Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[Snakeyes]

Or rather, how this staple of exciting high-level play could appear in SSB4! It would be awesome if we eventually came up with a couple of ideas everyone agrees on and that could then (hopefully) be relayed to the development team.

I'll start this off with a bold statement: L-canceling in its current form is an unnecessary barrier of entry and one of the most unintuitive and tedious requirements for pulling off combos in a fighting game.

Since there are no situations where you would not want to L-cancel, it would be a no-brainer to simply cut the aerial landing lag in half across the board and allow follow-ups without the need for an extra button press. Hardcore Smashers are able to combo properly again and casual players will have one less thing to learn while transitioning to competitive play. The only downside here would be the constant shield pressure, as shielding an aerial changes its landing window and allows the defending player to punish the attacker's mistimed L-cancel. But this doesn't necessarily mean that L-canceling as we know it is the only way to have both combos and a decent balance between offensive and defensive options.

What needs to change a bit is the shield and its effect on blocked aerials. What if shielding an attack while aiming the bubble forward pushed the opponent away to a safer distance, kinda like Marvel's Advancing Guard? Or if shielding an attack at the right time added a few extra frames of recovery to the attacker's aerial to punish him for being predictable while giving the defender a small window to escape or counterattack?

While this sounds good to me, I'm sure some of you might be able to spot a few holes or potential exploits in this new shielding mechanic or maybe some even better ideas on how L-canceling could be implemented in the game.

And remember that for Nintendo, Smash is, at its core, a party fighter that should be easy to get into. If we ever hope for our suggestions to be taken semi-seriously, there has to be something in there that has a small benefit for the casual player.

 

[Big-Cat]

When it comes to attacks, one thing would be to have blockstun for a move being something specific, just like in every other fighting game. I never knew much about this, but I've heard that block stun is homogenous in Smash so this naturally means moves with less recovery frames are going to be safer.

This being said, one thing that could be done is to make aerials significantly less safe on block than most ground attacks in comparison.

As for if this complicates things, it does, but it's really only a concern at higher play. Worrying about this or that being safe or unsafe on block is something you can just kind of figure out by playing the game and wouldn't necessarily require pulling out a frame data book (though this needs to be in game like Virtua Fighter 5). A good thing that comes with this diverse blockstun is that this allows certain characters to emphasize frame traps and forcing out counter attacks and provides an arguably easier way to understand risk and reward for attacking and blocking.

 

[Ace55]

Shieldstun depends 100% on damage in smash.

 

[Snakeyes]

Yeah, I haven't played Melee in ages but in 64 stronger attacks left you in a longer blockstun.

 

[Strong Badam]

L-Canceling is a bad mechanic.

 

[Life]

Normally, I agree with the "remove l-canceling and cut aerial lag in half" crowd.

However, for the sake of discussion, I propose another alternative to the form of l-canceling found in Melee and PM:

When you l-cancel an aerial, it stales.

Effects:

1. Most notably, you can stale your aerials by spamming them without necessarily hitting the opponent. This would probably have to be coupled with a longer stale-move list to keep it from being broken after a KO (or alternatively make l-canceling only work if the aerial hits).

2. It makes l-canceling into a decision: do you reduce the landing lag to help you continue a combo, or do you try to keep the aerial fresh for more damage later? Do you actually need the l-cancel to continue the combo?

Thoughts?

 

[Big-Cat]

Making L-Canceling a decision would be good, but I can't help but feel like it's a "ghetto" Rapid Cancel or FADC.

Of course, I never liked the stale moves mechanic.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I've personally been of the opinion that L-Cancelling should go unless some sort of risk could be implemented alongside it. Aside from that, there's really no reason to have it around other than as another barrier to entry for high-level play.

 

[Vkrm]

Lcanceling isn't about weather you should or not. It's about if you can, if you are able.

 

[Strong Badam]

Lcanceling isn't about weather you should or not. It's about if you can, if you are able.

Exactly why it's a bad mechanic.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Smash 4 is unlikely to get L-cancelling and even less likely to have universally low landing lag, but an intuitive way to have both would be to make L-Cancelling have Smash 64 properties (zero landing lag) when the aerial hits something and have it increase landing lag when it misses.

 

[Snakeyes]

When it comes to attacks, one thing would be to have blockstun for a move being something specific, just like in every other fighting game. I never knew much about this, but I've heard that block stun is homogenous in Smash so this naturally means moves with less recovery frames are going to be safer.

This being said, one thing that could be done is to make aerials significantly less safe on block than most ground attacks in comparison.

As for if this complicates things, it does, but it's really only a concern at higher play. Worrying about this or that being safe or unsafe on block is something you can just kind of figure out by playing the game and wouldn't necessarily require pulling out a frame data book (though this needs to be in game like Virtua Fighter 5). A good thing that comes with this diverse blockstun is that this allows certain characters to emphasize frame traps and forcing out counter attacks and provides an arguably easier way to understand risk and reward for attacking and blocking.

So basically:

Whiffed aerial - short landing lag ("auto" L-cancel)
Aerial on hit - same as above
Aerial on block - longer landing lag

That's even simpler and also makes sense (character staggers as a result of clashing against the shield). There needs to be some kind of trade-off to keep shielding from becoming too strong of a tactic though.

 

[Big-Cat]

So basically:

Whiffed aerial - short landing lag ("auto" L-cancel)
Aerial on hit - same as above
Aerial on block - longer landing lag

That's even simpler and also makes sense (character staggers as a result of clashing against the shield). There needs to be some kind of trade-off to keep shielding from becoming too strong of a tactic though.

You can look at it as more ending frames, but this doesn't have to be the case. As I mentioned, there could simply be less shield stun (think of an auto perfect shield). All in all, though, you've got the core of what I was getting at.

What might be a reasonable balance on most aerials would be that they are safe on block, BUT, you are very limited on continuing aerial pressure. Because of the fact that Smash jumps do not have a height restriction for attacks unlike most fighters, this is something that constantly needs to be tested, but I think looking at dive kicks in other games would be a good place to look at.

As I've said in other threads, you'd have to look at what you're changing and how. Like, let's say that blocking has no startup or ending frames like most fighting games and or shielding only covers a specific region of the body at any given time. This changes things up a lot. In fact, making shields smaller (and behaving like Yoshi's) and making them easier to aim would change the offensive-defensive game of aerial attacks and their pressure.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

Since L-canceling is done with the shield button, I always thought it could have a tradeoff related to shields. Something like L-canceling completely negating landing lag like in Smash 64, but it costs a percentage of your shield. So if you abuse it to have perfectly safe aerials, you run the risk of Jigglypuff jabbing you once and breaking your shield for a free Rest.

 

[Vkrm]

There is no reason to tack on all these weird trade offs and stipulations to try and add depth. It's not true depth, a lot the preposed revisions to canceling would make the game more finicky.

 

[Johnknight1]

Or rather, how this staple of exciting high-level play could appear in SSB4! It would be awesome if we eventually came up with a couple of ideas everyone agrees on and that could then (hopefully) be relayed to the development team.

I'll start this off with a bold statement: L-canceling in its current form is an unnecessary barrier of entry and one of the most unintuitive and tedious requirements for pulling off combos in a fighting game.

Let me re-phrase this, and state my only opinion to say what I think you're trying to say...

...NOT having L-cancelling be automatic is inefficient. It's like trying to fix a fan without a manual. If you don't have a manual, then okay (so Smash 64 and Melee get a pass). But since we have the manual, let's use it, and fix this thing quick (and make L-cancelling quick). That way, we can have more offense (everyone likes more offense [specifically offensive options], in competition, specifically the most popular form of competition, called sports [whether football, soccer, basketball, boxing, hockey,

Spoiler

EFF THAT LOCKOUT!!!

MMA, etc.]), and we don't have to do an extra unneeded step to do it. Nobody likes watching something where there is no ways the offense can win without it being exciting.

In (American) football, if you get a top offense and a top defense, the only way one can win is with spectacular fashion; usually it's very close, and very competitive. We like having this happen most of the time. Sometimes we like blowouts on defense, sometimes on offense, but we always want the offense to have more options. Because without offense, nothing progressive.

This is even more true in fighting games, especially smash. In smash, if we have no offensive options, you have to rely on mistakes to do damage. At even a slightly above average level of play, this is hard to pull off. In the case of Brawl, often, the offense relies on a few options. To make matters worse, that offense can be countered with defense that doesn't result in offense.

You see, in a sport like basketball, hockey, or soccer, if you stop the offense, you can get a rebound, and the go on offense. Thus, we have progression. This works further, because you have to approach the hoop/goal to "score" on offense. But if offense can be beaten by defense that prevents you from scoring (in smashes case, each character is the "hoop/goal)," then offense has no control over how to score. In all sports the offense has the ball... except baseball. And in baseball, you have to throw in the strike zone or make the batter swing to get a strike. Making that forces you to risk the other team's offense to have the possibility of scoring. This form of potential offense killer in fighting games like smash (with platformer elements) is like making a ball 10 feet off the plate a strike. That's why it's such a delicate issue.

Spoiler

Yes, I went way off topic, and I like it! :D

Because most matches aren't played with a time limit, this can literally happen forever, if a player so chooses to do so (unless said character is slow, a la Bowser).

Thus, what L-cancelling does is help prevent this kind of running away progression of a match from happening, and offense should remain dominant over defense. If we have this kind of defensive system where we can turn the offense over as simply as in soccer, hockey, and basketball, with as many options as those sports (probably moreso basketball), then we are gonna have a good thing going, even with potential huge tier imbalances. That's what IMO makes the gameplay system so great.

As for the rest of your statement, I'll let the opinions stack up on it. I don't care to analyse it now. I've said enough for one year on potential new gameplay mechanics!

Lastly, I love how all smash fans agree the Smash 64/Melee Z/L-cancelling is kinda unnecessarily. It looks like we can all agree on that... and random tripping!

 

[Vkrm]

Lol at your pee. I disagree with everything you said. Games shouldnt play themselves.

 

[TL?]

L Canceling is a pretty unintuitive mechanic, but the end result of it is important. In my opinion, low landing lag is important to a smash game being good or at least focused on offensive play. It's very difficult to promote and reward offense enough when aerials have 20+ frames of landing lag. I think aerials by default should have low landing lag as if they were L canceled (8-16 not 20+).

I guess the short version is:
L Canceling - unnessesary execution barrier
Low landing lag - very good for the game imo

 

[Vkrm]

Nah. Make it manual.

 

[Big-Cat]

@John
Why not just come up with something different that makes the offensive and defensive game more dynamic and interesting instead of L-Canceling? It's not like it's out only option.

 

[Youngster Joey]

i dont want L-cancel. if we have that and hitstun then its melee with more characters. i feel like theres gonna be a new thing tho. different but still good. i trust sakurai with this one. hes focusing on gameplay and the important competitive stuff this time i think

 

[JOE!]

The more I see Vkrm post the more trollish he seems...

Anywho, as TL? said, Low landing lag is great for smash, but the L-cancel method as-is is not. Either make L-canceling be a decisive action to warrant an input, or otherwise just globally reduce landing lag on whiff.

 

[Johnknight1]

@John
Why not just come up with something different that makes the offensive and defensive game more dynamic and interesting instead of L-Canceling? It's not like it's out only option.

I agree that there should be quite a few new, returning, or improved offensive tools. We could talk about less lag before and after attacks in general, building up "the big man's" offense (because most of the heavy characters have weak offense or offense with few options), or we could talk about new potential approaches to the game entirely. For instance,

I think making all the big characters have slow attacks, slow running speed, and have bad recoveries is stupid. I mean, they're already huge, and those power attacks are hard to land. The 3 big characters to ever have speed or a good recovery in smash (Donkey Kong, Melee Ganondorf, and Brawl King Dedede) are at least mediocre to fairly good. Meanwhile, all the rest in Smash are pretty bad.

But regardless, cutting the landing lag in half or in say a fourth while attacking manually would really make offense more explosive. It would force movement, and give the airborne attacker the ability to approach, as well as do combos.

And if it's spaced and timed properly by the defensive ground player (if there is one), whether by perfect shielding or side step dodging, they could immediately fire a ground attack or do a grab, and follow that up with more offense.

Thus, the combat progresses, and the end of the match is that closer. Plus, unlike what we often have in Brawl (and sometimes Melee), this forces action and excitement. In this kind of gameplay, it forces offense by throwing strikes in the strike zone, rather than strikes being called without a swing 20 feet away from the strike zone!

I don't really see how allowing for that kind of offense would be debatable. The debate would be "how much land to ground lag would we have?" and "what do we add on top of that?" Because while adding a lot more offense (compared to Brawl) for the majority of the cast is the biggest fix for our offensive problems, adding defensive options that force offense and confrontation is another alternative solution we could have on top of that.

Edit: Kuma, I think you would be the person to have some of the best ideas for that, now wouldn't you=??? You love mentioning all kinds of potential new techniqueriques!

 

[Big-Cat]

I agree that there should be quite a few new, returning, or improved offensive tools. We could talk about less lag before and after attacks in general, building up "the big man's" offense (because most of the heavy characters have weak offense or offense with few options), or we could talk about new potential approaches to the game entirely. For instance,

I think making all the big characters have slow attacks, slow running speed, and have bad recoveries is stupid. I mean, they're already huge, and those power attacks are hard to land. The 3 big characters to ever have speed or a good recovery in smash (Donkey Kong, Melee Ganondorf, and Brawl King Dedede) are at least mediocre to fairly good. Meanwhile, all the rest in Smash are pretty bad.

Edit: Kuma, I think you would be the person to have some of the best ideas for that, now wouldn't you=??? You love mentioning all kinds of potential new techniqueriques!

I think heavy characters, in general, need to be looked at more than probably most other characters due to how the current design doesn't reward them much in the slightest.

I'll basically reiterate what I had in mind, but I'll collapse it for brevity.
[COLLAPSE="Combat Changes"]
In general, all attacks will have tailored hit stun to each move as opposed to being damage dependent. For example, this could give our heavy weights more power in close range if you make their attacks safer on block. Their slower attacks (though this shouldn't be the case for all of them) could have more shield stun. Realistically, this makes more sense. The bigger, stronger characters can hit harder with less effort than the smaller ones. Another thing to take into account is that if an attack hits the shield late, it is SAFER than if it hit early. This is one reason why dive kicks can be extremely good.

Aerials would mostly have a recovery of 3-5 frames upon landing while landing without an aerial in progress in only 3 frames (like it is now, I think). The landing recovery an aerial would depend on the attack, but most would fall under the above. For an offensive game, aerials do not cause knockback on grounded opponents, but leaves them where they are opening them up for ground/aerial combos. Another thing about aerials is that they would mostly be unsafe on block, period. Because of the emphasis on aerial mobility, the aerial game should not be overpowering. It should be very rewarding, but not without a risk.

This goes to the shield idea I've suggested several times. Reduce the size of the shield so that it only covers a portion of the body at any given time. The shield does not shrink, but only grows dark with use and the shield is much easier to move, requiring a double forward or backward input for rolling to prevent accidental inputs. By making this change to the shield, we implement a much more dynamic defensive game where you aim for the hole in their defense or making them block the wrong area. Unlike other fighting games, you must block an attack where its hitbox would be (in more technical terms) so a very late aerial could hit low as opposed to high.

With all this said, this is what I'd like to see to improve offense and defense to where it emphasizes strategy and creativity as oppossed to arbitrary execution barriers.

Aside from this, I would like more attacks available on the ground for the sake of diversity and to address blatant weaknesses.
[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Kuma
I think in general, heavy characters need more "fast attacks" with high priority. As for their strong attacks, adding more hitstun (or making them easier to KO foes with) is definitely a way to make them "stronger" or at least feel stronger).

As for your view/idea on aerial attacks, I like it, although I don't think it should be universal (I'm not sure you think it should universal, either). Attacks like Falcon's Knee of Epic Manliness, the Bowser up air claw (kill) move, and Meta Knight's forward air should definitely do knock back, and shouldn't (for all intensive purposes) "freeze" opponents (but rather, do what they've done in the past).

I also got to say that in regard to your shielding idea, I agree they should shrink, and leave a portion of the body open in such situations (however, I think only tilts, [weak] specials, a few [weak] aerials, and a few [weak] item-based attacks should be able to poke through). I also think bigger characters should have bigger shields (bigger as in "bigger in general and bigger in regard to their size") as a way to allow them to not suffer from shielding systems like the one we have in Brawl. Big characters IMO too often had their shields poked through... at least compared to the rest of the cast. Doing this would help put more strength into the big characters.

Also, can Yoshi's dodge roll and shield timing be the same as every other character's=??? As if Yoshi wasn't bad enough, they go and make everything regarding his shield slower and weaker in Brawl. C'mon man! That needs to be fixed!

 

[Big-Cat]

@ Kuma
I think in general, heavy characters need more "fast attacks" with high priority. As for their strong attacks, adding more hitstun (or making them easier to KO foes with) is definitely a way to make them "stronger" or at least feel stronger).

More hitstun, yes, but I'm also saying more shield stun would be nice too. Keep them in close while giving the opponent very little breathing room. Welcome to the world of frame traps!

As for your view/idea on aerial attacks, I like it, although I don't think it should be universal (I'm not sure you think it should universal, either). Attacks like Falcon's Knee of Epic Manliness, the Bowser up air claw (kill) move, and Meta Knight's forward air should definitely do knock back, and shouldn't (for all intensive purposes) "freeze" opponents (but rather, do what they've done in the past).

Now that you mention it, I had not taken those into account. I guess in general it'd be a case by case basis. You could even make moves have different properties on whether they're airborne or not. Donkey Kong could cause a knockdown with FAir on a grounded opponent, but do a ground bounce on a juggled opponent.

I also got to say that in regard to your shielding idea, I agree they should shrink, and leave a portion of the body open in such situations (however, I think only tilts, [weak] specials, a few [weak] aerials, and a few [weak] item-based attacks should be able to poke through). I also think bigger characters should have bigger shields (bigger as in "bigger in general and bigger in regard to their size") as a way to allow them to not suffer from shielding systems like the one we have in Brawl. Big characters IMO too often had their shields poked through... at least compared to the rest of the cast. Doing this would help put more strength into the big characters.

That's the thing with keeping the shield at a size smaller than the character's body, but the shield is proportional to the body of the character. You're able to poke through the shield in perhaps an easier fashion than before. I still think a shrinking shield is not the best option for defense.

One thing I forgot to reiterate is that I think shields should have no startup or recovery. You just go straight into it. These are my views though.

 

[Johnknight1]

More hitstun, yes, but I'm also saying more shield stun would be nice too. Keep them in close while giving the opponent very little breathing room. Welcome to the world of frame traps!

Yeah, more shield stun (at least for some attacks) would be at least force more offense, where by more direct hits, more grabs, or better timing. Still, I think if you "perfect shield" that in most cases, you should be able to avoid getting shield stunned.

Now that you mention it, I had not taken those into account. I guess in general it'd be a case by case basis. You could even make moves have different properties on whether they're airborne or not. Donkey Kong could cause a knockdown with FAir on a grounded opponent, but do a ground bounce on a juggled opponent.

I think the "fix" to us being able to recognize which attack is simple: attack colors. If it's (say) blue, that means it a regular strength aerial. If it's red, it's a strong attack. This would make it easier for all players to understand, and could thus easily be explained and understood in any tutorial.

That's the thing with keeping the shield at a size smaller than the character's body, but the shield is proportional to the body of the character. You're able to poke through the shield in perhaps an easier fashion than before. I still think a shrinking shield is not the best option for defense.

Yeah, if strong attacks were to poke through (as in some B-attacks and smash attacks), that would be broken. Still, I think the "shrinking shield" works, but I think it should be more like it was in Smash 64 (where it shrinks very slowly, and it shrinks much faster from hits). Granted, I think the shield size should be the size of the light shield in Melee with such a system.

One thing I forgot to reiterate is that I think shields should have no startup or recovery. You just go straight into it. These are my views though.

That would be the simple fix for the Yoshi shield problem. However, if every character merely had the default 3 frame shield, it's not that much of a difference. 1/20th of a second difference isn't that huge of a deal.

Actually, a theory I once had is that I thought it would better if there was say a 10 frame delay. That way, it would work like taking a charge in basketball: you can't just stand there to take it, you got to "time it," "feel it out," and "space it" perfectly. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion before (to be honest, I don't really have an opinion on the matter anymore; maybe this system would work better for "perfect shielding stun"), but it is at least another solution for offense, and another unique way of using the shield.

 

[Snakeyes]

*snip*

Yeah that's pretty much it. Around Brawl's release, one of this board's veteran players wrote an excellent post on how spacing, combos and DI work together in Melee to create an exciting push-pull/punishment dynamic despite the game's simplicity and freedom of movement. Too bad I can't seem to find it.

 

[UltiMario]

The whole problem that's caused here is that Sakurai has clearly shown we get 2 options: a mechanic that increases input difficulty to reduce long landing lags or long landing lags that have no way to be reduced.

I'll take L-Cancelling since some moves with forced 30+ frame landing lags are inexcusable.

 

[felipe_9595]

Huh Deja Vu, i could swear i had this exactly same discussion with the exactly same people (some of them) some years ago in the Smash 64 boards, but ok, whatever

True, Lcancel is a tech barrier, but its so insignificant and easy to learn, that you shouldn't have the right to play competitive smash if you can't learn something that simple.

Because we are speaking about that, competitive smash no? Casuals give a **** about most of the ATs.

 

[C.SDK]

The whole problem that's caused here is that Sakurai has clearly shown we get 2 options: a mechanic that increases input difficulty to reduce long landing lags or long landing lags that have no way to be reduced.

I'll take L-Cancelling since some moves with forced 30+ frame landing lags are inexcusable.

What if landing lag was removed altogether so that in a way, it automatically L-cancels? I only read this page but from what I read, it seems like people are worried that only L-cancel would be removed but the landing lag would still be there?

 

[Master Knight DH]

I'm on the fence about unconditional staling on L-Cancelling. While it would be a good idea on paper, the problem is that it can also be used to refresh other moves while sacrificing a move you otherwise won't care about. It would at least add a reason to NOT L-Cancel, something I am VERY much for, but it can add a reason to actually do so WAY too easily.

 

[Snakeyes]

I think heavy characters, in general, need to be looked at more than probably most other characters due to how the current design doesn't reward them much in the slightest.

In general, all attacks will have tailored hit stun to each move as opposed to being damage dependent. For example, this could give our heavy weights more power in close range if you make their attacks safer on block. Their slower attacks (though this shouldn't be the case for all of them) could have more shield stun. Realistically, this makes more sense. The bigger, stronger characters can hit harder with less effort than the smaller ones. Another thing to take into account is that if an attack hits the shield late, it is SAFER than if it hit early. This is one reason why dive kicks can be extremely good.

Aerials would mostly have a recovery of 3-5 frames upon landing while landing without an aerial in progress in only 3 frames (like it is now, I think). The landing recovery an aerial would depend on the attack, but most would fall under the above.

I agree. The heavies need to be rewarded for closing the gap on the more mobile characters.

For an offensive game, aerials do not cause knockback on grounded opponents, but leaves them where they are opening them up for ground/aerial combos.

Not too keen on this one though. I think the current system is perfectly fine; some aerials are meant to start a combo on grounded opponents (various Dair drills, Marth's Fair, etc...) while others are geared towards knockback and KO potential.

Another thing about aerials is that they would mostly be unsafe on block, period. Because of the emphasis on aerial mobility, the aerial game should not be overpowering. It should be very rewarding, but not without a risk.

Agreed. Going back to your idea about strengthening heavy characters, the increased shield stun and pushback from their stronger aerials would make it safer for them to pressure the opponent after getting in, while speedsters like Fox will have to time theirs more carefully in order to not leave themselves open on block.

This goes to the shield idea I've suggested several times. Reduce the size of the shield so that it only covers a portion of the body at any given time. The shield does not shrink, but only grows dark with use and the shield is much easier to move, requiring a double forward or backward input for rolling to prevent accidental inputs. By making this change to the shield, we implement a much more dynamic defensive game where you aim for the hole in their defense or making them block the wrong area. Unlike other fighting games, you must block an attack where its hitbox would be (in more technical terms) so a very late aerial could hit low as opposed to high.

Hmm. While I like the defensive potential offered by blocking high and low in traditional fighters, I'm not sure that making such a drastic change would be a good move in Smash for several reasons:

- The current shield is easy to use (single button press) and understand for beginners (bubble shrinks = gotta stop shielding!).
- The current shield already provides a bit of that high-low game if it becomes too small.
- Even the best directional shielding would fall apart the minute you introduce an unconventional projectile like Link's bombs or boomerang, a damaging stage hazard or simply, a third player into the match.
- This one's a bit less of an issue, but the double tap would make rolls a bit harder to perform.

With all this said, this is what I'd like to see to improve offense and defense to where it emphasizes strategy and creativity as oppossed to arbitrary execution barriers.

Aside from this, I would like more attacks available on the ground for the sake of diversity and to address blatant weaknesses.

Agreed once again.

 

[Big-Cat]

Not too keen on this one though. I think the current system is perfectly fine; some aerials are meant to start a combo on grounded opponents (various Dair drills, Marth's Fair, etc...) while others are geared towards knockback and KO potential.

John pointed out the hole in this. Moves like Falcon Knee should keep their knockback so this is another thing that should be determined on a move by move basis.

Agreed. Going back to your idea about strengthening heavy characters, the increased shield stun and pushback from their stronger aerials would make it safer for them to pressure the opponent after getting in, while speedsters like Fox will have to time theirs more carefully in order to not leave themselves open on block.

Actually, for a pressure game, you want LESS pushback so that you're still in.

Hmm. While I like the defensive potential offered by blocking high and low in traditional fighters, I'm not sure that making such a drastic change would be a good move in Smash for several reasons:

- The current shield is easy to use (single button press) and understand for beginners (bubble shrinks = gotta stop shielding!).
- The current shield already provides a bit of that high-low game if it becomes too small.
- Even the best directional shielding would fall apart the minute you introduce an unconventional projectile like Link's bombs or boomerang, a damaging stage hazard or simply, a third player into the match.
- This one's a bit less of an issue, but the double tap would make rolls a bit harder to perform.

- You could argue my idea is as easy to understand. Move the shield so you don't get hit.
- It may do so, but you have to shrink the shield in the process so it personally doesn't provide it in a way I'd personally prefer.
- You have things like Mu-12's Steins, Dizzy's projectiles, Bridget's yoyo, etc. that do this kind of thing in other fighters. A slower character like Link could use that as a great asset for getting in.
- How's this for an alternative: You can move the shield using the non-cardinal directions so that the input for rolls and spot dodging are kept. The size of the shield would cover the need of moving it left and right since it wouldn't change size.

 

[Snakeyes]

True, Lcancel is a tech barrier, but its so insignificant and easy to learn, that you shouldn't have the right to play competitive smash if you can't learn something that simple.

That's silly. It may be easy to learn for you and me, but there are plenty of people on this very board that prefer Brawl precisely because they couldn't keep up with the speed and tech skill requirement of Melee. When people opt for a much more imbalanced and less exciting game just because of the tech barrier, there is a problem.

Even traditional fighting games have characters with very low execution aimed at those that don't want to learn advanced combos.

Because we are speaking about that, competitive smash no? Casuals give a **** about most of the ATs.

Well, one of Sakurai's goals is to bridge the gap between low and high level players. If done properly (unlike Brawl), it could greatly expand our competitive community. The less global advanced techniques there are to learn, the more likely it is for a casual Smasher to try playing more seriously without being turned off by the execution barrier.

 

[Life]

I'm on the fence about unconditional staling on L-Cancelling. While it would be a good idea on paper, the problem is that it can also be used to refresh other moves while sacrificing a move you otherwise won't care about. It would at least add a reason to NOT L-Cancel, something I am VERY much for, but it can add a reason to actually do so WAY too easily.

The question is whether that's actually a bad thing. With, say, a somewhat longer stale moves list (possibly coupled with the staling constant being reduced), it could work out to be unproblematic. Alternatively, it could only matter on hit (the effects of only getting the extra stale on hit versus always getting the penalty probably should get their own post).

You could say that it takes away from the uniqueness of characters that "have something to do" while waiting on a respawn (e.g. charging Charge Beam or Giant Punch or whatever, or PM Ivysaur's Synthesis), but that just changes it from "having something to do" to "having a choice about what to do" (charging specials versus staling an unused aerial).

And given that characters only have five aerials (unless you can l-cancel zairs), the decision on which one to stale given time may not be easy (e.g. Melee Falcon has uses for all five of his). And if your opponent knows you're tipping the balance of your aerials against one of them, that's a layer of yomi ("he keeps staling his dair, which means he's less likely to use it, which means I don't have to act to counter it as much"--"he knows I'm staling my dair, so he's less likely to expect me to actually use it, so if I do use it it's likely to work even if the reward is lowered")

The idea IS workable, it's just not necessarily standalone.

Also, hi.

 

[Snakeyes]

Normally, I agree with the "remove l-canceling and cut aerial lag in half" crowd.

However, for the sake of discussion, I propose another alternative to the form of l-canceling found in Melee and PM:

When you l-cancel an aerial, it stales.

Effects:

1. Most notably, you can stale your aerials by spamming them without necessarily hitting the opponent. This would probably have to be coupled with a longer stale-move list to keep it from being broken after a KO (or alternatively make l-canceling only work if the aerial hits).

2. It makes l-canceling into a decision: do you reduce the landing lag to help you continue a combo, or do you try to keep the aerial fresh for more damage later? Do you actually need the l-cancel to continue the combo?

Thoughts?

Why complicate things though? The last thing I want is to keep a mental checklist of how many times I've used a certain aerial *on top* of stuff that's already present in a high level match: my available combos based on the opponent's percent, how I should approach based on my percent, where I should DI based on my percent, etc... And it's not like aerials don't already stale naturally, which is another thing to think about. High-level Smash is already plenty complex.

Not to mention that reducing an aerial's power will actually result in longer combos to the spammer's advantage.

Since L-canceling is done with the shield button, I always thought it could have a tradeoff related to shields. Something like L-canceling completely negating landing lag like in Smash 64, but it costs a percentage of your shield. So if you abuse it to have perfectly safe aerials, you run the risk of Jigglypuff jabbing you once and breaking your shield for a free Rest.

This is better IMO, but still. Jiggs would get Star KO'd through shield break in every game.

I guess my beef with your two ideas is that they create a disadvantage for L-canceling instead of some kind of attack bonus to a non-canceled aerial. An incentive is always better than a penalty IMO

 

[Master Knight DH]

@Life: I never said I hate the idea at all. I just said it would have to be watched like a hawk.

Meanwhile, here's what I'm thinking of for fixing heavies:
*Knockback armor. Give enough to reduce flinching shenanigans. I'm thinking along the lines of making Link immune to any flinching from an attack with probably 35 total KB, maybe less (possibly 25), but definitely enough to let him be able to make use of his defensive power.
*Increase the KB amounts to balance around the KB armor. Do it by a percentage in general so that the low KB moves won't get through the KB armor easily and the high KB moves will mock it more easily.
*Staling should decrease KB by a set amount. Probably 0.5 minimum. Low KB moves would suffer against the KB armor. You know, low KB moves like the Mach Tornado. (That thing needs to suffer and like it.)
*I'd be for the Shield merely reducing damage by a set amount (which if not exceeded completely nulls the damage) than outright nulling it. Moves like Bowser Bomb should be beaten by evasion, not by blocking or outprioritizing unless there's perfectly valid reason.

Not quite sure what else, but these are off the top of my head.

Oh right. The likely counterargument that I'm trying to kill combos. No I'm not. I'm trying to keep them from working half as well on heavies, who desperately need the ability to keep momentum and not take quite sickening amounts of damage because they're apparently supposed to do something they just can't. Let them work on lightweights though. If anything, comboing working clearly better on lightweights makes power gaps stronger. (Characters like Zelda ought to be given tools to able to fight back against comboing though.)

 

[Snakeyes]

John pointed out the hole in this. Moves like Falcon Knee should keep their knockback so this is another thing that should be determined on a move by move basis.

Fair enough. I still don't see the point in making the distinction. The drill aerials already have very little knockback and achieve the same effect without the need for a special "freeze" property. Wouldn't something like this be better suited for special moves (or maybe for the heavy characters)?

Actually, for a pressure game, you want LESS pushback so that you're still in.

Thanks for pointing it out, I got mixed up there.

- You could argue my idea is as easy to understand. Move the shield so you don't get hit.

Still more complicated than "press shoulder button to block" Even traditional fighters that are specifically aimed at more competitive players often have a single button press for blocking: back or down-back.

- It may do so, but you have to shrink the shield in the process so it personally doesn't provide it in a way I'd personally prefer.

All right.

- You have things like Mu-12's Steins, Dizzy's projectiles, Bridget's yoyo, etc. that do this kind of thing in other fighters. A slower character like Link could use that as a great asset for getting in.

Do other fighters also have three other characters, assist trophies and Pokemon pummeling you from every direction? The chaos in a close range free-for-all battle is a far cry from a well timed unblockable setup in a traditional fighter.

- How's this for an alternative: You can move the shield using the non-cardinal directions so that the input for rolls and spot dodging are kept. The size of the shield would cover the need of moving it left and right since it wouldn't change size.

Yep, that works.

Hope I'm not coming off as being too harsh by the way. I just feel that constructive criticism is often the best way to find a solution.

I still think a shrinking shield is not the best option for defense.

I'm curious as to why. A shrinking shield combines the traditional guard break and stun bars into a single mechanic and gives skilled players an option to defend for longer periods of time by moving the bubble around. It's a simple, novel spin on the concept of defense in fighting games with a bit of depth to it.

 

[Big-Cat]

Fair enough. I still don't see the point in making the distinction. The drill aerials already have very little knockback and achieve the same effect without the need for a special "freeze" property. Wouldn't something like this be better suited for special moves (or maybe for the heavy characters)?

It depends really. I don't think you can make a generalization for something like that.

Still more complicated than "press shoulder button to block" Even traditional fighters that are specifically aimed at more competitive players often have a single button press for blocking: back or down-back.

Maybe so, but I doubt it's that much more complicated to hold the shield and aim in a certain direction. Mortal Kombat (as much as I dislike it) does this for the most part.

Do other fighters also have three other characters, assist trophies and Pokemon pummeling you from every direction? The chaos in a close range free-for-all battle is a far cry from a well timed unblockable setup in a traditional fighter.

Funny enough, Skullgirls found a way around that and that's a Marvel-esque fighter. That game has it where unblockables are outright impossible no matter what you try. In fact, they showed a demonstration with Peacock to show it indeed was impossible. Perhaps something like full immunity in shield stun could do the trick. Also, Guilty Gear Isuka had four players, but I honestly don't know how that one turned out.

Hope I'm not coming off as being too harsh by the way. I just feel that constructive criticism is often the best way to find a solution.

Not at all. Besides, better than SmashChu.

I'm curious as to why. A shrinking shield combines the traditional guard break and stun bars into a single mechanic and gives skilled players an option to defend for longer periods of time by moving the bubble around. It's a simple, novel spin on the concept of defense in fighting games with a bit of depth to it.

I'll admit that it has its appeal. Perhaps combining the two ideas might work.