Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

I'm interested in Kink-Link's idea, except I feel like people get punished consistently for missing L-Cancels even without the added lag. How do you think your system will change the game?

This.

Also you're intensifying the skill barrier for proper L-canceling. It's also going to make the brawlsies naggy when they can't get anything other than 1/4th lag reduction and they claim that 1/2 lag reduction is required for "the lowest form of competition".

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

They should change up the l-cancelling system. As it functions in Melee, l-cancelling makes aggressive aerial advancement an asymmetric focus within the core game play. That should be remedied. Being rendered helpless upon landing isn't the best way to balance the game, either, though. A cool alternative system would be to allow players to "tech" their landings whilst keeping all of their aerial momentum.

Please elaborate on your alternative idea.

I think that l-canceling actually balances out quite beautifully with out-of-shield advanced techniques.

Edit:

fffff. I was supposed to cut and paste, not hit the post button.

 

[Arcansi]

How would that be very far from having all moves kill if they hit? I'm serious here. The entire game can be described as coming down to reads, RPS, 50/50 or 2/3 mixups etc etc, so why have to make 20 hard reads to get rewarded with a kill, when you could remove all that arbitrary gibberish and kill with one solid hit?

The difference, from what I can see, is just where you want to draw a line.


Also along that line of thought, Soul Caliber with 5% health is extremely legit.

Because different moves are viable in different situations.

A lazer is not supposed to kill, it's supposed to disrupt. There are many moves like this, not made to kill ever, but only to disrupt or do some other purpose.

Making all of those kill would be silly.

Making CERTAIN moves kill whenever they hit would be more like what you're talking about, but it still removes depth in opponent conditioning, and reads.

The ability to find and read your opponents patterns is one of the most integral things games like smash test, and should not be removed.

 

[Twinkles]

@noir Lol, honest mistake man

@Rhubarbo please word your suggestion in a way that a simpleton like me could understand, because i do not know what the heck you are trying to say

 

[Kink-Link5]

Also if every aerial could be auto-canceled if executed from a SH normal fall or at least a Full hop FF on the first available frame, that'd be nice, with some specific moves auto-canceling on a SHFF Like Ness's does in Melee.

The two can coexist and work off one another without being some two-fields-of-thought approach with Auto-Cancelers hating on L-canceling for rewarding "poor timing and spacing"

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Because different moves are viable in different situations.

A lazer is not supposed to kill, it's supposed to disrupt. There are many moves like this, not made to kill ever, but only to disrupt or do some other purpose.

Making all of those kill would be silly.

Making CERTAIN moves kill whenever they hit would be more like what you're talking about, but it still removes depth in opponent conditioning, and reads.

The ability to find and read your opponents patterns is one of the most integral things games like smash test, and should not be removed.

The point is that in a "no execution" scenario, you could just combo all the necessary moves together and end with the kill or max damage. Without an execution requirement, that scenario is no different than a scenario where the first move deals the killing blow or max damage.

 

[Arcansi]

The point is that in a "no execution" scenario, you could just combo all the necessary moves together and end with the kill or max damage. Without an execution requirement, that scenario is no different than a scenario where the first move deals the killing blow or max damage.

Or max damage is much different, and something that is on the end of a spectrum.

Some people like extremely high tech-skill, lower decision-making games.

Some people like high decision-making, lower tech-skill game.

Some people like a mix of both.

Competitively, you're looking at the second option being optimal for competition, because tech-skill requirement stops being noticeable at high levels of play eventually, but decision making never does, as long as the game has enough yomi.

But not all people are in it for competition.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Or max damage is much different, and something that is on the end of a spectrum.

Some people like extremely high tech-skill, lower decision-making games.

Some people like high decision-making, lower tech-skill game.

Some people like a mix of both.

Competitively, you're looking at the second option being optimal for competition, because tech-skill requirement stops being noticeable at high levels of play eventually, but decision making never does, as long as the game has enough yomi.

But not all people are in it for competition.

I don't get your first sentence.

I still see top tournament players drop combos and link in tournaments, so tech-skill requirement practically never stops being noticeable unless you're playing a silly game like Brawl. You're virtually suggesting cutting off risky, high-execution, high-reward mechanics in their entirety, when risky high-execution strategies often tend to incorporate yomi scenarios which would otherwise be too advantageous.

 

[Twinkles]

@Arcansi
Dunno why tech skill and decision-making have to be mutually exclusive (is that how you say it?).

Also don't know why people not in it for competition would need to argue on whether to include L-Canceling or not if they have many other concerns I'd think they'd rather argue about (characters to include, stages, items, etc.)

 

[Kink-Link5]

Smash has no Yomi according to any and all people who have played non-smash video games.

But it's cool we just cover it with the umbrella term mindgames and tech instead of Ukemi and tech chase instead of Okizeme and Jab reset instead of OtG.

Why do we care so much about how other scenes see us again? Competitive video gaming is kind of a joke with the advent of streaming and the removal of MLG and other video game competitions from national airwaves. I don't think I've seen anyone try this hard to fit in desperately with an out-group since like

9th grade.



Oh right execution and competition. Like I said, there are national RPS tournaments but there's a lot of reasons why that sort of thing doesn't get much hype or attention. What is "ideal" for competition isn't the same as what is ideal for a competitive game. Noirscythe covered the other points fairly well.

 

[Gea]

I know this may be a bit late, but bringing up automatic walltechs isn't quite a perfect comparison. There are times where bouncing off of the wall can put you in a much safer place than wallteching or walltech-jumping. Stadium is a a good example of this, but there are others within the game.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

I know this may be a bit late, but bringing up automatic walltechs isn't quite a perfect comparison. There are times where bouncing off of the wall can put you in a much safer place than wallteching or walltech-jumping. Stadium is a a good example of this, but there are others within the game.

That's why we split walltechs on the stage where they aren't always advantagous and walltechs on the ledge where they're always advantageous.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Which isn't that hard to imagine from a coding standpoint. Just have two "wall types" or have a condition set on the walls whether they tech automatically or not, just like there is for whether you can wall jump off the wall or not.

 

[Gea]

Yoshi's could also be the same way depending on %. As in not always the best option.

Edit: To me this is like saying auto-sweetspot is the same thing. You'd never NOT want to... except those times you don't want to.

 

[Vkrm]

I want a game with high decision making. That's not what brawl was. Melee definitely has a higher tech requirement, but that's only because of how many things factors are up to the player to manage. Melee is more complex than brawl for the right reasons. We don't need to be leveling the playing field for casual smashers.

 

[Twinkles]

Vkrm, you need to stop talking about brawl and start talking about melee because i guarantee you'll be much happier that way

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Yoshi's could also be the same way depending on %. As in not always the best option.

Then let's make it automatic after a certain damage. :v

 

[Arcansi]

Smash has no Yomi according to any and all people who have played non-smash video games.

Then they're wrong.

Even grab vs shield vs attack is yomi.

But it's cool we just cover it with the umbrella term mindgames and tech instead of Ukemi and tech chase instead of Okizeme and Jab reset instead of OtG.

Why do we care so much about how other scenes see us again? Competitive video gaming is kind of a joke with the advent of streaming and the removal of MLG and other video game competitions from national airwaves. I don't think I've seen anyone try this hard to fit in desperately with an out-group since like

9th grade.

Competitive Video Gaming is way less of a joke now than ever.

large League of Legends tournaments are watched in pubs in some places, I hear.

They're definitely watched in some public establishments.

Oh right execution and competition. Like I said, there are national RPS tournaments but there's a lot of reasons why that sort of thing doesn't get much hype or attention. What is "ideal" for competition isn't the same as what is ideal for a competitive game. Noirscythe covered the other points fairly well.

Hence why I seperated the two in my post. Not everyone is in it for competition, pure and simple.

I don't get your first sentence.

Kink-link was talking about every move killing.

(every move killing) Or max damage is much different.

I still see top tournament players drop combos and link in tournaments, so tech-skill requirement practically never stops being noticeable unless you're playing a silly game like Brawl. You're virtually suggesting cutting off risky, high-execution, high-reward mechanics in their entirety, when risky high-execution strategies often tend to incorporate yomi scenarios which would otherwise be too advantageous.

1. Didn't you say you studied logic or some such thing, earlier in this thread? I would think this would mean you would know to keep opinion and emotion outside of an argument. Try not to muddle your argument with brawl-bashing, please.

2. High-Execution, High-Reward is in itself a pretty dumb way to go about things. Either the execution is so high no human will ever be able to do it consistently, or eventually someone will be able to do it consistently and then what do you have? A high-reward mechanic, nothing else.

They only incorporate yomi so long as people cannot do them consistently. And until people can, they are fine mechanics. The problem is that doesn't last forever unless specifically designed to, and then it's different.

@Arcansi
Dunno why tech skill and decision-making have to be mutually exclusive (is that how you say it?).

They don't.

You'll notice the third option is a mix of both.

Also don't know why people not in it for competition would need to argue on whether to include L-Canceling or not if they have many other concerns I'd think they'd rather argue about (characters to include, stages, items, etc.)

Being in it for competition would mean you only argue about mechanics.

To a purely competitive player, if Mewtwo and Roy are the last contenders, and they both would have the same moveset and hurtboxes were they to get in, (Mewtwo has a psychic spoon, look it up.) the player would not care. This is because it makes 0 difference for competition.

Which isn't that hard to imagine from a coding standpoint. Just have two "wall types" or have a condition set on the walls whether they tech automatically or not, just like there is for whether you can wall jump off the wall or not.

Until player interaction comes in here.

If you have no choice, the opposing player can (if at all possible) punish you for automatically doing whatever it is you do.

If you have choice, they can't.

 

[Gea]

Then let's make it automatic after a certain damage. :v

I thought you were about facilitating proper discussion, not clinging to false comparisons that crumble like those wafers that taste vaguely of cardboard but seem perfectly eatable regardless.

 

[Vkrm]

Gea, are you against manual l cancelling?

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Then they're wrong.

Kink-link was talking about every move killing.

(every move killing) Or max damage is much different.

"Or max damage"? Max damage applies to cases where the initial condition wasn't sufficient to kill (given that it's equivalent to perfect execution). It's not at a different end of a spectrum, it's just for situations where the kill falls short.

1. Didn't you say you studied logic or some such thing, earlier in this thread? I would think this would mean you would know to keep opinion and emotion outside of an argument. Try not to muddle your argument with brawl-bashing, please.

I do. Opinion and value much more prevalent and overarching in the world and academia than you think. Subjectivity doesn't stand for "arbitrariness" as I think I mentioned earlier. Argumentatively speaking, there's nothing wrong with emotion as long as it doesn't interfere with reasoning. However, it may be detrimental from a persuasive writing point of view. I'm a logic person though, not a worthless English major. I have my reasons.

2. High-Execution, High-Reward is in itself a pretty dumb way to go about things. Either the execution is so high no human will ever be able to do it consistently, or eventually someone will be able to do it consistently and then what do you have? A high-reward mechanic, nothing else.

They only incorporate yomi so long as people cannot do them consistently. And until people can, they are fine mechanics. The problem is that doesn't last forever unless specifically designed to, and then it's different.

They may not be able to do it perfectly consistently, but there's a chance that they'll do it more consistent than not, and which either case there's still value in them being not perfectly consistent.

The claim that they only incorporate yomi so long as people cannot do them consistently is false. Advanced shield pressure is a great example of this. You should listen to Mango's discussion about it in an interview.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

I thought you were about facilitating proper discussion, not clinging to false comparisons that crumble like those wafers that taste vaguely of cardboard but seem perfectly eatable regardless.

What do you mean false examples? Is "auto-canceling" a false example? lol

I am facilitating proper discussion. I'm just operating with analogies, and the latest one seems to be infallible. I don't know what is your imaginary definition of "proper discussion" if you do not see that.

I applaud your attempt at illustrative language though.

Edit:

**** double posts. I'm in favor of auto-merging.

 

[Gea]

Gea, are you against manual l cancelling?

Not especially. I think balancing aerial lag is way more important than the inclusion of L-canceling, but I would in no way be adverse to the return of it. Not really a fan of the whole "only auto-cancels on hit" thing either just because spacing aerials to wall people is pretty important, especially for characters who have a harder time being outright aggressive in approach, and would likely only indirectly buff characters with great mobility (dashdances) over those who lack it but may have a short jump and thus can throw out aerials relatively safely as bait.

What do you mean false examples? Is "auto-canceling" a false example? lol

False comparison, not example. Comparing automatic L-cancels to automatic wallteching doesn't work. It is always advantageous for the player to decide to L-cancel, but it is not for wallteching. If fighting games should be more about choices and less about execution, don't sacrifice choice.

Edit: Also for the sake of clarity, I hope you realize "autocanceling" aerials already exists in the Smash series, so if you intend the meaning to be "automatic L-Cancels" you should probably specify. If you didn't know this, you may want to become more intimate with the series from a technical level before partaking in serious discussion.

 

[Arcansi]

"Or max damage"? Max damage applies to cases where the initial condition wasn't sufficient to kill (given that it's equivalent to perfect execution). It's not at a different end of a spectrum, it's just for situations where the kill falls short.

Okay, I'll simplify a large portion of my first post.

Any move killing or doing max damage when it will not, is much different from any move killing always.

Any move killing or doing max damage when it will not is on the end of a spectrum..(see first post).

You get it now?

I do. Opinion and value much more prevalent and overarching in the world and academia than you think. Subjectivity doesn't stand for "arbitrariness" as I think I mentioned earlier. Argumentatively speaking, there's nothing wrong with emotion as long as it doesn't interfere with reasoning. However, it may be detrimental from a persuasive writing point of view. I'm a logic person though, not a worthless English major. I have my reasons.

Emotion works in subtle ways. I would argue as little of it as possible is optimal, but it's not like I can objectively prove this.


I'm going to assume you mean "Opinion and value are much more prevalent..."

And I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this. Don't assume you know what I think.

Subjectivity and Arbitrariness are completely different. I never read that part of the thread though, so I might be missing context.

Your reasons are probably bad.

They may not be able to do it perfectly consistently, but there's a chance that they'll do it more consistent than not, and which either case there's still value in them being not perfectly consistent.

The claim that they only incorporate yomi so long as people cannot do them consistently is false. Advanced shield pressure is a great example of this.

1. That's kinda like rolling a dice, though. And even then, they can eventually become perfectly consistent, so my point stands.

2. That's because shield pressure is not a combo. There's no ultra-mixup where it automatically beats your opponents blocks, because your opponent has input in it. I was talking about combos here, and will note that I overlooked other such things.

My point stands, but only because I assumed we were talking about things that are guaranteed, which was my error.

Shield pressure cannot be described as simply a High-Execution High-Reward mechanic though, as you have yomi in the equation, which also makes it yomi reliant. Even a new player can do a 50/50 and win consistently if they can read their opponent.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Okay, I'll simplify a large portion of my first post.

Any move killing or doing max damage when it will not, is much different from any move killing always.

Any move killing or doing max damage when it will not is on the end of a spectrum..(see first post).

You get it now?

Not entirely. I don't know what spectrum you're even talking about.

And yes, it is "much different" but not to the point that it does not comply with Kink-Link's argument entirely.

We'd end up with Karate-Champ gameplay.

Emotion works in subtle ways. I would argue as little of it as possible is optimal, but it's not like I can objectively prove this.

I'm going to assume you mean "Opinion and value are much more prevalent..."

And I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this. Don't assume you know what I think.

Subjectivity and Arbitrariness are completely different. I never read that part of the thread though, so I might be missing context.

Your reasons are probably bad.

"Hey look at me, I'm going to say something entirely superfluous that I can't justify with proper reasoning at all, and say I'm completely confident about it."

Looks like you're placing your bets on the "wishful thinking" color.

1. That's kinda like rolling a dice, though. And even then, they can eventually become perfectly consistent, so my point stands.

They can potentially become perfectly consistent like it is with the people that hacked melee and programmed the AI with perfect tech-skill. That would do 30 shines per second all the time and was untouchable. However, such expectation is unrealistic on human execution, thus the point is moot.

2. That's because shield pressure is not a combo. There's no ultra-mixup where it automatically beats your opponents blocks, because your opponent has input in it. I was talking about combos here, and will note that I overlooked other such things.

My point stands, but only because I assumed we were talking about things that are guaranteed, which was my error.

Your point is moot when there is still value in inconsistency.

Shield pressure cannot be described as simply a High-Execution High-Reward mechanic though, as you have yomi in the equation, which also makes it yomi reliant. Even a new player can do a 50/50 and win consistently if they can read their opponent.

There's DI in smash, putting yomi into the equation so nothing is "high-execution" then. herp

Yeah, I don't think you understand shield pressure and how technically advanced it can be in Melee.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

False comparison, not example. Comparing automatic L-cancels to automatic wallteching doesn't work. It is always advantageous for the player to decide to L-cancel, but it is not for wallteching. If fighting games should be more about choices and less about execution, don't sacrifice choice.

Edit: Also for the sake of clarity, I hope you realize "autocanceling" aerials already exists in the Smash series, so if you intend the meaning to be "automatic L-Cancels" you should probably specify. If you didn't know this, you may want to become more intimate with the series from a technical level before partaking in serious discussion.

Oh you mean faulty analogies then. How can a comparison be false? Do you even understand the process of comparing?

Auto-l-cancel truly is analogous ledge wall-teching at high damage though, which I already pointed out. Looks like you're beating around the bush. Who are you trying to impress?

And yeah, everyone knows about autocancelling and I've mentioned it in other posts in this thread which I'm pretty sure you've read. It was just slip.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Dice eventually reaching an average roll of 3.5 after a thousand+ rolls is a terrible analogy to the inconsistency of human error as a means of saying it "eventually evens out"

Law of large numbers is named as such for that reason. In the extremely long run, sure, the dice roll is an average of 3.5, but games don't occur over a long run. The largest setup I've seen for a game is a best of 7 set with loser-side winning causing a bracket reset, in which there are games that are best of 9, leading to a very maximum of 112 rounds.

The number of variables and inconsistencies that can go into every match needing even as many as 20 reads to win a rounds (2000+ "instances" for are law of large numbers, in other words), follow that even with such a large number of rounds played, the result could still have a high degree of variance from "consistent."

As much as we like to think pros are all 95% consistent, a more realistic number would be around the 80% mark at best. A lot of very tip top players still make plenty of mistakes- after all, if they didn't, they wouldn't lose the round to the other person or even get hit ever.

Unless I missed your point. It gets quite convoluted when you don't state it strongly and have several huge paragraphs each stating different "points"

 

[Dingding123]

imma dump my brains out onto this topic before I hit the hay:

From a competitive/"hardcore"/Iwantthisgametolivelongerthan3years standpoint, if l-canceling were to be removed there should be something new to fill the void of offensive aerial options it would leave behind. Without L-canceling, no one would want to approach from midair while within grab/bairOOS range. However, if it were automatic that's all anyone would ever do because of how ezpz it would be-z. Approaching from the air that effectively should require some form of skill, but preferrably not in the form of overcoming unnecessary difficulty.

Whatever replacing it should promote aerial approaches as l-canceling did rather than further bolstering ground approaches. Otherwise the game would feel sluggish due to holding the ground becoming dominant. However, if whatever was replacing it came in the form of a -lot- of speed-oriented buffs to everyone's ground game the game itself would become much more interesting, but it would have become quite different from the one we know and love. Would that be a bad thing? Heck no. Would exploring something that wildly different be a dangerous thing? Heck yes.

 

[Kink-Link5]

It's too late dingledang, we all know your secret now.

 

[Dingding123]

It's too late dingledang, we all know your secret now.

well...now you do at least
*EDIT COMPRETE*

 

[Gea]

Oh you mean faulty analogies then. How can a comparison be false? Do you even understand the process of comparing?

Auto-l-cancel truly is analogous ledge wall-teching at high damage though, which I already pointed out. Looks like you're beating around the bush. Who are you trying to impress?

And yeah, everyone knows about autocancelling and I've mentioned it in other posts in this thread which I'm pretty sure you've read. It was just slip.

You can rephrase my statement and replace false with "misleading," or "stupid as hell" if it floats your boat, though the phrase "false comparison" refers to a comparison coming up as "not true." Your comparison was factually incorrect. You are more than welcome to compare automatic l-cancels to automatic wallteching, but they are not the same thing.

And no, they are still not equal because you're ignoring situational usage and blanketing it across the entire move. Yes, I know you're attempting to qualify your mistake with a vague amendment, but "high %" does not account for all options. I don't even understand your insistence on this matter, it does nothing but make you look ill-informed. It added no insight to discussion whatsoever.

As a side note, I find it absolutely silly that you are so quick to belittle what you feel are the mistakes of others but brush your own aside as mere slips of the tongue.

Edit: Hi Dingding

 

[Arcansi]

Not entirely. I don't know what spectrum you're even talking about.

Did you even read my first post?

The one with high execution low decision making on one end and high decision making low tech skill on the other.

And yes, it is "much different" but not to the point that it does not comply with Kink-Link's argument entirely.

We'd end up with Karate-Champ gameplay.

Yup.

"Hey look at me, I'm going to say something entirely superfluous that I can't justify with proper reasoning at all, and say I'm completely confident about it."

I said i believe in it. I did not make a point regarding it, however.

Looks like you're placing your bets on the "wishful thinking" color.

Is english not your first language?

I can't make sense of this sentence, either way.

They can potentially become perfectly consistent like it is with the people that hacked melee and programmed the AI with perfect tech-skill. That would do 30 shines per second all the time and was untouchable. However, such expectation is unrealistic on human execution, thus the point is moot.

I note that the point is moot when talking about things humans simply cannot do multiple times.

Your point is moot when there is still value in inconsistency.

How so? If it's garaunteed and within the realm of being able to be 95+% consistent with it, someone will eventually reach that.

If not, it's either not humanly possible or is possible only sometimes, which is something that never helps competition. It's like a move that randomly fails. You're not making a decision against your own ability or your opponents, you're making a decision against a dice roll, which isn't skillful, just luck-inducing.

There's DI in smash, putting yomi into the equation so nothing is "high-execution" then. herp

Nothing is ONLY high-execution. I would appreciate that you thoroughly read my posts, as that was pretty integral to what I was saying.

Yeah, I don't think you understand shield pressure and how technically advanced it can be in Melee.

When making that post I was using Marvel shield pressure as a basis, as it's the type of shield pressure I have the most experience with.

If you don't think I know Melee shield pressure enough, feel free to explain. I learn quickly.

Dice eventually reaching an average roll of 3.5 after a thousand+ rolls is a terrible analogy to the inconsistency of human error as a means of saying it "eventually evens out"

This is nothing like what I was saying.

As much as we like to think pros are all 95% consistent, a more realistic number would be around the 80% mark at best. A lot of very tip top players still make plenty of mistakes- after all, if they didn't, they wouldn't lose the round to the other person or even get hit ever.

Consistency != mind-reading. They do what they want to do by executing it correctly well over 95% of the time, from what I've seen. They just don't always want to do the right thing.

Unless I missed your point. It gets quite convoluted when you don't state it strongly and have several huge paragraphs each stating different "points"

I'm pretty sure you did.

That point in itself was me comparing someone going "How consistently can I do this" when they've reached maximum possible consistency with the given technique to rolling a dice.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I think you are vastly overestimating the power of human capacity and underestimating the degree of human error and inconsistency, Arcansi, and I don't need to quote and dissect your posts to reach that conclusion.

 

[Arcansi]

I think you are vastly overestimating the power of human capacity and underestimating the degree of human error and inconsistency, Arcansi, and I don't need to quote and dissect your posts to reach that conclusion.

Whatever the correct % is that people can be consistent at max, even if it is 80%, just replace the %'s I use with that.

You'll find that my point still stands until you start assuming people can never be more than 60% consistent or something.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

You can rephrase my statement and replace false with "misleading," or "stupid as hell" if it floats your boat, though the phrase "false comparison" refers to a comparison coming up as "not true." Your comparison was factually incorrect. You are more than welcome to compare automatic l-cancels to automatic wallteching, but they are not the same thing.

And no, they are still not equal because you're ignoring situational usage and blanketing it across the entire move. Yes, I know you're attempting to qualify your mistake with a vague amendment, but "high %" does not account for all options. I don't even understand your insistence on this matter, it does nothing but make you look ill-informed. It added no insight to discussion whatsoever.

As a side note, I find it absolutely silly that you are so quick to belittle what you feel are the mistakes of others but brush your own aside as mere slips of the tongue.

Edit: Hi Dingding

Oh, so you're some of those people that embarrassing kid in class that says "The analogy between this guy and the wolf is flawed because the wolf has claws" much to the professor's demise. You don't seem to understand the point of an argument from analogy. The point is that they share the same properties that are used for the argument. Adding other details while they're not argumentatively significant to say that one side does not apply in the reasoning is a form of ad hoc.

About that side note, that was intentional. I was hoping you'd notice.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Adding other details while they're not argumentatively significant to say that one side does not apply in the reasoning is a form of ad hoc.

Isn't that what you've been doing this whole time? Not necessarily snark; that seems to be your stratagem, at least here in this thread.

Also, I don't see how cogent automatic l-canceling and automatic wallteching is (are? I don't know, grammar sux, et cetera).

Smooth Criminal

 

[Vkrm]

So how bout that smash brothers.


Arguments about smash always seem to turn into arguments about how to argue. I'd like it if we stayed on topic. Also, where are the mods?

@smooth criminal does auto cancelling to powershielding work any better?

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Did you even read my first post?

The one with high execution low decision making on one end and high decision making low tech skill on the other.

Yes. Your first post was about how "lazers" are not killing moves, and it missed the point entirely.

Your second post said that "Or Max Damage" is much different and in an end of an unspecified spectrum, which turns out to be a spectrum that does not apply at all when we're discussing a "no execution" scenario and just makes no sense in the context of this argument. Turns out that the claim that "Or Max damage" is different is meaningless the same way that "yes" is much different than "yeah" (a triviality).

Even you acknowledge it:

Yup.

So why even say something so useless and confusing to make the discourse senselessly convoluted?

I said i believe in it. I did not make a point regarding it, however.

I'm aware. That's what I said too.

Is english not your first language?

I can't make sense of this sentence, either way.

Are you not familiar with Roulette in gambling?

Why should my English be put into question when it seems like the theme of the thread that you have issues with proper communication?

I note that the point is moot when talking about things humans simply cannot do multiple times.

The thing is that it is humanly possible. Axe can do like 7 multi-shines. The bot would just do 100.

How so? If it's garaunteed and within the realm of being able to be 95+% consistent with it, someone will eventually reach that.

If not, it's either not humanly possible or is possible only sometimes, which is something that never helps competition. It's like a move that randomly fails. You're not making a decision against your own ability or your opponents, you're making a decision against a dice roll, which isn't skillful, just luck-inducing.

I think this is a very thought-provoking point, but I think it's flawed nonetheless.

You ARE making decisions against your own ability, hence the probabilities of you landing it change from person to person. Yomi is also a game of probabilities and taking chance. Your oversimplification isn't going to fly.

If probability and chance wasn't such big part of competition, we'd know who's going to place exactly where prior to the tournament.

Nothing is ONLY high-execution. I would appreciate that you thoroughly read my posts, as that was pretty integral to what I was saying.

Well nobody said that shield pressure was purely "high-tech skill". So you were agreeing with me?

I would appreciate if you made an effort to make your points less vague and obfuscated.

When making that post I was using Marvel shield pressure as a basis, as it's the type of shield pressure I have the most experience with.

If you don't think I know Melee shield pressure enough, feel free to explain. I learn quickly.

Lol, but it's not even called shield pressure in Marvel.

Basically, in Melee's shield pressure "yomi" you change and alternate your patterns in crazy ways. It takes crazy tech-skill and the yomi is based on the chance that the execution will fail. So your claim is false.

It's not very dissimilar from an ever-changing mix-up and frametraps metagame.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Isn't that what you've been doing this whole time? Not necessarily snark; that seems to be your stratagem, at least here in this thread.

Also, I don't see how cogent automatic l-canceling and automatic wallteching is (are? I don't know, grammar sux, et cetera).

Smooth Criminal

How so? I have the notion that my main stratagem in this thread is to make reductio ad absurdum arguments and arguments from analogy.

By cogent do you mean the inductive argument qualifier? Uhh, the argument from analogy stems from the fact that they share the same properties which are used to justify automatic l-cancel.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'm not necessarily for or against anything, Vkrm. I honestly reared my ugly head in here to see noirscythe's latest act of Internet tomfoolery (re: douchebaggery). I treated L-canceling just like I treat other mechanical facets of other fighting games: It's just part of the game itself, and it's something that should be used. I have no real love or hate for L-canceling in and of itself.

As far as the example goes...? It sounds better to me, because at least those two concepts are closely tied to the actual meat of the gameplay (the process of getting the people off of the stage to start with). I dunno, though.

How so? I have the notion that my main stratagem in this thread is to make reductio ad absurdum arguments and arguments from analogy.

Ah, yes. That. Thank you.

By cogent do you mean the inductive argument qualifier? Uhh, the argument from analogy stems from the fact that they share the same properties which are used to justify automatic l-cancel.

What sort of properties? The fact that it's automatic? The two examples underlying the analogy are about as different as night or day, though. Wallteching doesn't exactly have the same effect on gameplay as l-canceling does. As you yourself (as well as a few others) pointed out, it's a whole 'nother ballgame if you had the ability to sit there and throw out "lagless aerials" for free. Wallteching does...what, exactly, analogous to this?

Smooth Criminal