the antithesis of good game design.

That's the problem. You think that players intentionally want the game to be harder for the sake of it being harder, and for no other reason, as if it is its own cyclical justification. And you're wrong. Players want a deep game, and sometimes deep games come at the cost of being slightly less casual friendly and a little more technical, especially in fighting games. But what is preposterous about this entire conversation is that Smash, Melee included, is still one of the most user friendly, casually appealing, and rewarding games to play on a basic level, and you still whine about its difficulty level when it is a difficulty level you don't give a **** about anyway. You've probably never even played someone who could consistently perform the techs you're complaining about, and you certainly have no aspiration to ever become a competitive player that these learning curves will ever affect, so why is any of this relevant to you? You're like the guy ******** about the speeding limits on the highway when you don't own a drivers license or a car.

What some people don't understand, won't point fingers, we casual-competitive (Read: People who play with items and crazy stages but also care about their skill level) would like to enter the competitive scene sometime too, if it wasn't filled with such a huge amount of high-effort/low-reward traits, you learned how to L-Cancel? Now you've gotta do it midfight? You learned how to do that? Good, now practice on your wavedash and maybe some day you can actually start practicing your reads and combos, see what I'm getting at? Most of us want to get invested, just not THAT invested, good game design isn't based on the player's willpower to get better, good game design keeps the player entertained so they can get better naturally. Difficulty curves are essential to help the player get better, why would you force gamers to claw their way up a wall when you can give them a nice slope that rewards them for their effort of climbing up?

What I'm saying: I DO want to get better than my hypothetical opponent, I'd just like us to be closer and more evenly matched so I can eventually learn how to beat that opponent by applying what I already know more efficiently, yes, learning new things will always come, but I don't think that there should ever be player 'tiers'...yes, he's better than me, he knows all I know, he just applies it better, he doesn't know some ancient Xiaolin technique that instantly puts him in a completely different level, he doesn't do more things than me, he just does them better, and I'm OK with that because I know I can get better that way if I practice, but with tech barriers, it's a whole new dimension of struggling and sucking the fun out of getting better by playing.

What you just don't seem to get is it isn't the game that's the problem. You are. Your attitude sucks. And I don't say that because you think L-Cancelling is a bad mechanic and shouldn't be in the game, and you're against arbitrary tech barriers. There are people I respect that share those views. But you have no competitive drive. None. You don't like losing because it ruins the image you see for yourself, and that's basically it. But you're not willing to change it. You're like the lady that complains that she's fat then goes and eats a tub of ice cream. You lose to someone better than you, and suddenly that's a problem. Rather than looking inward, and looking for the reasons why you lost, what you did wrong, and how you can improve, you look for the easiest out, the best thing to blame that suits your convenience. The only reason we're babbling about L-Cancelling right now is because during Brawl+'s development the development team brought up the idea that L-Cancelling's inclusion might be up for debate (for good reasons), and now that topic is circulating for people like you to grab hold of as the next best excuse for why you can't get good. The arguments might be legit, but you're reasons for identifying with them are definitely not.

As long as you continue to adopt the mentality you do, you will always be bad, regardless of what Sakurai and friends decide to pump out. Changing mechanics, making the game faster or slower, whatever you choose to suit your fancy, is not going to change this. And it's extremely unfair for you to stereotype and label people who want to see a game flourish to new heights competitively as competitive gamers because they love the game as elitists just because you can't get over your own self importance in a game you can't succeed in.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Well, when I say cut landing lag, I'm talking more about all attacks having less landing lag overall, strong attacks would have slightly more landing lag to balance them out, but they'd still be naturally faster than the previous games, not so much as 'automatic' and more like 'overall faster' without the need for the player to actually make things faster on their own, yes, I do understand that you like your practice being rewarded, but I do believe there's some way to please both sides, I just think there's too much stuff going on to focus on a single button press every time you shorthop+attack. And to make that thing muscle memory, you'd have to practice for millenia, I would like L-Cancel if it was actually doable without practicing it religiously for at least a year.

L-Cancelling took me less than a week to perfect. I doubt anyone could take a year to get it down. Unless they could barely practice 5 minutes a day max. Extreme exaggerations don't really say much to me. You don't need muscle memory for it at all. You just need to pay attention. I have terrible muscle memory too. I can only literally do one thing in SSB with that, and that's a perfect version of PK Thunder's recovery move. That's it. I do everything based upon what I observe and decide to work with it. It's the same reason I'm not good at more technical fighters, my fingers don't like to do it that way. It likes to just do good timing by adapting myself to the situation well.

I don't find them being overall faster necessarily better. We've never seen Sakurai attempt to actually give certain moves more or less landing lag, just applying it all around. The thing is? What's the point then? We know why Landing Lag is there, period. But if you have zero control over it, then it might as well not exist at all. I don't see any real reason for the auto-part. I do feel it dumbs down the gameplay severely. I like controlling everything I do with quite a lot of practice, not to put down others, but to know I really earned every win I got. And I feel that way personally and nothing more. I don't expect anyone to do like it that way. I do expect them to respect my preference and nothing more(not agree, but respect).

You see, I don't want the game to be faster all around, I want you to be able to make your character fast by choice. I found that more interesting. That in itself felt like it had tons of depth to it. The more control, the better. Melee was the epitome of control(to me) since you could do almost anything you wanted, but you had to actually practice this to be good at it.(nobody is great with anything they do without practice. This applies to real life, so things like walking, talking, etc.) Some prefer to have it easier and don't have to practice some things. That's fine too. I don't think people are getting that I understand their point, I just don't prefer it. That's all.

I don't see an illusion of control with L-Cancelling. I see it as real control over things with your character. Do I L-Cancel every time? Nope. Only when I think I need to, which is sometimes. I have multiple things I can do, after all. Anything done automatically I see as a loss of control. Why? Because it's not done by you. I don't care how arbitrary it seems. It's still control. No matter how little or much, it's still there. I find that healthy for competition, to know what you can do and be able to do it how you want as much as possible. Also, for the record, I do not like Dashdancing as it's an easy way to waste time and makes slower characters impossible to use against the tech. Wavedashing itself requires a lot of practice, but also doesn't work perfectly for everyone(kind of a problem with it in general, and why I don't miss it at all). In a way, I liked that Tripping stopped the Dashdancing spam, but eh. It's an odd situation.

I will still say, as a mostly casual player, that the advanced techs are overrated in difficulty-wise. None of them are severely hard(the glitches are, though. De-synching glitch, Soul Breaker, those are horribly hard to do). They require you to adapt to using them when the time is right, and that's fine anyway. Techs are there for a reason, for you to use in an actual real match, not just playing around against nobody. All 3 games require you to adapt what you've learned and get better at using them fully within a match against an opponent that actually has notable skill.(even against a high level computer it requires some skill to win) Skill is something you don't get naturally, you get better and become higher-skilled. At this point, it doesn't matter what the tech is overall. You won't get better it without practice period. So I don't see a single reason you should't have to try and get better and adapt it in the right situation. It's not some elitist mentality. If you practice something, you should be able to apply it after enough practice. That's the point. Think of the competitive play like a test itself. You apply what you learned. Nothing weird at all, honestly.

Also, playing Brawl, I feel like I can fully control my character, much more than Melee, so that's just an opinion, I won't call any names, but there's some certain someones on this forum who think that there's such a thing as an objective definition of fun (Not talking about you!).

I would prefer we don't go into the whole fun thing if it means trying to make a snide comment on someone. Fun is subjective, let's leave it at that.

Regardless, it's fine which one we prefer and I don't see a problem here in that particular scenario.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

That's the problem. You think that players intentionally want the game to be harder for the sake of it being harder, and for no other reason, as if it is its own cyclical justification. And you're wrong. Players want a deep game, and sometimes deep games come at the cost of being slightly less casual friendly and a little more technical, especially in fighting games. But what is preposterous about this entire conversation is that Smash, Melee included, is still one of the most user friendly, casually appealing, and rewarding games to play on a basic level, and you still whine about its difficulty level when it is a difficulty level you don't give a **** about anyway. You've probably never even played someone who could consistently perform the techs you're complaining about, and you certainly have no aspiration to ever become a competitive player that these learning curves will ever affect, so why is any of this relevant to you? You're like the guy *****ing about the speeding limits on the highway when you don't own a drivers license or a car.

Because more often than not, that is precisely & exactly what they want, anything to shut out the people who want everything they've obtained to be easier to obtain. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't inherently obvious by their flawed reasoning.

I draw examples from other games quite often, but I think this one is relevant. Often in World of Warcraft, when the next tier of raiding would release, they would sweepingly make the previous tier raid much more accessible (remove arbitrary attunement quests, tune bosses for being less of a gear check) for players who otherwise wouldn't have gotten to experience it had they not done so. What do you think happens like clockwork every single time? All the elitist players come out of the woodwork, complaining about how they're making the game casual, how their achievements all of the sudden mean nothing, etc. It's really a parallel that I see...players simply want there to be "weed out" elements of the game, they want to know that they are capable of being more hardcore than another player, because they did/can do something the other can't. They are clear and identifiable measures of superiority that otherwise vanish if the game itself makes those same goals obtainable to players through other means (either by modifying a mechanic or making it "easier").

The thing you have to consider is that many players do want to be competitive, but find certain things a major pain in the ass in a not fun way (as in, not in a difficult to do way). L-cancelling is standing trial as being one of those things.

It's very easy to say that these types of players are just whining, and want to have their cake and eat it too, or that they don't want to put in the time or effort to improve but that would mean you're missing the point. The fact is, they love Smash, and they may very well want to be competitive, but repetitious and arbitrary inputs detract them because it distracts from the core game play to them.

The goal is to grow the community, at almost any cost. Not shrink it, which means it's beneficial to take all of this in to mind when going in to the release of a new Smash game.

 

[D-idara]

That's the problem. You think that players intentionally want the game to be harder for the sake of it being harder, and for no other reason, as if it is its own cyclical justification. And you're wrong. Players want a deep game, and sometimes deep games come at the cost of being slightly less casual friendly and a little more technical, especially in fighting games. But what is preposterous about this entire conversation is that Smash, Melee included, is still one of the most user friendly, casually appealing, and rewarding games to play on a basic level, and you still whine about its difficulty level when it is a difficulty level you don't give a **** about anyway. You've probably never even played someone who could consistently perform the techs you're complaining about, and you certainly have no aspiration to ever become a competitive player that these learning curves will ever affect, so why is any of this relevant to you? You're like the guy *****ing about the speeding limits on the highway when you don't own a drivers license or a car.

What you just don't seem to get is it isn't the game that's the problem. You are. Your attitude sucks. And I don't say that because you think L-Cancelling is a bad mechanic and shouldn't be in the game, and you're against arbitrary tech barriers. There are people I respect that share those views. But you have no competitive drive. None. You don't like losing because it ruins the image you see for yourself, and that's basically it. But you're not willing to change it. You're like the lady that complains that she's fat then goes and eats a tub of ice cream. You lose to someone better than you, and suddenly that's a problem. Rather than looking inward, and looking for the reasons why you lost, what you did wrong, and how you can improve, you look for the easiest out, the best thing to blame that suits your convenience. The only reason we're babbling about L-Cancelling right now is because during Brawl+'s development the development team brought up the idea that L-Cancelling's inclusion might be up for debate (for good reasons), and now that topic is circulating for people like you to grab hold of as the next best excuse for why you can't get good. The arguments might be legit, but you're reasons for identifying with them are definitely not.

As long as you continue to adopt the mentality you do, you will always be bad, regardless of what Sakurai and friends decide to pump out. Changing mechanics, making the game faster or slower, whatever you choose to suit your fancy, is not going to change this. And it's extremely unfair for you to stereotype and label people who want to see a game flourish to new heights competitively as competitive gamers because they love the game as elitists just because you can't get over your own self importance in a game you can't succeed in.

Well, first of all, I'm actually not bad at the game, not competitive-good, but I know my way around Smash, so it'd be nice if you stopped trying to label me as a 'bad player' I find it difficult sometimes because I'm enraged but I do try to learn from my mistakes when playing a competitive videogame, even a non-competitive one, and I've proved that I can actually learn from losing because of games like Super Mario 3D World and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, although when a game does put me againist an unfair obstacle (Some Wonderful101 enemies with obscure/impractical strategies to defeat them) I will gladly call the game out on its bull****. If the game has a flaw, the fact that my opponent's able to overcome that flaw though a technique to beat me doesn't make it any less flawed, it just turns into an obstacle that shouldn't be there in the first place. Yes, he's probably just better than me, but I would've had more of a chance if the aforementioned flaw was fixed, and I could've learned from the mistakes I made within my knowledge of the game, but now I have to deal with overcoming that flaw if I ever want to beat him. If the next iteration removes that flaw, we can truly see who's better, and the one who's worse can actually stand a chance and learn at their own pace.

 

[LancerStaff]

Smash isn't a casual game. It's a game that has the means to please a casual medium. There's a difference. It's no different than saying Soccer is a casual sport, when it has events like the Fifa World Cup, just because some 3 year old likes to play it with his dad on Sunday. And this needs to be considered when you start talking about what's best for everyone, and about something as subjective as fun.

No, it's a game for pleasing casuals first and foremost. Four player matches, items, tons of uncompetitive stages and features... You're kidding yourself if you think 64 to Brawl were ment to be played seriously. It's always been casuals first, and always will be. What's the one anti-casual mechanic in the entire series? L-canceling. Dunno why it was ever put in, in the first place, but it never fit in with the rest of the game. Remember, SSB was designed to be the uncompetitive not-fighting game.

That's the problem. You think that players intentionally want the game to be harder for the sake of it being harder, and for no other reason, as if it is its own cyclical justification. And you're wrong.

He's not entirely wrong. I've been dealing with Melee tryhards ever since Brawl's release, and most think exactly that. Yes, he's seeing something of a corrupt picture of hardcores, but it was essentially painted by hardcores. The Melee fanbase hasn't exactly done a good job at making nice with other smash fans either.

 

[Ulevo]

Because more often than not, that is precisely & exactly what they want, anything to shut out the people who want everything they've obtained to be easier to obtain. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't inherently obvious by their flawed reasoning.

I draw examples from other games quite often, but I think this one is relevant. Often in World of Warcraft, when the next tier of raiding would release, they would sweepingly make the previous tier raid much more accessible (remove arbitrary attunement quests, tune bosses for being less of a gear check) for players who otherwise wouldn't have gotten to experience it had they not done so. What do you think happens like clockwork every single time? All the elitist players come out of the woodwork, complaining about how they're making the game casual, how their achievements all of the sudden mean nothing, etc. It's really a parallel that I see...players simply want there to be "weed out" elements of the game, they want to know that they are capable of being more hardcore than another player, because they did/can do something the other can't. They are clear and identifiable measures of superiority that otherwise vanish if the game itself makes those same goals obtainable to players through other means (either by modifying a mechanic or making it "easier").

The thing you have to consider is that many players do want to be competitive, but find certain things a major pain in the *** in a not fun way (as in, not in a difficult to do way). L-cancelling is standing trial as being one of those things.

It's very easy to say that these types of players are just whining, and want to have their cake and eat it too, or that they don't want to put in the time or effort to improve but that would mean you're missing the point. The fact is, they love Smash, and they may very well want to be competitive, but repetitious and arbitrary inputs detract the because it distracts from the core game play to them.

What you're telling me sounds like a vocal minority coming out of the woodwork to complain about changes they don't like for their own personal reasons, and that's fine. That said, I'm not going to make mention on World of Warcraft because I basically know next to nothing about it, or its community. What's pertinent here is that most competitive Smash players love the game because they love Smash, and they love to compete. That's it. It's not because of some ulterior desire to make people feel worthless because they can't press L/R/Z within 6 frames. I mean, is it possible there are people like that? Sure, I wouldn't doubt it. But that's not what composes the heart of the community, I'm sorry.

No, it's a game for pleasing casuals first and foremost. Four player matches, items, tons of uncompetitive stages and features... You're kidding yourself if you think 64 to Brawl were ment to be played seriously. It's always been casuals first, and always will be. What's the one anti-casual mechanic in the entire series? L-canceling. Dunno why it was ever put in, in the first place, but it never fit in with the rest of the game. Remember, SSB was designed to be the uncompetitive not-fighting game.

What it was designed for, and what it is, are not one in the same. If you can't grasp the reality of that then I don't know what more I can discuss with you. What's relevant is what the community has done to make the game what it is. That's the only reason we're discussing this now. What it was "meant to be" basically has no relevance, because what it is is something different entirely.

He's not entirely wrong. I've been dealing with Melee tryhards ever since Brawl's release, and most think exactly that. Yes, he's seeing something of a corrupt picture of hardcores, but it was essentially painted by hardcores. The Melee fanbase hasn't exactly done a good job at making nice with other smash fans either.

There's been a lot of tension in the community since Brawls inception and introduction, and for a variety of reasons. But most people who like, enjoy, and compete in Melee, organically are not that way. And I mean, I can't even take statements like this seriously half the time when half the time people will misinterpret between what is actually elitism and when someone simply doesn't agree with them, confide in them, share their opinion, et cetera.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

It's truly a double edged sword. I do see the potential harmful effects of making the game easier to approach, but in Smash Bros case I just don't think it applies. Melee fans have a right to be somewhat cautious, but it's time to ease up a bit. I'm convinced at this point that even if a game came out that bested Melee in almost all forms, Melee would still be touted as better by the same people, simply because it had Wavedashing and the upcoming game seemingly won't.

 

[Snakeyes]

I'm a pretty competitive gamer and still think L-canceling is a bad mechanic despite being able to do it consistently. Smash would be almost as deep if lag was simply reduced across the board.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

What you're telling me sounds like a vocal minority coming out of the woodwork to complain about changes they don't like for their own personal reasons, and that's fine. That said, I'm not going to make mention on World of Warcraft because I basically know next to nothing about it, or its community. What's pertinent here is that most competitive Smash players love the game because they love Smash, and they love to compete. That's it. It's not because of some ulterior desire to make people feel worthless because they can't press L/R/Z within 6 frames. I mean, is it possible there are people like that? Sure, I wouldn't doubt it. But that's not what composes the heart of the community, I'm sorry.

What it was designed for, and what it is, are not one in the same. If you can't grasp the reality of that then I don't know what more I can discuss with you. What's relevant is what the community has done to make the game what it is. That's the only reason we're discussing this now. What it was "meant to be" basically has no relevance, because what it is is something different entirely.

Melee became something the developers didn't intend, this much is certainly true, but I'm not speaking from a developer intention point of view, I'm speaking logically in terms of what would benefit the overall smash community.

Think of it as "hard" medicine. It's just something Smash needs, that none of the truly hardcore players immediately want for a variety of reasons. A lower barrier for entry in to competitive play would be huge in almost every positive way, and have absolutely zero effect on the top players.

There's been a lot of tension in the community since Brawls inception and introduction, and for a variety of reasons. But most people who like, enjoy, and compete in Melee, organically are not that way. And I mean, I can't even take statements like this seriously half the time when half the time people will misinterpret between what is actually elitism and when someone simply doesn't agree with them, confide in them, share their opinion, et cetera.

I don't think folks who want l-cancel, wavedashing, or whatever else to return to be elitists automatically. If you enjoy executing those techniques, then that's you in a very real reality, enjoying those techniques. Nobody can take that away from you. What you need to recognize however is the hardcore-competitive smash community is incredibly minute in comparison to the overall smash community, and the goal should be to convert many of that overall community in to the competitive smash community, because we benefit all the more for it.

I think abstaining from re-implementing the l-cancel mechanic works towards this objective with very little (none) effect on high levels of play by almost any standard.

 

[Ulevo]

Melee became something the developers didn't intend, this much is certainly true, but I'm not speaking from a developer intention point of view, I'm speaking logically in terms of what would benefit the overall smash community.

Think of it as "hard" medicine. It's just something Smash needs, that none of the truly hardcore players immediately want for a variety of reasons. A lower barrier for entry in to competitive play would be huge in almost every positive way, and have absolutely zero effect on the top players.

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

I don't think folks who want l-cancel, wavedashing, or whatever else to return to be elitists automatically. If you enjoy executing those techniques, then that's you in a very real reality, enjoying those techniques. Nobody can take that away from you. What you need to recognize however is the hardcore-competitive smash community is incredibly minute in comparison to the overall smash community, and the goal should be to convert many of that overall community in to the competitive smash community, because we benefit all the more for it.

I think abstaining from re-implementing the l-cancel mechanic works towards this objective with very little (none) effect on high levels of play by almost any standard.

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

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