Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[Arcansi]

I hope you got what you were looking for from my post, Arcansi.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

EDIT: Unless you mean the old post responding to me. That makes more sense...

Eh, your explanation included a lot of random things that didn't need to be there, I think. But I think I got the point.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

That's all well and fine, but the nature and cause of someone's stance in this argument isn't something that can be persuaded in one direction or the other by argument. Neither side is right in this particular case.

Regardless of the lack of any objective value in the universe, subjective value is still a subject with high viability for discussion.

Subjectivity is something much different than arbitrary notion. Just like with the fine arts, you simply cannot weigh someone like Justin Beiber against Mozart. An individual's taste or ability to appreciate and project value into certain work of art is determined by certain faculties of the individual such as knowledge, comprehension, perception, intelligence, and personality. Hence, people well educated in music will tend to gravitate more towards the music of Mozart, the mindless simplistic philistines will gravitate more towards Justin Beiber, and autistic kids will gravitate towards Sonic the Hedgehog. This uniformity in the world is not a coincidence.

As you should be able to notice, can such arguments that are centered around a subjective topic be carried with logic and objectivity (as you have seen by the reductio arguments and arguments from analogy in this thread). Perhaps more interestingly, like it is the case with human morality, subjective arguments tend to appeal to values we all share, such as the universal desire for avoidance of absolutely superfluous mechanics in the game.

Some kids value "edginess" or "darkness" or "high-competition" or "cuteness", and albeit subjective, these are communicable values. When discussing between intelligent people and peers, it is possible to introduce or persuade someone into appreciating certain things and developing new values based on previous values they held, such as I have been introduced to music I previously discredited and loathed. Some people give priority to unwarranted perceptions of themselves or the world they're unwilling to let go of. I assure you that is not the case with me. Some other people that don't enjoy the aforementioned faculties will unfortunately die thinking that Black Veil Brides or Nickelback is the heaviest, darkest, most poetic "metal" (they're not metal) band there is.

So while none of us may be "objectively right" since there is nothing of objective value in the universe, perhaps someone is carrying a point that we all ought to agree with albeit unbeknownst to us. Some of us that are discussing straight objective logic though may actually be "objectively right" in the logical respect.


Some philosophy of aesthetics right there.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

>'I care about logic'.

>'I don't like YOUR logic, so I'm going to ignore it.'

And you..study this kind of stuff?

Where in this did they teach you to ignore legitimate arguments?

No such thing as "YOUR" logic. Something is either logical or it isn't. Something is either mathematically valid or it isn't. You can't call something "your math" and expect people to accept it when it's simply against all fundamental principles.

Never did was I taught to ignore legitimate arguments, and hence I have ignored any legitimate argument that I've read in this thread. You're confusing my ability "ignore legitimate arguments" and my ability to "evaluate arguments as illegitimate".

The latter type I can ignore, although I usually don't. There are times when you just have to face the predominant fact that you can't save everyone in the world, and I have other things to invest my time in.

 

[Kink-Link5]

This isn't an issue of tastes. It's an issue of how much you value input for an appropriately relative feedback from a video game. If you are willing to accept the input for an L-cancel, you will be for it, and if you aren't you will be against it. Any and all reasoning and arguments stem from that baseline.

"I, as someone non-accepting of L-canceling as an input, claim that from a design and competitive aspect, L-canceling has no logical reason for its existence. It is a blah input that blah skill gap blah."

"I, as someone accepting of L-canceling as in input, claim that from a design and competitive aspect, L-canceling provides an essential reward for an appropriate input. It rewards blah for blah investment in the game, and such blah rightfully should be rewarded."

"There is no reason you would ever want to blah though"

"But there are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to blah either, yet there are plenty of blah in the blah"

"But blah is also blah and doesn't apply to L-canceling for whatever reason"

"But the point was that blah and blah are just as blah as L-canceling"

"But L-canceling blah skill gab arbitrary blah"

Ad infinitum

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

This isn't an issue of tastes. It's an issue of how much you value input for an appropriately relative feedback from a video game. If you are willing to accept the input for an L-cancel, you will be for it, and if you aren't you will be against it. Any and all reasoning and arguments stem from that baseline.

"I, as someone non-accepting of L-canceling as an input, claim that from a design and competitive aspect, L-canceling has no logical reason for its existence. It is a blah input that blah skill gap blah."

"I, as someone accepting of L-canceling as in input, claim that from a design and competitive aspect, L-canceling provides an essential reward for an appropriate input. It rewards blah for blah investment in the game, and such blah should be rewarded."

It's a discussion of values (aka in some fields as tastes). I used musical tastes as an analogy to illustrate how argument about values (and other things subjective) works.

I also discussed logic. I suggest you re-read my post more carefully; your post is trying to agree with mine.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Point being, no argument can be made to persuade one side or the other that theirs is correct or more logically sound than the other. Counter-arguments serve no purpose other than to trick dumbs that don't have a stance into agreeing with you I guess.

 

[Arcansi]

No such thing as "YOUR" logic. Something is either logical or it isn't. Something is either mathematically valid or it isn't. You can't call something "your math" and expect people to accept it when it's simply against all fundamental principles.

lul. Common sense would dictate that I did not mean that literally, and by logic I meant the way I present my arguments and the like.

And if it did not, there you have it.

Never did was I taught to ignore legitimate arguments, and hence I have ignored any legitimate argument that I've read in this thread. You're confusing my ability "ignore legitimate arguments" and my ability to "evaluate arguments as illegitimate".

Your evaluation seems flawed.

'I find it hard to reason with you, therefore your arguments are illegitimate.'

The latter type I can ignore, although I usually don't. There are times when you just have to face the predominant fact that you can't save everyone in the world, and I have other things to invest my time in.

A nice cop-out, for sure.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Point being, no argument can be made to persuade one side or the other that theirs is correct or more logically sound than the other. Counter-arguments serve no purpose other than to trick dumbs that don't have a stance into agreeing with you I guess.

There is though, and that is exactly the point of my post, especially the last paragraph.

For example, the OP argument in this thread made some conditionals based on objective properties.

For example we could arrange his argument in the following way:

-----------
Argument 1

1. If a mechanic (L-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of game, the mechanic (l-canceling) should be removed. (Basic)

[This premise may not be objective, but it is a premise we all agree with based on what are practically universal values.]


2. If failing to execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic, then the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (Basic)

[Now we're approaching objectivity. Of course, we all mean what "advantageous" means in this premise.]


3. Failing to execute l-canceling in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player executing the mechanic. (Basic)

[This one is just a fact.]


4. The mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (Modus Ponens 2,3)

[Straight up logic.]


5. The mechanic (l-canceling) should be removed. (Modus Ponens 1,4)
-----------

​

I could have put more effort to make this argument void of subjective premises, but that would be missing the point.

An argument is wrong if it's refuted. One of the rebuttals involved finding counter-examples to premise 2. Not only is premise 2 not a strict conditional, and it conflicts with more "universal values".

The rebuttal could be expressed in the following manner:

-----------------
Argument 2

6. If there is value in the possibility of the failure in execution of a mechanic (l-canceling), then it is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous. (Basic)


7. There is value in the possibility of the failure in execution of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility. (Basic)

[Subjective premise we all agree with.]


8. It is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous. (Modus Ponens)


[The following premises with a "|" before the number operate under an assumption. This part is easy to follow, don't be intimidated by the notation.]

|9. The mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of a game. (Assume for negation introduction)


|10. The mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous. (Conjunction elimination 9)


|11. It is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous. (Repetition of Premise 8)

[As we can see from premise 10 and premise 11, we have a contradiction. Both claims cannot be true at the same time. Premise 11 is true, therefore the assumption made in premise 9 is false.


--> 12. It is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of a game. (9-11 Negation Introduction)

A reductio ad absurdum argument is a form of negation introduction.


13. Failing to execute l-canceling in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player executing the mechanic. (Basic)

[This is a basic premise from the previous argument.]



Now another assumption. This time it is premise 2 from Argument 1:

|14. If failing to execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic, then the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (Assume for Negation)


|15. It is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of a game. (12 Repetition)


|16. It is not the case that failing to execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic. (14, 15 Modus Tollens)

[I took a route harder to understand for some here, but it's perfectly proper logic, and it illustrates a more vivid point.


|17. Failing to execute l-canceling in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player executing the mechanic. (13 Repetition)

[Once again, we reach a contradiction between premise 16 and premise 17. Premise 16 only works within the assumption and 17 is actually true outside of it. Therefore...


-->18 It is not the case that if failing to execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic, then the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (14-17 Negation Introduction).
-------------------------------


​

Since premise 2 in Argument 1 is false, as we can conclude with premise 18 of Argument 2, Argument 1 is wrong. All of these steps are perfectly logical. In order to refute this argument, you would have to make a damn good case against the basic premises.


Hopefully, this helps some people understand how they can be logically wrong, and how people ought to accept arguments based on their values.

This argument of course only deals with the argument in OP (aka argument 1 which is just wrong) and not with the more complex arguments of demarcation of shared values you're now focusing on, but those arguments could be made strict too.


Edit:

This forum needs better, more subtle shades of yellow.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

lul. Common sense would dictate that I did not mean that literally, and by logic I meant the way I present my arguments and the like.

Well, you're utterly misusing the term.

Your evaluation seems flawed.

'I find it hard to reason with you, therefore your arguments are illegitimate.'

It's not that only that you're bad at communication, that's really not part of it. The issue is that you make claims that are just contingently false and mind-numbing non-sequiturs that you then forget and replace with something that wasn't there. It's hilarious, but not worth the investment.

A nice cop-out, for sure.

Thanks, I abide by the principle that honesty is the best policy.

 

[JOE!]

Look at this guy with the vocab words/stuff he learned in debate club, trying to belittle people with "this shouldn't be intimidating". You get more with honey then vinegar, dude.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Look at this guy with the vocab words/stuff he learned in debate club, trying to belittle people with "this shouldn't be intimidating". You get more with honey then vinegar, dude.

Lol people are so defensive.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I dunno, I'm kind of impressed with what Scythe brings to the table.

He's a bit of an *******, but who cares? It's interesting.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Twinkles]

That was a pretty good post from scythe i'd say

well organized and easy to read

kind of on the fence about this issue right now

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

There isn't even an argument that can be made to persuade someone whether it's a good or bad thing, because it's entirely a personal issue where a person draws the line.

You're full of crap because, while there can be no definitive answer to a subjective question, you can always define "good" or "bad" and give your subjective argument an objective answer. You can even determine better in a subjective way (Example: L-Canceling is bad when it turns away enough players without adding enough to gameplay) which adds context to your discussion without leading to a definitive answer.

Here, I've done just that. I added a variable to measure that encompasses what L-Canceling adds and what it subtracts and no one has claimed to be working off of a different scale besides possibly Vrkm who doesn't even know what he's saying anymore.



Claiming subjectivity as an excuse before making an effort to see that your lines are drawn in different places and that both parties are well informed enough to draw said line is simply an excuse to avoid backing up your stances. We're not searching for truth. We're examining why people's opinions are drawn and trying to use that to persuade others (the other guy you're arguing with or the audience) that their line should be drawn similarly to your line.


See, I can soapbox too.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I feel like it aptly rewards a demand for execution in a fast-paced environment, and that it's effect on the game (Being safer aerials preformed closer to the ground) is a positive one. Even though it is executed more poorly than it could be, low lag aerials in general is not the best alternative anymore than super laggy aerials with no way to lower them is.

Another way to see it is "Why do you think automatically low landing lag is a bad thing?" which I feel is more to-the-point.

Low lag overall, well, more depends on the environment. Brawl's nature is to always go back to neutral after each hit, so the aerials could well be lagless, and be so automatically, and it would have little or no negative effect with a positive effect on the neutral game.

In a game where punishment and reward is stronger though, I feel that the demand for technical precision is a vital component to the input:feedback ratio. When playing a long match or when nerves become an issue, combos get dropped and L-cancels do get missed in a competitive setting, and this technical error is a big part of what can even the playing field in a game where the neutral game DOESN'T always return after each hit.

There's also the small amount of variability that goes into L-canceling's timing when interacting with shield angling, spot dodging, and crouch canceling that I feel could be easily expanded upon in the right environment.

I guess I didn't really answer your question very well, but I feel like the answer to it isn't really one that can be expressed easily with my lexicon. It's just where I sit on the issue of the level of technical demand in relation to reward it provides. I don't find that its demand is very large, nor do I feel its reward is relatively large.

There we go, an example of someone not on the same scale. This is the other side of the coin. For the sake of illustration I'll pretend you took a harder stance that it is a good thing instead of the light stance that it implies.

Here you address why you enjoy the idea of L-Canceling and technical input in general. This is where it's most interesting to challenge someone's stance when you bring to the table a variable that they did not mention. What of the players you turn away with that tech skill requirement?

You can either examine it and say that you don't care about the player loss, examine it and say it does not outweigh the gain in gameplay, or examine it and change the line you draw.

In this setting, I can either get people to ignore your opinion based on the fact that it does not measure something they do or you have changed your opinion and I agree rendering it pointless. The second option where you disagree is the point that you strive for because it's one where I feel you have adequate qualification to draw said line and we simply disagree on where it should be.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

*reports Ryker for double-posting.*

Smooth Criminal

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I always double post by accident thanks to DGames. I generally just rock with it since I can't fix it and it looks more organized. I'm sad because I want to read this thread but I'm in a more useful conversation on a different thread.

I'm not saying the anti L-canceling stance is wrong. Just that there haven't been any sensible arguments against the mechanic itself.

Whaaaat? How did I miss this? THIS is why you were making a post about it all being subjective? You want to examine the mechanic in a vacuum? Well, duh, the answer is gonna be "I like it and others don't." That's why we take it out of a vacuum because then the subject is actually interesting. That's why I mention the player base.




"Shots hurt. They suck." In a vacuum, no one disagrees. If you take the fact that it vaccinates you against disease, then suddenly it doesn't suck so much. But still, "I've yet to see someone with any sensible argument in favor of shots themselves."




In shocking contrast to my opinion on your latest posts, I generally like you and the arrangement in your signature is very good.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

"Shots hurt. They suck." In a vacuum, no one disagrees. If you take the fact that it vaccinates you against disease, then suddenly it doesn't suck so much. But still, "I've yet to see someone with any sensible argument in favor of shots themselves."

Change the word "shots" here with "l-cancels", and we have the entire anti-l-cancel position in this thread.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

You want to examine the mechanic in a vacuum? Well, duh, the answer is gonna be "I like it and others don't." That's why we take it out of a vacuum because then the subject is actually interesting. That's why I mention the player base.

C'mon, bro. Don't go there.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

C'mon, bro. Don't go there.

It's not in a vacuum, lol. It's in the context of games released thus far, although not a potentially better balanced game.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

All right. This should be the discussion topic right now:

Why isn't Brawl+ as good as Melee?

 

[Arcansi]

Well, you're utterly misusing the term.

Sure.

It's not that only that you're bad at communication, that's really not part of it. The issue is that you make claims that are just contingently false and mind-numbing non-sequiturs that you then forget and replace with something that wasn't there. It's hilarious, but not worth the investment.

You're making a claim here, but I'm not seeing it.

I can see how you might think it, as our argument was pretty convoluted. (You and I were operating under separate assumptions of what we were talking about for a while, which lead to some weird interactions.)

I assure you that when that does not happen, you'll find I'm perfectly logical.

Thanks, I abide by the principle that honesty is the best policy.

So you are copping out?

Now, this kind of stuff I can do.

|14. If failing execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic, then the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (Assume for Negation)


|15. It is not the case that the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of a game. (12 Repetition)


|16. It is not the case that failing execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic. (14, 15 Modus Tollens)

[I took a route harder to understand for some here, but it's perfectly proper logic, and it illustrates a more vivid point.


|17. Failing to execute l-canceling in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player executing the mechanic. (13 Repetition)

[Once again, we reach a contradiction between premise 16 and premise 17. Premise 16 only works within the assumption and 17 is actually true outside of it. Therefore...


-->18 It is not the case that if failing execute of a mechanic (l-canceling) in its technical window of possibility is never advantageous for the player's possibility executing the mechanic, then the mechanic (l-canceling) is absolutely superfluous and burdensome to the playability of the game. (14-17 Negation Introduction).
-------------------------------

Most of your post seems okay, but failing execute isn't a grammatical interaction I'm familiar with.

Am I just wrong and this is correct (if so, what's the exact meaning?) or is this an error? It's repeated multiple times, so it seems unlikely that this is an error, but I can't get the sentences with that to make sense grammatically to me, and having things open to interpretation isn't something you would seem to do here.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Sure.


You're making a claim here, but I'm not seeing it.

I can see how you might think it, as our argument was pretty convoluted. (You and I were operating under separate assumptions of what we were talking about for a while, which lead to some weird interactions.)

I assure you that when that does not happen, you'll find I'm perfectly logical.

You can always try starting from scratch. Just don't cry when I don't talk you seriously.

So you are copping out?

If you think like a moron, probably.

Now, this kind of stuff I can do.



Most of your post seems okay, but failing execute isn't a grammatical interaction I'm familiar with.

Am I just wrong and this is correct (if so, what's the exact meaning?) or is this an error? It's repeated multiple times, so it seems unlikely that this is an error, but I can't get the sentences with that to make sense grammatically to me, and having things open to interpretation isn't something you would seem to do here.

Seems like you can't do that either. That's called a typo. It tends to happen when I copy and paste. Some of us have a skill called "context clues".

And "grammatical interaction"? lol

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

All right. This should be the discussion topic right now:

Why isn't Brawl+ as good as Melee?

Brawl+ release strategy blew chunks and dev team wasn't the best.

 

[Arcansi]

You can always try starting from scratch. Just don't cry when I don't talk you seriously.

I'll go with what I find.

If you think like a moron, probably.

Why you gotta be so aggressive? I noted that your cop-out was commendable. (or nice, etc.) You said thank you.

That would logically mean you are copping out.

Seems like you can't do that either. That's called a typo. It tends to happen when I copy and paste. Some of us have a skill called "context clues".

And "grammatical interaction"? lol

I meant to post a bigger response, but wanted that resolved first. Should have deleted that line, probably.

The problem with the typo was that I found it had multiple possible interpretations, and wasn't going to randomly guess when I can simply ask you. If you haven't already, would you mind fixing it?

Yes, grammatical interaction.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Brawl+ release strategy blew chunks and dev team wasn't the best.

Doesn't say anything about the game.

 

[Kink-Link5]

[snip]

Sure, I'm full of crap for not wanting to argue over pointless bull****.


Would L-canceling be better to you if it did not require an input?

Please refrain from ranting and raving about anything else for now, you can do that with noirscythe, he seems to be in the mood to argue with anything. Just answer my question, nothing else.

 

[JOE!]

Really noir, why you gotta go and attack everybody? You're like the little dog in the park trying to make himself look big by barking at everyone lol

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Really noir, why you gotta go and attack everybody? You're like the little dog in the park trying to make himself look big by barking at everyone lol

I only attack idiots, and because they're idiots and they should know.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Would L-canceling be better to you if it did not require an input?

Do you mean just cutting all landing lag in half or individually adjusting landing lag?

 

[Kink-Link5]

Do you mean just cutting all landing lag in half or individually adjusting landing lag?

Everything in half its current value. I guess. Functionally identical without the "arbitrary" input.

 

[Dingding123]

man **** logic

 

[DrinkingFood]

Logic is for worshippers of the devil
I have a faithful conviction of this

 

[Niko_K]

Everyone in this thread that thinks L Cancelling should be removed really sucks at smash.

 

[-LzR-]

Thank you. Your argument has convinced me and the rest of the thread that we were wrong and we should and we will feel bad. Rejoice oh Lcanceling brothers and sisters! Let us celebrate Lcanceling tonight for our arguments have been beaten to death and we have no choice but to support Lcanceling now.
/thread

 

[DrinkingFood]

finally you have seen the light

 

[Biz_R_0]

I...I get it now.

I didn't dislike L Cancelling because of my strong belief in the importance of accessibility or anythng like that

...It's because I suck at the game.

Thank you, Guru Niko, for showing me how bad I am despite never seeing me play. I'll always remember your wisdom and apparent omnipresence.

 

[Kink-Link5]

There was literally no reason to bump this thread.

Black, definitely Black.

 

[Vkrm]

I didn't dislike L Cancelling because of my strong belief in the importance of accessibility or anythng like that

Melee is accessible, even with lcanceling.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Are we responding seriously to joke posts now?

Thank you. Your argument has convinced me and the rest of the thread that we were wrong and we should and we will feel bad. Rejoice oh Lcanceling brothers and sisters! Let us celebrate Lcanceling tonight for our arguments have been beaten to death and we have no choice but to support Lcanceling now.
/thread

Wow, you just surrender that quickly when someone insults your assumed tech skill? Weak.