L-Cancelling DOES ADD DEPTH TO THE GAME

[Bones0]

the act of focusing on landing the l cancel means that you're not focusing as much on what is going to happen if the opponent is hit, or if she blocks it, or if it whiffs, etc
it also means that thanks to muscle memory you might decide to jump in without as much thought put into it. you may have instead chosen a completely different option that was more tactically sound.

I mostly agree with these statements, but you seem to have swapped the cause and effect of what is really going on. Players still have to worry a lot about if the opponent is hit or if he blocks or if it whiffs, but because they have to focus on the L-cancel, they can't just throw out an aerial and worry about how it interacts after the fact. They have to be aware as it happens and still be able to followup the aerial properly.

If we had one player with automatic L-cancels and one with manual L-cancels, I think everyone would agree that even if the manual L-cancelling player hit his L-cancels at 100%, he would be disadvantaged. Why? His character isn't being limited in any extra way, so obviously the issue would be that the player must focus on his aerials in a way that is conducive to consistently L-cancelling. He has to worry about how he interacts with his opponent, and these concerns cause him to aerial in ways that are a bit more suboptimal than his opponent who can basically play lazier and achieve greater success. If promoting competition among players is your goal, forcing them to focus on an increasing number of variables is usually a pretty good way to achieve that. I don't know much about StarCraft, but it certainly seems like a game where you have to keep a million things on your mind at all times. You also have to understand how those million things really work and affect each other so that when obscure scenario #10,458,972 occurs, the player with the greatest understanding and improvisation will come out on top. When you force players to focus on something like L-cancelling, instead of just easily reacting to what happens, they are forced to have more understanding of what's going on in the match because they have to ration their focus on performing the actual aerial.

Of course this would still be the case without L-cancelling; there's still other things to focus on. I'm simply pointing out how I feel requiring L-cancels affects the way players handle situations. It's subtle which is why I think the effect automatic L-cancelling would have on the game is so controversial in the first place. It's also why I suggest anyone seriously curious about it actually play with the automatic L-cancel AR code. Even with years of L-cancelling experience under my belt, it only took me about 20 minutes to really start to notice a change in my focus and gameplay. I'm sure over time it would be even more pronounced because I was still dedicating an awkwardly large amount of focus to my aerial landings simply because it's a ridiculously ingrained mental habit. I also felt the reverse effect of adding in L-cancels. Suddenly everything became much more methodical because I had to really think about how I was attacking as opposed to just attacking and reacting to everything as it occurred.

 

[1MachGO]

You didn't read my post. If you had you would know I am comparing L-canceling and just having the L-canceling land lag to just be the land lag.

You didn't read me post then lol. I was trying to respond to that exact kind of theorysmashing. Auto-l-cancelling being superior to l-cancelling is hypothetical concept which bases its theories on an analysis of L-cancelling in a vacuum. I think if you go through the process of comparing L-cancelling to regular landing lag only then you'd find that yourself more prone to comparing L-cancelling to "what if?" auto-l-cancelling still within the context of the game. Which, in that case, you could see that manual L-cancelling does have some merits.

And no, I was not treating L-cancelling as the only technical aspect of the game. I am simply talking about L-cancelling specifically since its the subject of conversation. (I did mention that it compliments short hops and fast falls which would be dangerous to do without reduced landing lag). And I completely agree that all of those things are important to the technical aspect of the game, but so is L-cancelling.

And I personally do not care what is superior. Its essentially opinion. I just don't like the arguments people use against L-cancelling because I find a lot of them to be incorrect in their basis (the most common one being the belief that L-cancelling is bad because it lacks choice). The way I see it, Melee has survived a long 10+ year period of competitive play, it has recieved 0 support from its developers and hardly any from like-communities, yet its still being played and is even making a return to Evo. Technically speaking it is easily the least accessible game in the series yet it would appear to have the most competitive success. Why? There are lots of reasons, and you'd be silly to think that L-cancelling isn't part of that.

If more accessibility is your design philosphy, that's fine. Though keep in mind that when a game is losing accessibility, it is losing depth because accessibility interacts with decision making. If L-cancelling was made automatic, a requirement and element of the game would be removed and the gameplay would change because it was simplified.

 

[NalsXR]

*change for the better??

 

[KishPrime]

I've been lurking for awhile in my own topic, but I want to ask Nals why he is so convinced that l-cancelling takes away depth. L-cancelling, for better or for worse, is a control on aerial offense that takes away from player attention and limits capability according to one's skill. With that barrier removed, is it not possible that aerial play is over-empowered? That discussion has nothing to do with the discussion on its general effectiveness as a gameplay mechanic, but the fact is that it is undeniably woven into the balance of the game, and there is no evidence either way that depth would be greater or lesser with its removal. The only thing we can say for certain is that it would be different.

Again, though, I've seen nothing to suggest that l-cancelling is a bad mechanic from a game design level, either. It is a reasonable tax on execution where increasing skill and increasing reward point in the same direction, and that IS affected (though how much is questionable) by the opponent's choice of defense, creating a subtle interaction layer. You can have an opinion that it does not test something of interest to you personally, but that is simply opinion. You could remove the timing of a tech as well, and just have people hold a direction when they hit the ground for a quick-up or press it afterward for a slow up. It's something you have to keep in the back of your mind as an ever-present possibility of required execution in the same way that l-cancelling tends to be, and you could make the same argument for any number of mechanics.

As long as the skill/reward curve is good, and preferably some interaction elements exist, it's hard to ever make an argument that something SHOULD be removed. That's where it helps to be the designer and/or have a full understanding on designer intent, especially since there is no way to substantially evaluate the enormous set of options available throughout even a single round of Melee.

 

[1MachGO]

*change for the better??

There are two huge forms of skills in this game: technical accuracy and mental decision making. Both of these things add depth to a game; and even more interesting is the depth their interaction creates.

What is great about Melee is that it essentially has equal parts of these two major skills. This then provides players with more options on how they choose to improve which sets up an environment for a more dynamic metagame. This doesn't mean you can purely focus on one aspect and succeed since they are both extremely important; but you can favor one over the other and receive a desired result. As a bonus this rewards the player for playing how they like to play.

The result is that the extremely technical player can play at speeds which prevents the decision making player from getting a handle on the situation, while on the other hand, the extremely decision making oriented player can take advantage of a habitual technical player. It isn't rock paper scissors, its a circle perpetually rotating itself and evolving the metagame. This is depth.

If a detraction from this equality is your preference, thats fine. Though it would be nice if you could admit that it exists and L-cancelling is part of the reason it exists. If, for some reason, you believe that L-cancelling offers absolutely nothing to this interaction and is completely inconsequential, then your argument has simply collapsed on itself since you could argue that its insignificance wouldn't detract from the quality of the game either and, thus, you don't really have a point other than to say that you personally do not like L-cancelling.

 

[M15t3R E]

but we don't miss l cancels

Then L-cancels are pointless as they offer nothing that automatic L-canceling would do. So why isn't automatic L-canceling in the game? What does it offer to enhance competitiveness that automatic L-canceling wouldn't?

 

[Zhea]

Responding to 1MachGO:
If I misread what you said I apologize, but from what you responded with I am pretty sure I didn't and I guess we just disagree at a fundamental level. I will remind you this is a community that spouts doom speakers always ranting on and on about how this game is dying or dead. Very few people start in this scene who are hungry enough to put up with a lot of the tech you have to slog through to play the "real" game (I am one of these people, but I lost a lot of training partners due to this). L-canceling is the main culprit, and is literally a press this to do better mechanic, which I personally hate with a passion. Keep that in mind. I love this game so much, because of the fun combos and ruthless pacing I was willing to spend hundreds of hours drilling this in to my head. From that experience I also know that it is far from the most technical parts of the game. It's a small part that I no longer think about when playing.

So here is a question I would like to pose. If more people could play this game casually, how much bigger would this scene be? How much larger would pots be? How many more people would watch streams? I am not talking about stripping out every last bit of technical execution, just one simple part. Something the higher echelons of players do not think about. These are just lessons I would like anyone who steps forward with a smash style game idea to learn from.

Responding to KishPrime: It's not that it's an artificial technical barrier that's the problem Kish, it's that compared to some of the other ones Melee has (WD, ledge canceling, Shield Dropping, ISAI Dropping, DD) it's a ****ty one. All the previous techniques I listed are situational, they are a tool in your arsenal. You are not going to always use them, they are not always what you want, but it gives you more options. It strictly makes a set of options better and slaps you on the wrist for missing a rhythm game.

I think what most people like about L-canceling is that it gives the player utilizing it more power compared to those who don't. You know what? That's fine. What if successfully L-canceling gave your next move more knock back, while landing lag was just reduced. Bam. People who are more technically proficient still have more power, there are reasons to and to not use it (meaning it also requires a judgment component), and you don't pile drive the pace of the game into a ****ing cinder block for the uninitiated. They can go watch IKM2, Shined Blind or Insert Combo video here and then go try those combos. Oh they will still fail, and fail horribly because combo games are honestly more about spacing an match up knowledge than the actual L- Canceling (though this is still a requirement) But at least they won't feel like the game is the one holding them back with super glue on the floor.

 

[NalsXR]

read my most recent posts Mach, come on. Wayy ahead of you on the 'interaction' thing. And the other technical skills in the game. I do actually have a point past 'i don't like l cancelling' (I actually like it a lot) and i said it **** tonnes of times now.
read spymachine's reply to me where he talked about the ratios between physical and mental in games too if you can manage it.

I've been lurking for awhile in my own topic, but I want to ask Nals why he is so convinced that l-cancelling takes away depth.[...]

I did admit the positive effects of l canceling. I do admit that its a showcase to player skill when l cancels are landed in esoteric situations and in mundane ones.
and,as a straight up game design mechanic, it's effective. If L cancellings' premise was to place a check on the overall viability of aerial play, it did a good job.

But, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I did go over how I think and theorize that it is a 'bad' thing from a metagame perspective, it 'gets in the way' when other parts of the game are in sync.
Think. I grant you I have no hard data.

But, those arguing for l cancelling haven't proven that it does indeed leave the other aspects of the game intact and whole... (how much of our ten year run is thanks EXCLUSIVELY to l canceling and its effects on the meta?)

A lot of the same sort of argument itt. A lot of focus on the depth that l cancelling provides. and again it's solid depth. It makes the game more competitive.
But when they spoke, you get the sense that they were ignoring other aspects of the game in favor of this one.
I'm only so convinced that l cancel takes away depth because so many other people just accept that it adds nothing but depth , without regard to how exactly it is interacting with the other aspects of this game.

I have a bias. I assume that at the end of the day, if you can become better at spacing, and reads, and combos and all that other stuff, you're a better player.
I also think no one really cares if you can l cancel at high level play. it matters more if you can play more effectively. When you get better at things that are NOT l cancelling, you improve. You prove something no bull****. You can see it, it's tangible. jesus mango is good. L cancelling distracts from THOSE SKILLS.
That's how it takes away depth (theoretically).


You're completely right, this is my opinion. But why is it your opinion that l cancelling shows skill, so much so that it must 'interact' with nearly every other part of the decision making process? Why does l cancelling matter that much? (does the skill really give a 'reward' in the game, past winning a given match making something that would have worked anyway valid?)

Oh yeah, by interaction i'm talking about the 'interaction'(obstruction??) the need to L cancel has with other aspects of the game,
And not the way the in-game variables of landing are changed depending on what an aerial comes in contact with mid-flight (like shields, platforms, people, and the absence thereof).

So, without evidence either way, this discussion is a wrestling match.

Bones is ahead of the curve, because he's actually playing the game with and without l cancelling and comparing them. sooner or later i'm going to have to figure out dios mios or something
I already stated a hypothesis as to what happens when the game has l cancelling removed (insightful play increases overall, better decision making is exercised). what's yours?

 

[Nicco]

L-canceling is like an option to turn the speed of the game up. Most casual players don't notice a big difference between Barwl and Melee. L-canceling along with other things allow us to bend the rules within the game and unlock the great game we enjoy today. Does it add depth to high-level play? My answer is yes.
If your opponent is better at L-canceling than you, he has an advantage.
"Pff, I never miss an L-cancel." That might be so, but if you've been playing for three years, and your opponent has played for eight years, it will propably take him less effort to L-cancel, giving his subconscious more time to worry about other things.

If we're playing theory bros, L-canceling doesn't add depth. But think of the game as an RPG. In an RPG you have to unlock your abilities, and they usually deplete some sort of energy gauge as you use them. Now think of L-canceling, WD'ing, WL'ing, short jumping etc as your abilities. In theory bros you have all your abilities unlocked, and can use them at no cost. In smash bros, you need to grind to master the abilities. You also need to be consistent enough to do it with as little effort as possible. This of course means alot of practice.

"There's never a reason not to l-cancel." BS argument. Reason doesn't matter there is still the extra effort you put in. For some people this effort is great, for some it's almost none, but it will always be there. Oh, and if you hard cancel (pushing the trigger 'til it clicks) you risk missing a tech. So yes, if you L-cancel like that, there are situations where not L-canceling is better.

There's no reason to miss a note in Guitar Hero.
There's no need to shoot at anywhere but the head in CS.
There's no reason not to follow up your attacks in UMVC3. Does that mean that if we hit with one move, the game should automatically combo our opponent in the best way possible?

Mastering L-canceling and other advanced techniques requires alot of dedication. I've tried getting many people into Melee, but most people quit because they don't have the patience it requires. I think alot of people in here have either forgotten how difficult SHFFL'ing was in the beginning, or are mad because they find it difficult still.

I remember practicing 3-5 hours everyday just doing aerials. I remember taking painkillers just to practice. I remember crying because I couldn't keep up with the game. I've treated Melee like art. Without L-canceling there'd be a color missing in the painting I'm still creating. So you cannot say L-canceling doesn't add depth. It might not be alot, but it definitely makes the game deeper to me.

 

[Massive]

The fact that people legitimately believe that high-level players don't miss L-cancels is laughable.

Everybody misses L-cancels occasionally. Some people are much better about hitting them than others, and some of them are very hard to do reliably (try L-cancelling puff's dair into things, it's very difficult). You can also change required L-cancel timing with shield tilts, something that does happen in high level play and causes even pros to miss cancels.

Try using the flash on L-cancel code in the very same thread I linked before (for the autocancel code) to illustrate this to yourself. You may be surprised at how often you're actually (not) L-canceling.

 

[The Mofo]

I follow a game design theorist named Keith Burgun, and he has a very useful way to discern different kinds of interactive systems:

http://keithburgun.net/system-of-forms/

(I'm continuing assuming you read this, please do so if you plan on responding to this post.)

Basically, most fighting games (and most competitive video games) have an internal conflict of values-- Measurement VS Understanding. Is the system a contest, or a game? When the game designers made Melee, they asked themselves (most likely not), "Do we want there to be more emphasis on people making informed ambiguous decisions based on how well they understand this interactive system, or do we want more emphasis on a players' physical ability to correctly press buttons?" While it is subjective to determine which has more value, the topic at hand is depth, and for more depth we clearly want emphasis on informed decision-making.

Does L-canceling add depth? Taking the main examples people have given-- light-shield stun making it more difficult, Sheik needle traps making it more difficult, X makes it more difficult, etc.. There are things that player Y can do so that player X has a more difficult time L-canceling. This takes the decision process outside of 'Melee' and forces players to consider physical abilities as part of the decision tree. So, in a way it does create a decision tree, but these decisions are unambiguous- there is one correct solution: the player must change their L-cancel timing. This makes L-canceling something that adds to the 'contest' side of the game, where the player that simply can press the right buttons at the right time unambiguously (key word), will have the advantage. While this makes video games feel more like sports in a way, it can break an interesting chess game down to an arm-wrestling match.

All said and done, Melee is Melee, and there's no real reason to talk about if L-canceling adds depth or not. Personally, I like how Melee transcends the rules of the game itself with how technical it is, by forcing players to consider the opponents technical mastery, as well as focusing on realistically assessing your own technical mastery. This makes Melee much more relatable and analogous to other parts of life, and I get a lot of value out of that.

We all can love or hate Melee for what it is, but it's useless to love or hate it for what it's not. This isn't really a talk about Melee though, it's a talk about game design. I feel like this is a little out of place for this forum.

 

[KishPrime]

Yeah it's a game design discussion, but it's relevant given the number of people with mod projects and such.

He has an interesting cataloging system, though I'm not sure I would agree that l-canceling falls into the "contest" category for the interaction component alone. Using the author's own words at the bottom, there is a meaningful feedback loop tied into this. I also read contest to suggest that victory is determined by the person with the greater abilities, but who l-cancels better rarely has this type of influence on the final victory conditions of a match. It is possible that I do not understand as I do not read much of his material.

I keep pointing out that it is not always best to l-cancel if you view it from a larger perspective - sometimes it is better to not jump at all or not land with an attack because of the execution requirement based on your current evaluation of your abilities, the chances you are willing to take at that moment, and the opponent's ability to capitalize on a mistake. It's no different from deciding between different types of combo follow-ups based on difficulty - the mechanic of l-canceling influences the entire pathway of attack, just every required input does.

Because of how important execution is in 95% of competitive video games, I personally think it's a fallacy to even compare most of them to chess when performance is inherently more dependent on your physical abilities (reflexes, muscle memory, etc) in many games. I think people like to compare video game strategy to chess because it makes it sound smart, but a sport like football can easily be just as complex, strategically, and there's no physical skill or "input error potential" at all in chess which completely changes how you treat an opponent. I love games of the mind (though I'm a Go man over Chess), but games of the mind limit the variables that you have to consider by a remarkable amount.

 

[Zhea]

The reason I keep coming back to GO is that it is a great example of complexity-to-depth richness. It get's a ton of mileage out of very little. Everything doesn't have to be like that, but it's a key value to keep in mind when thinking about your games core mechanics.

The thing is L-cancel is a double-jeopardy mechanic. There is already timing and positioning constraints (some of them much tighter than the window L-canceling gives) for combos in melee. It's already solid from an execution and mixup stand point(At least in my opinion, that could of course be contested). But then there is another timing element thrown in that just ****s on it. This mechanic has nothing to do with what you want to do, just an extra hurdle to do it. And you can get everything else, but if you **** that up, the game slaps you down and yells what the ****. Just because you didn't fill it's arbitrary bull **** column.

 

[Mr.C]

Can you feel that smashboards? Winter is coming...

 

[Bones0]

You can simply point out that L-cancelling is arbitrary, but that completely ignores how L-cancelling interacts with the game as a whole. Sort of along the same lines as Kish was saying, the measurement of L-cancelling between two experienced players is far from a determining factor in who wins. Sure, at low level where only one player can L-cancel, that player will have a significant advantage, but the same could be said about the ability to SH or DD properly. So at lower levels, Melee resembles much more of a contest than it does at higher levels. At higher levels, L-cancelling doesn't have a significant impact on who achieves what. Players frequently miss more L-cancels and still win at higher levels because the number of missed L-cancels overall is so low. The measurement/contest part isn't really a big factor. What becomes more of a factor as players improve is their decision making. When both players are capable of consistent tech skill, their measurement scores for L-cancels and other techniques essentially evens out, and their decision making is what makes the difference in who wins or loses.

The important thing to realize is that L-cancelling makes decision-making more difficult because you have less mental resources to dedicate to it. Imagine two people trying to answer math problems. Now imagine the same two people are trying to juggle while answering the math problems. The juggling is strictly a measurement of physical ability. There is no significant decision making required to execute a juggle, but assuming both people are about equally skilled at juggling, I would think that the person who is better at math would win by a wider margin than in the first round. It's basically a way to prevent a competitive skill from being underwhelming. If you give two people a simple task, even if one person is slightly better it won't show much. As the task at hand gets more complicated, the slightly better person falters exponentially less and thus the skill gap is increased even though the outcome is still only based on the competitors' mental abilities. Thus, it seems better to throw everything but the kitchen sink at both players and see which does better instead of throwing a million spoons to each until someone drops it.

I'm sure anyone who plays Melee competitively has at some point or another pointed out how bad everyone is, but it's funny because it puts a smile on everyone's face to say that. People LOVE having a challenge, so when you have a game like Melee where it feels like everyone sucks with some people just sucking less, it's much more intriguing than a game where everyone is really good and the competition is more about not messing up. I don't hate bowling or anything, but as a sport it seems fairly limited because people have gotten so good that they can hit a 300. Racing contests are particularly one-dimensional so competitions frequently utilize different tools to artificially increase the skill gap. NASCAR has drivers complete hundreds of laps so that each small difference per lap totals up to be something more significant. Racing video games add in all sorts of boost areas, items, shortcuts, jumps, etc. to prevent races from being too easy. The smaller a game's margin of error is, the higher the chances are that the game isn't demanding enough of the competitors to make the skill gap evident.

This is really common in almost every contest-type sport. Games that largely measure physical abilities tend to plateau early and never advance whereas games that demand lots of decisions under extreme conditions are constantly being improved upon and rarely plateau before players break the game's system with something not as complex as the status quo. That would be like if we discovered Sheik could ledge stall just with up-B and never be interrupted. It would completely upend the entire metagame, and if no counter can be found, then suddenly the game is largely reverted to a contest of Shino stall execution.

 

[1MachGO]

Responding to 1MachGO:
If I misread what you said I apologize, but from what you responded with I am pretty sure I didn't and I guess we just disagree at a fundamental level. I will remind you this is a community that spouts doom speakers always ranting on and on about how this game is dying or dead. Very few people start in this scene who are hungry enough to put up with a lot of the tech you have to slog through to play the "real" game (I am one of these people, but I lost a lot of training partners due to this). L-canceling is the main culprit, and is literally a press this to do better mechanic, which I personally hate with a passion. Keep that in mind. I love this game so much, because of the fun combos and ruthless pacing I was willing to spend hundreds of hours drilling this in to my head. From that experience I also know that it is far from the most technical parts of the game. It's a small part that I no longer think about when playing.

So here is a question I would like to pose. If more people could play this game casually, how much bigger would this scene be? How much larger would pots be? How many more people would watch streams? I am not talking about stripping out every last bit of technical execution, just one simple part. Something the higher echelons of players do not think about. These are just lessons I would like anyone who steps forward with a smash style game idea to learn from.

SSB is one of the easiest games I can think of in terms of playing at a casual level. Anyone who has at least some background in platformers or super mario bros would have no trouble adapting to the core movement mechanics + two attack buttons. L-cancelling, wavedashing, dash dancing, fastfalling, ledge hopping, etc. are not necessary in a non-competitive environment.

Tbh, if L-cancelling turns someone away, it is only accelerating a process which would have turned them away eventually. Playing a game competitively will either interest you or it won't. In order for that to happen, your love of the game has to outweigh your frustration towards improving. If you dropped an instrument, sport, or other activity because it was "too difficult" clearly you (you being hypothetical) simply did not love that activity enough for it to be worth the effort.

In your case, clearly your love for smash outweighed your dislike of L-cancelling, and I can almost guarantee you that if there was some other arbitrary-yet-necessary mechanic which was significantly harder than L-cancelling, you probably would have learned it too.

If there does exists some threshold where x number of potential players are lost due to game difficulty, it is probably only at the fundamental level. I believe if a game is too difficult and committing to play at entry, then you will lose interest. However, smash doesn't have this problem and is one of the easiest games to pick up initially much like most nintendo games.

read my most recent posts Mach, come on. Wayy ahead of you on the 'interaction' thing. And the other technical skills in the game. I do actually have a point past 'i don't like l cancelling' (I actually like it a lot) and i said it **** tonnes of times now.

read spymachine's reply to me where he talked about the ratios between physical and mental in games too if you can manage it.

Your belief seems to be that decision making is the more (if not only) important form of depth a competitive game should focus on. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this ideal but having technical difficulty gives the metagame more variety because both major skills affect the viability of the other. Without this difficulty, yes, decision making wouldn't be as diluted, but the stronger techniques would be more accessible (example: Shield Pressure). Selection of your character (other than preference) would be determined by effectiveness; not potential effectiveness.

 

[TheGoat]

You are arguing that L-Cancelling adds depth at a low skill level. I don't think many people will disagree with you on that point.

Execution of L-cancelling is not even a consideration at high level play. People consitently go whole matches without missing a cancel, without putting a lot of effort. Thus, it does not add depth.

I, personally, enjoy it as a mechanic. I like pressing a lot of buttons and I like having a clear cut advantage over players who are too lazy to google super smash bros and then spend a couple hours in training mode. Other people disagree with this but I think that the people who are too lazy to do this aren't going to get to a high level anyway.

No. People do miss occasional l cancels at top levels of play and it costs them. Technical prowess and mental stability are furthered by l canceling, hence depth.

 

[Zhea]

stuff

Competitive players start as casuals ones. I also know of competitive players in the scene who don't pick up fox, because he is too technical for them. I think the line of who is going to give up and who is not is nebulous to draw. That's just my opinion though.

There are many casuals who enjoy melee without knowing the about the advanced techniques, I agree. However to me what makes melee really shine is it's pacing and that is something I would like everyone to enjoy, casual to competitive.

Fundamentally I do value decisions over technical finesse, however I do like most of melees other technical aspects. Because they add options rather than becoming the only option. Options are what give birth to different styles of play. It's a mandatory part of something that already takes a quite a bit of technical finesse (Comboing with aerials).

Edit: @TheGoat:
Nope.

 

[VA3TO]

There's some solid arguments against L-cancelling. Some people would prefer aerials be that fast to begin with.

Problem with that is that would be giving people an advantage for free. At least they have to work harder to be aggressive with SHFFL if a fox/falco is pillaring you. I wouldn't want them to have it for free.

It also adds depth to defensive play. Makes the defending player have to think about what they should do (Light shield, DI shield, maybe even power shield if you're good) to throw off the opponents L-cancelling or just to create space between them.

A hundred times this ^^^^^^

 

[ph00tbag]

I keep pointing out that it is not always best to l-cancel if you view it from a larger perspective - sometimes it is better to not jump at all or not land with an attack because of the execution requirement based on your current evaluation of your abilities, the chances you are willing to take at that moment, and the opponent's ability to capitalize on a mistake. It's no different from deciding between different types of combo follow-ups based on difficulty - the mechanic of l-canceling influences the entire pathway of attack, just every required input does.

But then that just expands the question to why jumping in is so much more arbitrarily difficult than options that only require that one or two inputs. Are you going to argue that difficulty balances with effectiveness? That simply doesn't hold.

I'm going to be honest, I'm not really concerned about depth, there. Any input that has an impact on timing or resources theoretically adds depth. Arguing that that's what's good about l-canceling has bunko to do with the fact that it's arbitrary. The only argument against that arbitrariness that I've actually seen is that it prevents teching for forty frames. That's a decent point, but it's an imperfect and indirect cost. For one thing, it can actually option select a tech, rather than override it, particularly against a character like Fox, who can force a tech five frames after blockstun. So the cost is not quite so high as the benefit for successfully performing it. From a design perspective, l-canceling is sloppy, and only brings anything to the game because of other unrelated design decisions.

Now don't take this the wrong way. I don't think Melee is bad for having l-canceling. As has been pretty effectively argued, Melee is designed with enough flexibility that it just squeezes around this oversight. This isn't really a discussion of trying to say whether Melee is a good game or not. It's a question of whether it could have been better, and in this case, it could have.

I also don't think removing l-canceling is the best answer. Giving the player something for not l-canceling, or taking something away for using it is a better way to keep the depth without having to cross your fingers and hope that the game adapts to the poor design choice.

 

[Sedda]

Can you feel that smashboards? Winter is coming...

Please, stop that. It's almost like this is your only defense for L cancelling. If "2013 accounts" were the only ones arguing against L cancelling, then cool, but that's not the case here. There are experienced players arguing against the notion that L cancelling has any depth as well. Unless you actually have something to say in this healthy argument, please stop with the "newbies" excuse. It makes you look stupid and invalidates your arguments.

 

[Bones0]

But then that just expands the question to why jumping in is so much more arbitrarily difficult than options that only require that one or two inputs. Are you going to argue that difficulty balances with effectiveness? That simply doesn't hold.

I'm going to be honest, I'm not really concerned about depth, there. Any input that has an impact on timing or resources theoretically adds depth. Arguing that that's what's good about l-canceling has bunko to do with the fact that it's arbitrary. The only argument against that arbitrariness that I've actually seen is that it prevents teching for forty frames. That's a decent point, but it's an imperfect and indirect cost. For one thing, it can actually option select a tech, rather than override it, particularly against a character like Fox, who can force a tech five frames after blockstun. So the cost is not quite so high as the benefit for successfully performing it. From a design perspective, l-canceling is sloppy, and only brings anything to the game because of other unrelated design decisions.

Now don't take this the wrong way. I don't think Melee is bad for having l-canceling. As has been pretty effectively argued, Melee is designed with enough flexibility that it just squeezes around this oversight. This isn't really a discussion of trying to say whether Melee is a good game or not. It's a question of whether it could have been better, and in this case, it could have.

I also don't think removing l-canceling is the best answer. Giving the player something for not l-canceling, or taking something away for using it is a better way to keep the depth without having to cross your fingers and hope that the game adapts to the poor design choice.

Did you read my post? I touch on basically every point you did.

 

[ph00tbag]

You make two points, Bones. First you assert that L-canceling needs to be taken in the context of the game as a whole. I'm saying that deflects from the main point entirely. You want me to judge Melee as a whole, and I've done that. Melee is a very well designed game. So well designed on the whole that the bad decisions like l-canceling get more-or-less smoothed over. That's not what I'm really arguing at all, though. I'm saying that, taken as a design decision, l-canceling has no counterbalance. That's what I mean when I say it's arbitrary.

And you actually do try to argue that its counterbalance is difficulty, which is very silly. Your example is people juggling while doing math problems, and that it makes it harder. Well, thanks Captain Obvious, but it doesn't mean people don't do it, or they don't get paid to do it very consistently. Just like a Melee player and l-canceling, they do do it consistently, and many get paid for it. The thing is that at the higher levels, as you yourself admit, top players do it anyway. It doesn't disincentivize jump-ins at all at high levels, so it ultimately has no impact on decision-making. It's just arbitrarily more difficult. And as you say in your discussion of racing games, all an arbitrary increase in difficulty does it raise the skill-floor.

But that doesn't make it a good design decision.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Can you feel that smashboards? Winter is coming...

Yeah none of this.

This is going to lead to baiting and nothing good will come from it.

~

This topic is really turning into more if appreciating technical perfection over gameplay decision making and vice verse.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This thread right now:

 

[1MachGO]

I think the line of who is going to give up and who is not is nebulous to draw. That's just my opinion though.

Why would you pose a question you now believe has no answer? Your point seemed to be that L-cancelling turns potential players away... but now you think its impossible to determine whether thats true or not?

You make two points, Bones. First you assert that L-canceling needs to be taken in the context of the game as a whole. I'm saying that deflects from the main point entirely. You want me to judge Melee as a whole, and I've done that. Melee is a very well designed game. So well designed on the whole that the bad decisions like l-canceling get more-or-less smoothed over. That's not what I'm really arguing at all, though. I'm saying that, taken as a design decision, l-canceling has no counterbalance. That's what I mean when I say it's arbitrary.

And you actually do try to argue that its counterbalance is difficulty, which is very silly. Your example is people juggling while doing math problems, and that it makes it harder. Well, thanks Captain Obvious, but it doesn't mean people don't do it, or they don't get paid to do it very consistently. Just like a Melee player and l-canceling, they do do it consistently, and many get paid for it. The thing is that at the higher levels, as you yourself admit, top players do it anyway. It doesn't disincentivize jump-ins at all at high levels, so it ultimately has no impact on decision-making. It's just arbitrarily more difficult. And as you say in your discussion of racing games, all an arbitrary increase in difficulty does it raise the skill-floor.

But that doesn't make it a good design decision.

L-cancelling will always seem stupid and arbitrary when taken out from the context of the game. You are purely analyzing it as a mechanic which lacks a pro-con system and requires all players to perform it; introducing a mechanic like this would be nothing short of arbitrary and saying so is not remarkable or enlightened because it is an unfair judgement.

To understand the value of the mechanic, you have to see it in its context. Ask yourself: What does L-cancelling offer to this game as opposed to an absence of L-cancelling (not automatic; a complete removal).
If all characters in this game had regular landing lag, how useful would aerials be? How many combos would still be possible? How playable would slow characters be? Would short hopping and fast falling during aerials have a point if they just put you in full landing lag? etc.

To say that L-cancelling can simply be overlooked because the rest of the game is so great is not true because L-cancelling is a reason why the game is great. A plethora of options would be lost without it.

And difficulty does have an impact on decision making because difficulty dilutes your reaction time. The more stuff you have to think about, the harder it is for you to process new information. If a Fox player is going for a nair shine, he or she is anticipating all the inputs they will have to perform; they are sacrificing their reaction times for the security of correct execution. Imagine if this game had auto-L-cancelling, wouldn't the brief time span where the Fox player anticipated the need to L-cancel be gone when they went for nair shine? This would probably free up their reaction time and allow them to make better decisions when the situation changes. If the nair connects to a shield, shine is still the best option, though if the nair connects to the opponent, grab or utilt/dtilt would be better options.

 

[Zhea]

stuff

Actually you posed that players who are turned away by technical difficulty wouldn't stick with the game even if this change was made. But okay, I'll bite. If you make it easier to invest initially, more people will invest the full amount later. This is why Magic the Gathering and League of Legends not only work, but have exploded into the ridiculous franchises that they are. It's like showing a new player how to shine spike with fox, or ftilt fair with Sheik. Let them have that taste of greatness and they will want more. Provided the next bit isn't on top of a ****ing mountain.

 

[1MachGO]

Actually you posed that players who are turned away by technical difficulty wouldn't stick with the game even if this change was made. But okay, I'll bite.

I wasn't changing my opinion, I was confused as to why it seemed like you changed yours. And My stance isn't specifically technical difficulty, but competitive difficulty in general. If you can't overcome losing then some form of losing will eventually turn you away from the game.

If you make it easier to invest initially, more people will invest the full amount later. This is why Magic the Gathering and League of Legends not only work, but have exploded into the ridiculous franchises that they are. It's like showing a new player how to shine spike with fox, or ftilt fair with Sheik. Let them have that taste of greatness and they will want more. Provided the next bit isn't on top of a ****ing mountain.

I completely agree that initial investment could affect player interest (Though Smash doesn't have this problem), but whether or not the game interests you still remains the most crucial aspect.

 

[Zhea]

I wasn't changing my opinion, I was confused as to why it seemed like you changed yours. And My stance isn't specifically technical difficulty, but competitive difficulty in general. If you can't overcome losing then some form of losing will eventually turn you away from the game.



I completely agree that initial investment could affect player interest (Though Smash doesn't have this problem), but whether or not the game interests you still remains the most crucial aspect.

I guess I misunderstood. Considering the context was about a technical aspect I assumed that is what you were referring to. Honestly I think that assessment would probably include a majority of the competitive smash community. The people you describe are probably the top 5% of the competitive community or are on their way to becoming that. The advantage to removing L canceling would be that the base of the community would be much larger while not affecting top level play. Local scenes would be a lot better and nationals would get a bit more pot fillers.

I actually agree on that point. This is a big part of smash's success. Except when it comes to L-canceling. It is one tiny mechanic that creates 2 different games. Because it is holding the pacing of the game back. This is my biggest gripe. If all l-canceling did was hold back power ( And power could be a lot of things, I posted an example when writing to Kish) I probably wouldn't care. But it attack's the pacing of the game. The 1 factor that truly separates each smash from it's other entries. The aspect of the game that is what makes melee for me.

 

[KishPrime]

I'm seeing the word "arbitrary" thrown around a lot. That doesn't make much sense. You WANT the skill curve to increase capabilities with more difficulty. Why not make fair a 1-hit kill? The execution-to-value ratio is way out of whack. L-cancelling does a tremendous job of keeping these ratios in line. At a more basic level, what the heck is a video game without some technical+timing component? There is execution difficulty in every single thing you do because of the pressure of the timeline plus the input difficulty, even if it's simply turning around to grab someone.

In some ways, it goes back to what I said earlier about moving in 2 dimensions vs. 1 dimension. There is an advantage in 2-dimensional movement (covering more space after a combo, avoiding attacks the project forward) that is offset with a skill check.

The mechanic works exactly as intended. It doesn't "attack the pacing of the game," as the game has no "normal" pace to begin with - some matchups are best played slowly and others quickly. All it does is helps to define what a player can expect to accomplish at every tier of their development, where a higher success rate allows more advantages.

 

[ph00tbag]

L-cancelling will always seem stupid and arbitrary when taken out from the context of the game. You are purely analyzing it as a mechanic which lacks a pro-con system and requires all players to perform it; introducing a mechanic like this would be nothing short of arbitrary and saying so is not remarkable or enlightened because it is an unfair judgement.

The rest of your post is unnecessary, because you state right here that you're ignoring my whole post. I clearly state that it is my full intent to view l-canceling without context, because the context doesn't edify l-canceling. Rather, the context shows that the overall flexibility of Melee's system hides the sloppiness of l-canceling's implementation. There is no element of Melee's overall system that directly or consistently counterbalances the reward of l-canceling, but the overall flexibility of the system at least grants emergent interactivity. But emergent interactivity is not solid design--it's pure dumb luck. If the overall system were more limiting, this would be a problem.

To demonstrate that last point, I'll point you to Killer Instinct, which has a similarly arbitrary mechanic, but doesn't have the flexible system to make it seem like a balanced concept. Don't let nostalgia fool you--Killer Instinct was a terrible fighting game. The characters are mostly generic, and don't really have a depth of voice acting, and and the animation is kinda choppy and dull. There's a slew of problems with the game, but more than anything, it's a mechanically broken fighting game. In particular, the combo breaker mechanic makes the already hyper-controlled combo game into a roll of the dice. There is no cost to combo breakers, so every time your opponent reaches a launcher, you just put in a random combo breaker input, and if your opponent chooses the wrong launcher, you break out for free. The fact that your opponent is so limited in their combo options means they have to submit themselves to this mix-up every time, or just end the combo early. The combo breaker input doesn't even buffer an attack if you break out of hitstun. You really don't even get meaningfully reset if you use a breaker.

L-canceling taken on its own is no different from KI's combo breaker. It is a costless mechanic with a lot of benefit if successfully performed, but all of that benefit is lost if it is failed. The only difference is that Melee has a system that is flexible and liberating enough that the whole game isn't dragged down at all by the mechanic, and Killer Instinct is limiting enough that an arbitrary mechanic turns most of the game into rock paper scissors. But that's why I take it out of context, because a limiting system can still be deep as long as you don't introduce arbitrary mechanics--just look at ST, and a flexible system can make it easy to get away with bad mechanics. Ultimately, you shouldn't let context cloud your judgment of a mechanic based on its inherent qualities.

I'm seeing the word "arbitrary" thrown around a lot. That doesn't make much sense. You WANT the skill curve to increase capabilities with more difficulty. Why not make fair a 1-hit kill? The execution-to-value ratio is way out of whack. L-cancelling does a tremendous job of keeping these ratios in line. At a more basic level, what the heck is a video game without some technical+timing component? There is execution difficulty in every single thing you do because of the pressure of the timeline plus the input difficulty, even if it's simply turning around to grab someone.

You're not understanding what arbitrary means. It means it has a benefit but no cost. Almost every other aspect of the game that can be initiated by the player has some kind of cost associated with it, be it positioning, animation, etc. Most games are designed this way. But when you give benefit without incurring some kind of cost--either in resources failed to attain or resources lost--then that makes that mechanic arbitrary.

Mechanical difficulty is not what is being argued against here. It is arbitrary difficulty. And there's a pretty clear difference.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

There is reason to the lcanceling system, or at least as much reason as everything else in a video game. Please stop saying the word "arbitrary" and giving it any definition you want (this is the second or third time i've seen you do this)

 

[1MachGO]

I guess I misunderstood. Considering the context was about a technical aspect I assumed that is what you were referring to. Honestly I think that assessment would probably include a majority of the competitive smash community. The people you describe are probably the top 5% of the competitive community or are on their way to becoming that. The advantage to removing L canceling would be that the base of the community would be much larger while not affecting top level play. Local scenes would be a lot better and nationals would get a bit more pot fillers.

Its a possibility, but these people wouldn't stay for long. People who love this game enough to overcome its challenged are not necessarily exclusive to the top 5%, think of it like an instrument, such as a guitar. Lets pretend that the guitar was significantly easier to pick up and play for beginners, sure there would be a lot of players at times... but the consistent amount would probably remain the same since its the people who really love it that don't put it down.

The rest of your post is unnecessary, because you state right here that you're ignoring my whole post. I clearly state that it is my full intent to view l-canceling without context, because the context doesn't edify l-canceling. Rather, the context shows that the overall flexibility of Melee's system hides the sloppiness of l-canceling's implementation. There is no element of Melee's overall system that directly or consistently counterbalances the reward of l-canceling, but the overall flexibility of the system at least grants emergent interactivity. But emergent interactivity is not solid design--it's pure dumb luck. If the overall system were more limiting, this would be a problem.

I was not ignoring your post; I am completely aware you are taking L-cancelling from it context and I am saying that its an unfair judgment. The viewpoint only serves to analyze the mechanic in general design when it should be viewed in regards to how it specifically affects the game its in. It is not clouded judgment to conclude that Melee would be a worse game if L-cancelling was removed and everyone had their normal landing lag stats. It isn't wrong to say that L-cancelling, on paper, is dumb, but you have to understand that it benefits the game its in.

Also, the only aspect of L-cancelling you can really call arbitrary is that it adds difficulty to the game seemingly for the sake of adding difficulty. (I do think this is a fair point, but I think it can still be debated whether the benefits outweight the difficulty)

What isn't arbitrary about L-cancelling is its lack of cost or pro-con system; It is completely intended to have no cost. This makes perfect sense for a mechanic belonging to the category of execution. There is never a benefit to messing up execution because that would be playing the game wrong.

If it were an action like walking, dashing, shielding, etc. which changed the state of your character, there would obviously have to be a cost. However, L-cancelling is really just an input to land aerials correctly... much like pressing the "A" button in the air is really just an input to initiate a nair correctly.

 

[Zhea]

Its a possibility, but these people wouldn't stay for long. People who love this game enough to overcome its challenged are not necessarily exclusive to the top 5%, think of it like an instrument, such as a guitar. Lets pretend that the guitar was significantly easier to pick up and play for beginners, sure there would be a lot of players at times... but the consistent amount would probably remain the same since its the people who really love it that don't put it down.

I know players who have spent years improving and have now stopped trying to improve, because going further is "too hard". They still play and go to local tournaments for fun and friends. I think you are overestimating it.

 

[Bones0]

You make two points, Bones. First you assert that L-canceling needs to be taken in the context of the game as a whole. I'm saying that deflects from the main point entirely. You want me to judge Melee as a whole, and I've done that. Melee is a very well designed game. So well designed on the whole that the bad decisions like l-canceling get more-or-less smoothed over. That's not what I'm really arguing at all, though. I'm saying that, taken as a design decision, l-canceling has no counterbalance. That's what I mean when I say it's arbitrary.

And you actually do try to argue that its counterbalance is difficulty, which is very silly. Your example is people juggling while doing math problems, and that it makes it harder. Well, thanks Captain Obvious, but it doesn't mean people don't do it, or they don't get paid to do it very consistently. Just like a Melee player and l-canceling, they do do it consistently, and many get paid for it. The thing is that at the higher levels, as you yourself admit, top players do it anyway. It doesn't disincentivize jump-ins at all at high levels, so it ultimately has no impact on decision-making. It's just arbitrarily more difficult. And as you say in your discussion of racing games, all an arbitrary increase in difficulty does it raise the skill-floor.

But that doesn't make it a good design decision.

1. I'm not saying look at MELEE as a whole. If I were arguing that "Melee is good and Melee has L-cancelling, therefore L-cancelling is good," obviously that's horrible logic. What I am saying is you can view anything in a game separate from the game itself and consider it arbitrary and bad. When you start looking at the effect L-cancelling has on the game, it is beneficial technique because of how it bottlenecks players' focus to require greater understanding and improvisation.

2. If you think I was arguing that L-cancelling is a good technique because it is difficult, then you obviously didn't understand my post. Once again, this seems to be a result of you divorcing L-cancelling from the rest of the game. Melee is a game where your mental resources are very important to manage. If you could focus on everything perfectly, it may very well be a much duller game. A lot of tactics and strategies rely on the element of surprise and catching people off guard. If you can focus entirely on your opponent when doing aerials instead of having to also focus on L-cancelling at the right time, you make it easier to deal with OoS options and hit confirm attacks that hit. You can FF at any time without having to mentally commit early enough to also time an L-cancel input. These are very real limitations placed on what humans can perform because of L-cancelling. If you remove L-cancelling, the game is not just the same minus a bunch of pointless trigger clicks.

If you reread my juggling while doing math example, you will notice I did not say juggling and doing math is harder than doing math on its own, therefore it's more competitive. I explained how the process of juggling while doing math it one's head changes how the actions are focused on. You can do it with two professional jugglers and they will both have no problem keeping the juggle going, so that isn't what's making the competitive edge appear. The difference in math abilities is simply exacerbated because they are essentially using less of their brains to focus on it. If your goal is to determine the math skills of two jugglers, you can increase the skill gap in their math abilities (which makes the results more meaningful and reliable) by forcing them to multitask with something entirely unrelated.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Most people who say "its too hard to get better" are having problems with the strategy, not the buttons (even if they think its the buttons)

 

[KishPrime]

You're not understanding what arbitrary means. It means it has a benefit but no cost. Almost every other aspect of the game that can be initiated by the player has some kind of cost associated with it, be it positioning, animation, etc. Most games are designed this way. But when you give benefit without incurring some kind of cost--either in resources failed to attain or resources lost--then that makes that mechanic arbitrary.

Mechanical difficulty is not what is being argued against here. It is arbitrary difficulty. And there's a pretty clear difference.

As many people have already pointed out, the "cost" includes both the mental and physical resources available to the player, and is incurred regardless of success. This cost is not insignificant. Melee, like all good competitive games, pushes the limitations of human capability. Possessing an advantage in physical and mental resources is vital to success, even at a low technical level. Many people who favor offensive play succeed because their offense is simply able to overwhelm the ability of an opponent to successfully execute their defense in the proper windows, even if it is theoretically possible to defend.

I feel like you are too focused on examining this under some type of a turn-based analysis system, in which time and physical execution are not relevant factors in a game's design and balance. Video game mechanics are not the same as board game mechanics. Every single option, move and combo in the game must strike a balance between execution difficulty and potential benefit, or the game becomes broken. L-cancelling is a well-designed mechanic that links together benefits (2-dimension freedom to attack/follow-up) in the same direction as execution difficulty, rewarding without overpowering. As you grow your skills, you add freedom and diversity of choices. It's the same as learning to move your finger from the A button to the B button to gain access to more moves - in this case, a jumping attack can be done with two button presses, but a BETTER jumping attack can be done with three button presses. You don't get a super move button in most games - it's usually the most complex motion in the game.

I mean, it sounds like just a difference in philosophy here at this point.

 

[Massive]

It is a costless mechanic with a lot of benefit if successfully performed, but all of that benefit is lost if it is failed.

Like powershielding? I would argue that it is far more arbitrary from a design perspective, and yet nobody is clamoring to remove it. You can shut down entire approaches and reverse fatal projectiles with a single input.

L-cancelling allows the large chunk of the cast who are not equipped with rapid, damaging, fast aerials to compete at a reasonable level. It grants a similar benefit to faster characters, but they are far less transformative when comparison to the boost the slower characters receive. You can deride this as "poor design" or some other equally flippant remark (armchair game designer much?), but it has proven itself to be an important mechanic that has greatly increased cast viability in the game that this community has supported for more than a decade.

From a purely game design perspective? I have already postulated several ways in which an l-cancel-like mechanic could be fleshed out to add even more substantial options and value to a smash-style game while still keeping the lag-cancelling idea in tact.

Overall I'm still having trouble understanding why there is an argument about this. It's not like you can go back in time and change the way melee is (on any large scale).

 

[Zhea]

@Massive:
I think it's always important to try and learn from the past and it's mistakes. If another group of developers want to make their own take on a smash style game, I would like for them to look at Melee and 64 and cut the fat from the core system.

Power shielding at it's core does suffer from the same issue that L-canceling does with the exception that you can't throw the shield button on turbo and get the same results as actually timing it. So it's a stricter form of arbitrary bull ****. The reason it doesn't get as much flack is that a core part of the games defense mechanics, Reflecting Projectiles, is built into it, making it a sort of necessary evil.

I think cutting the reduced lag aspect for everything except projectiles would fix this. There are already plenty of ramification for just holding shield and again there is no reason to punish the player twice for it. That's their opponents job. I would probably allow light shielding to reflect projectiles as well with the current stipulations mostly because the inconstancy always irked me. Yeah it would make it easier as on the whole ( with the added technical caveat of being able to light shield rapidly and consistently), but as it currently is it just makes it simple for some characters(Marth, Shiek) and next to impossible for others (G&W, DK, Pikachu).

 

[ph00tbag]

ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

There is no reason not to do an l-cancel. Therefore, it must be performed every time, lest the player be underplaying. Everyone defending l-canceling in this thread has said the increased difficulty is the entire point of l-canceling. Thus, the mandatory increase in difficulty is created for its own sake. The only reason one would want an increase in difficulty with no internal balancing cost is because one simply wants a harder game. That falls under personal whims, making the decision arbitrary.

I was not ignoring your post; I am completely aware you are taking L-cancelling from it context and I am saying that its an unfair judgment. The viewpoint only serves to analyze the mechanic in general design when it should be viewed in regards to how it specifically affects the game its in. It is not clouded judgment to conclude that Melee would be a worse game if L-cancelling was removed and everyone had their normal landing lag stats. It isn't wrong to say that L-cancelling, on paper, is dumb, but you have to understand that it benefits the game its in.

But it's not unfair if your purpose is to ask the perfectly valid question, "could Melee be improved upon," and then apply the same methodology to every mechanic in the game. There are other mechanics, besides l-canceling, that, taken on their own, could be improved upon. However, most of these mechanics are improved upon by other, much better designed mechanics, which skew the analysis. If you view l-canceling in the context of Melee, you mitigate the negative impact of the mechanic, and accentuate its positives, which makes it impossible to approach the question with disinterest. If you ask me, that's more unfair than judging the mechanic on its own merits.

1. I'm not saying look at MELEE as a whole. If I were arguing that "Melee is good and Melee has L-cancelling, therefore L-cancelling is good," obviously that's horrible logic. What I am saying is you can view anything in a game separate from the game itself and consider it arbitrary and bad. When you start looking at the effect L-cancelling has on the game, it is beneficial technique because of how it bottlenecks players' focus to require greater understanding and improvisation.

I disagree fundamentally. I look at a well-designed mechanic in Melee, like DI, and I see something that is undeniably positive. In other fighters, it would even solve the problem of massive touch of death combos. And the fact that any direction you fly has benefits and costs means that no matter how you DI, you're gaining something and losing something. Incidentally, DI was first introduced in Soul Calibur II, and like with Melee, it opened the game up, and made the combo game more based on establishing escape control and creating reset opportunities. The only real problem with it is its passivity, but that's an unavoidable quality, since even no DI is still DI.

2. If you think I was arguing that L-cancelling is a good technique because it is difficult, then you obviously didn't understand my post. Once again, this seems to be a result of you divorcing L-cancelling from the rest of the game. Melee is a game where your mental resources are very important to manage. If you could focus on everything perfectly, it may very well be a much duller game. A lot of tactics and strategies rely on the element of surprise and catching people off guard. If you can focus entirely on your opponent when doing aerials instead of having to also focus on L-cancelling at the right time, you make it easier to deal with OoS options and hit confirm attacks that hit. You can FF at any time without having to mentally commit early enough to also time an L-cancel input. These are very real limitations placed on what humans can perform because of L-cancelling. If you remove L-cancelling, the game is not just the same minus a bunch of pointless trigger clicks.

If you reread my juggling while doing math example, you will notice I did not say juggling and doing math is harder than doing math on its own, therefore it's more competitive. I explained how the process of juggling while doing math it one's head changes how the actions are focused on. You can do it with two professional jugglers and they will both have no problem keeping the juggle going, so that isn't what's making the competitive edge appear. The difference in math abilities is simply exacerbated because they are essentially using less of their brains to focus on it. If your goal is to determine the math skills of two jugglers, you can increase the skill gap in their math abilities (which makes the results more meaningful and reliable) by forcing them to multitask with something entirely unrelated.

Mental resources have no in-game representation within the game, though. You can't judge a game's design by the work the player has to do, because that's not something the designer has any control over. You can't just say, "this is harder, and that's the cost," because you have no objective way to measure that. The same goes for your juggling example; you could alternately just be widening the juggling skill gap. You have no objective measurement for determining what gap is being tested. All you can say is you're making both tasks harder.

And ideally, nothing would surprise a player--they'd know what could happen to counter any of their actions, and so they would adapt to the counterstrategies used. Surprise is the mark of a player that doesn't know everything about the game.

As many people have already pointed out, the "cost" includes both the mental and physical resources available to the player, and is incurred regardless of success. This cost is not insignificant. Melee, like all good competitive games, pushes the limitations of human capability. Possessing an advantage in physical and mental resources is vital to success, even at a low technical level. Many people who favor offensive play succeed because their offense is simply able to overwhelm the ability of an opponent to successfully execute their defense in the proper windows, even if it is theoretically possible to defend.

And I'll redirect you to my response to Bones0. Unless you can point me to an objective measurement of mental resources that affects all players equally based on how many brain-cycles they're using, then mental resources are simply not a cost.

As you grow your skills, you add freedom and diversity of choices. It's the same as learning to move your finger from the A button to the B button to gain access to more moves - in this case, a jumping attack can be done with two button presses, but a BETTER jumping attack can be done with three button presses. You don't get a super move button in most games - it's usually the most complex motion in the game.

I mean, it sounds like just a difference in philosophy here at this point.

Well, it is. But for me, difficulty is just not a quality I can judge a game on for its own sake. Difficulty has to have an internal balance. Games that are harder for the sake of being harder aren't better or more elegantly designed. They're just harder. If you like harder games, then I guess, great for you. But you'll find yourself not necessarily judging games by how much thought went into the design. On that point, don't get me started on multi-input fighting games.

Like powershielding? I would argue that it is far more arbitrary from a design perspective, and yet nobody is clamoring to remove it. You can shut down entire approaches and reverse fatal projectiles with a single input.

It also costs shield health, which makes it an improvement on the prevailing wisdom on just-guards in fighting games these days.

L-cancelling allows the large chunk of the cast who are not equipped with rapid, damaging, fast aerials to compete at a reasonable level. It grants a similar benefit to faster characters, but they are far less transformative when comparison to the boost the slower characters receive. You can deride this as "poor design" or some other equally flippant remark (armchair game designer much?), but it has proven itself to be an important mechanic that has greatly increased cast viability in the game that this community has supported for more than a decade.

You could just as easily make them more viable by universally making landing lag short. Not that that's what I'm trying to argue for, but I'm just trying to illustrate that this proves nothing.

From a purely game design perspective? I have already postulated several ways in which an l-cancel-like mechanic could be fleshed out to add even more substantial options and value to a smash-style game while still keeping the lag-cancelling idea in tact.

Finally, someone is talking about how l-canceling can be improved upon, rather than trying to say it's a perfect mechanic with no flaws! You win a cookie. I like some of your ideas. Would the gatling mechanic be more like, you either take the landing lag or you use your follow-up? That actually sounds pretty nifty.

Overall I'm still having trouble understanding why there is an argument about this. It's not like you can go back in time and change the way melee is (on any large scale).

For me, it's just about getting people