Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[DrinkingFood]

It worked best SO FAR. You're acting as if you could never top Melee, as if it's the holy grail of videogames.

You could top melee, if you devoted a project to it... but whatever would we call it
hmm
project...
melee
Project M would be a nicer more condensed name tho

 

[Biz_R_0]

It worked best SO FAR. You're acting as if you could never top Melee, as if it's the holy grail of videogames.

Well, yes, of course. And if you disagree, then obviously you're just upset because you're not as good at the game as I am.

 

[Jiv]

Snakeyes, I really don't get why you have such a problem with l canceling. The lowest form of competitive play is playing at home with your friends at 10 years old, pretty sure l canceling isn't needed there. It's not even that hard to do, it adds so much more depth to the game. You keep comparing smash to other fighters, but here's the thing: SMASH ISNT LIKE OTHER FIGHTERS.

That's why many of us like the series. Go play more conventional games if you want to throw that **** out there

 

[Biz_R_0]

Snakeyes, I really don't get why you have such a problem with l canceling.

He's already explained why multiple times. There's never a time when L cancelling would have a negative effect, it can easily be done away with by just shortening the landing lag of aerials, and because of those two things it doesn't require any advanced thought, just muscle memory. Basically, there's no reason why it should be manual and the fact that it is only serves to make it harder for newer players to get into the game competitively.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

He's already explained why multiple times. There's never a time when L cancelling would have a negative effect, it can easily be done away with by just shortening the landing lag of aerials, and because of those two things it doesn't require any advanced thought, just muscle memory. Basically, there's no reason why it should be manual and the fact that it is only serves to make it harder for newer players to get into the game competitively.

Read this post please:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=15078839&postcount=124

 

[Biz_R_0]

I've read the entire thread and I really don't want more people responding to you.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

I've read the entire thread and I really don't want more people responding to you.

You can't just reiterate refuted arguments and pretend it's okay though.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Other people have already told you why you're wrong, I have no interest in arguing with someone like you.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Other people have already told you why you're wrong, I have no interest in arguing with someone like you.

There has only been 1 reply to that post and it failed to understand how an argument from analogy works. So what makes you think they're right and I'm wrong? Unfortunately, whether you like me or not, logic applies the same way to everything.

 

[Vkrm]

By that logic, ledge teching, perfect shielding, and SDI should be automatic as well. Why aren't you harping on those? Is it because you instinctually resolve any points made in brawls favor?

 

[Biz_R_0]

By that logic, ledge teching, perfect shielding, and SDI should be automatic as well. Why aren't you harping on those? Is it because you instinctually resolve any points made in brawls favor?

You have said pretty much exactly this earlier in the thread and it was answered by other people. Why would asking me the same thing change any of that? Unless, of course, you're just trying to start an argument with someone else hoping that you'll win this time.

 

[Kink-Link5]

So you don't have a rebuttal then, is the case.

 

[Biz_R_0]

So you don't have a rebuttal then, is the case.

I agree with the people who already answered your questions. Like I said, no point in asking me answered questions. If you count my hesitance to reenact a previous argument as me "forfeiting", then congrats on your "victory".

 

[Vkrm]

Uh, you agree with the likes of master knight DH? He's the only who tried to "deconstruct" that argument and he failed miserably.

 

[Biz_R_0]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=15092651&postcount=287

It's in the collapsible. Please respond to him and not me if you wish to argue against him.

 

[Vkrm]

Said nothing about psing. Waste of time.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=15092651&postcount=287

It's in the collapsible. Please respond to him and not me if you wish to argue against him.

I already did. And here you go:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=15092989&postcount=307

As I said, just missing the point entirely is not a proper response. We like to argue using logic, not pretend that we somehow refuted something by making a large post and probably impress some logically illiterate kid.

Actually trying to learn logic in wikipedia is not that bad, although I will make fun of you if you misunderstand something here like I do with the kids that equate an insult with an ad hominem fallacy and the kids that equate an argument from analogy with a straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy


Here's a hint:

The relevant properties are the execution requirements compounded with the notion that it is never beneficial for the executioner to miss the command.

Another argument in response has been furthered that hasn't been answered pretty early in this thread and I later made it in my post too; it explains the value in the potential of the opponent missing the command, and analogy has been drawn with other mechanics inside the game and outside of it for analogous cases.


VKRM's analogies are pretty straight-forward examples too. It's logically inconsistent to say that l-canceling is detrimental and Power-shielding, teching, and SDI are not when the same properties you use to claim that l-canceling is detrimental. In any case, you'd have to make a more elaborate case for l-canceling that isn't just ad hoc like it's been so far.

 

[Biz_R_0]

That was in response to the other guy. Apparently your question was asked but wasn't answered, so I'll take a crack at it.

By that logic, ledge teching, perfect shielding, and SDI should be automatic as well. Why aren't you harping on those? Is it because you instinctually resolve any points made in brawls favor?

First off, that's a nice assumption you made about me based solely on the person I agree with. As for your actual point, the thing that separates L cancelling from the others is that it can be fixed pretty easily by just cutting the landing lag in half. If you have a way to make perfect shielding and teching automatic, I'm all ears.

As for the other guy, Like I said, I have no desire to discuss anything with someone who feels he has already won before he's said anything, nor anyone who decides that insulting someone else is intelligent conversation. You clearly only want to argue so that you can feel right and superior, not to attempt to understand the beliefs and opinions of others or engage in intelligent discussion. You'll probably take this as a win and brag about how hard you owned me or something, but whatever. There's no changing your mind and any attempt at discussion with you will turn into poo slinging and derail the thread as evidenced by the last dozen pages.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

That was in response to the other guy. Apparently your question was asked but wasn't answered, so I'll take a crack at it.


First off, that's a nice assumption you made about me based solely on the person I agree with. As for your actual point, the thing that separates L cancelling from the others is that it can be fixed pretty easily by just cutting the landing lag in half. If you have a way to make perfect shielding and teching automatic, I'm all ears.

Lol.

I have a way to make perfect shielding automatic. Just make it so that if you're not pressing any attack, any attack that would connect is automatically power-shielded. It's the same point I brought up with auto-parrying, auto-throw-teching for SF3.

You could also just hold the shield button and every block would have the properties of a power-shield, even though even then there's still an "arbitrary skill barrier" in comparison to my first suggested scenario.

You could also just auto-walltech if you're hit against the ledge, just hold up for a jump-tech. Anyone could have thought of this, and it's analogous to auto-l-canceling.

As for the other guy, Like I said, I have no desire to discuss anything with someone who feels he has already won before he's said anything, nor anyone who decides that insulting someone else is intelligent conversation. You clearly only want to argue so that you can feel right and superior, not to attempt to understand the beliefs and opinions of others or engage in intelligent discussion. You'll probably take this as a win and brag about how hard you owned me or something, but whatever. There's no changing your mind and any attempt at discussion with you will turn into poo slinging and derail the thread as evidenced by the last dozen pages.

Lol. This is a text-book example of Sartre's "magic" (self-comforting delusion).

I don't want to understand the opinion of others or engage in intelligent discussion? I love intelligent discussions, and I have them regularly with able-minded people in my department. It is actually kind of a requirement to first understand an argument or opinion if you intend to refute it or challenge it. It is a bigger requirement to understand logic.

If anyone said that "I won", it's because there simply is no logically effective response to any of my arguments. I study argumentation and logic, I know. My hunch is that you clearly don't, hence I'm trying to link you to some basic terminology and see if you can manage to make a proper response based on that. You can't disprove Maxwell's equations when you clearly had an error in math or do not understand the underlying principles in physics. Logic works the same way.

The fact that I find you (plural) loathsome and I express it in my posts is of absolutely no consequence to the argumentative content of my post. Thinking otherwise is a fundamental failure to understand argumentation. You're getting caught up in a red herring-- it's a logical and informal fallacy.

But really, if anyone's throwing his ego into the discussion, it's the people that are to contrive such self-comforting thoughts about me when their pre-determined notions are aggressively challenged and refuted.

Don't confuse my low tolerance with some sort of ****-victim, daddy issues, small penis, inferiority/superiority complex because that's what we call "lying to yourself". We don't want to have people that don't understand psychology contaminating the discourse when we already have people that don't understand logic.

 

[Twinkles]

Uh

Dunno how the conversation will progress, but

I would treat L-Canceling differently from perfect shielding, teching, etc. because the former are stuff done on reaction after getting hit by someone else, L-Canceling is a command done after initiating an attack, so the user has control over when they need to L-Cancel.

EDIT: For the record, I support L-Canceling

 

[Vkrm]

Let's try something else. If cutting landing lag in half all the way across the board would be the solution, what would have been the problem? Like what did it fix? If were to implement auto canceling what would we get out of it?

 

[Kink-Link5]

I think everything should happen automatically. Fighting games aren't about execution, their about decision making. Nevermind that every fighting game in existence supports the exact opposite.

We should hook up the controller ports to our brains so the character just do things based on what we decide. No controllers. Inputs are arbitrary.

Uh

Dunno how the conversation will progress, but

I would treat L-Canceling differently from perfect shielding, teching, etc. because the former are stuff done on reaction after getting hit by someone else, L-Canceling is a command done after initiating an attack, so the user has control over when they need to L-Cancel.

L-canceling is done on reaction to the timing difference in hitting an opponent, hitting a shield, hitting a high shield, hitting an opponent that is CC'ing, and completely missing an opponent. This is especially pertinent with high hit-lag moves such as Falcon's Fair or Ganon's Dair, which are devastatingly slow on a missed L-cancel, and with multi-hit moves such as Fox's dair, which can also be DI'd mid-move to further change the timing.

It has flaws but they aren't something inherent to the mechanic, rather they are an issue with the input having no fail window as techs or powershielding or meteor canceling do.

That being said, even and especially in tournament, L-cancels can be missed or overcompensated (Which leads to the player shielding due to rapid Shield inputs), just as combos can be dropped, and blockstrings can be mistimed.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

People arguing against L-canceling, take note of Twinkles. This is how you properly disengage analogies:

Uh

Dunno how the conversation will progress, but

I would treat L-Canceling differently from perfect shielding, teching, etc. because the former are stuff done on reaction after getting hit by someone else, L-Canceling is a command done after initiating an attack, so the user has control over when they need to L-Cancel.

L-canceling also has some reaction elements too though, as you do have to adjust your timing in like algorithm response to how you hit / whiffed. It's kind of an anticipation and reaction thing.

The user also has control over when they need to wall-tech, as people like to adjust their recovery in a way that wall-teching is possible and better anticipated. I would argue that those PSing, teching, etc are more of an anticipation and reaction thing, although I guess not always.

 

[Twinkles]

True

I was oversimplifying it too much

 

[Biz_R_0]

Let's try something else. If cutting landing lag in half all the way across the board would be the solution, what would have been the problem? Like what did it fix?

Removing an unnecessary entry barrier that requires pure muscle memory.

I think everything should happen automatically. Fighting games aren't about execution, their about decision making. Nevermind that every fighting game in existence supports the exact opposite.

Which is why I don't like other fighting games, they put a lot more emphasis on knowing how to do something instead of knowing what to do and when. The only other fighting game I've liked was SF4, but that was mainly because they removed gigantic combos and made inputs easier.

We should hook up the controller ports to our brains so the character just do things based on what we decide. No controllers. Inputs are arbitrary.

I would be in complete support of this if it was possible.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Removing an unnecessary entry barrier that requires pure muscle memory.



Which is why I don't like other fighting games, they put a lot more emphasis on how to do something instead of knowing what to do and when. The only other fighting game I've liked was SF4, but that was mainly because they removed gigantic combos and made inputs easier.

We should hook up the controller ports to our brains so the character just do things based on what we decide. No controllers. Inputs are arbitrary.

I would be in complete support of this if it was possible.

Well you just divorced yourself from the entire fighting game community. While we're at it we should make all sports like this too. Also, learning matchups and strategies takes too much effort. Let's just have these machines measure our IQ to decide who wins while we watch a cool movie.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'd much rather have a simplified discussion than a ****storm of bold-responses in the middle of a quote that serve no purpose for the sake of a conversation. Bloated blog-styled posts are the most obnoxious kind of thing to deal with when having a conversation.

Like just imagine if in the middle of a real-life conversation one person decided it was time to give a full-on dissertation and kept interrupting the other people mid-discussion with dissected juvenile comments.

The way I see it, if you wouldn't say something in a real-life conversation, you should try to avoid it online as well.



Also for what it's worth, there are genuine rock-paper-scissors tournaments made with all sorts of game-types in which to participate. Thoughtful slow picked best of 3's, three-round-rapid, longer best of 9's, even some that go for dozens of rounds. I like three-round-rapid best because you go in with a preset play in mind and have to adapt very quickly or choose to stick with your original plan.

 

[Vkrm]

So do you consider ledge teching a nessessary skill barrier? How do you determine what nessessary and what's not?

 

[grizby2]

assuming theres a room with players of the same skill, and all choose a different character, which characters truley need L-canceling to compete with the other characters? (im talking about melee of course.)

 

[Twinkles]

Thinking on it, I actually think execution barriers are not that bad

They reward players who work hard for their execution
And in doing so, they encourage players to work hard for that execution
Which leads to much higher level play all around imo

Kind of like practicing a sport in real life

EDIT: @grizby Ganondorf, Bowser, CAPTAIN FALCON

 

[Biz_R_0]

So do consider ledge teching a nessessary skill barrier?

Yes, but I think extending the frame window to something like 50-10 would help greatly with newer players learning.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Absolutely Falcon needs the cut lag. He goes from like -12 to -1 on block with his fair with L-canceling or something.

 

[Twinkles]

@Biz
I think that'd make it unreasonably easy though

 

[Biz_R_0]

I think that'd make it unreasonably easy though

I don't know, I'm really trying to think of a way to make teching not hard to learn while still taking skill, but it's not even close to as simple as the L cancel fix.

edit: possible solution; frame window increased, but ground teching puts you in a knock down position and wall/ceiling techs make you lose all momentum (as in, can't move at all without jumping or using a move). This way, you'd actually have to decide if it's worth it or not.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

I don't know, I'm really trying to think of a way to make teching not hard to learn while still taking skill, but it's not even close to as simple as the L cancel fix.

Uh, yes it is. Just make it automatic. Simple.

 

[Kink-Link5]

For anyone interested besides I guess John Knight, my complex and never-going-to-happen proposal for a functional and reasonable execution of L-Canceling is as follows:

-Current timing remains identical to Melee (within 20 frames of landing) and when executed correctly, reduces the landing lag of the aerial by 1/2
-"Fail window" of 20 frames if an L-Cancel is input too early
-If an L-cancel is attempted while the fail window is active, the lag of the aerial is increased by 0.5 times its original length
-Late L-Cancels (Anything input after landing) decrease the remaining landing lag of the aerial by 1/4th

 

[Biz_R_0]

I think it would just be easiest to reduce landing lag by half. Your idea isn't bad, although I don't think it's the best solution.

 

[Kink-Link5]

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.

 

[Twinkles]

L-Canceling makes shield pressure a very dynamic part of game and pressures both aggressor and defender in most cases. Aggressor feels pressured to not screw up and let defender get away scott free, or even reverse the tables. Defender feels need to not die.

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?

 

[Rhubarbo]

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.