Project M Social Thread Gold

[Empyrean]

i would rather give moves iasa properties than make them shield stun forever to the point where you just respect block because you dont even want to try counterplay after defending the attack successfully (mario) if thats what youre getting at

I wasn't trying to get at anything, but I do legitimately wonder how the game would be if such a thing was possible. Probably not pretty, lol.

 

[Player -0]

I wasn't trying to get at anything, but I do legitimately wonder how the game would be if such a thing was possible. Probably not pretty, lol.

YES, LET ME L-CANCEL FOX'S UP SMASH. WAHAHAHWHWAHA. UP-SMASH TO SHIELD PRESSURE!

 

[trash?]

oh okay then lets just make everything autocancel. also i'd like a wavedash button. and a shorthop button. and we should just make it so we can attack out of shield without jumping since its just an extra input and we're going to cancel the shield lag anyway.

if you want a game with no mechanics, just load the disc normally instead of using homebrew and stay really far away from the development team, thanks.

except those have depth in some way, hitting a single button every time you hit the ground Because You Need To is not anything with depth

if you want to have a discussion, please talk in a manner that doesn't want everyone involved to crack your skull in with a metal bat like you're an aristocrat and not some prick on the internet, thanks

 

[Sol0ke]

L canceling is something you never not want to do

 

[Rᴏb]

can someone explain to me how more buttons pressed doesn't equate to greater technical depth?

 

[trash?]

also your earlier argument is literally just "but you can hit a whole extra button that has no timing or any real skill needed and feel real special about it and add that to your pretty APM to compare to starcraft, you're just BAD and USELESS"

no, I just like having purpose in my videogames. go back to playing melee

 

[GaretHax]

except those have depth in some way, hitting a single button every time you hit the ground Because You Need To is not anything with depth

if you want to have a discussion, please talk in a manner that doesn't want everyone involved to crack your skull in with a metal bat like you're an aristocrat and not some prick on the internet, thanks

He has a valid point, and technically that kind of logic doesn't really apply here, not all game mechanics should or can add depth to a game, and L-canceling does add depth in counterplay just not as much as you would like. Frankly the whole argument is that, "I have mastered the engine to X-degree so this input is now arbitrary and I should always do it, therefore it shouldn't exist, because it no longer adds depth." The comparison to combo buttons or other straight input buttons is completely valid in an argument against an engine based on what people think or want the engine to be in the name of simplicity and depth.
If the way he said it really impacts you more than the content I pretty much said the exact same thing in a longer and less aggressive manner.

 

[trash?]

you don't want to shorthop sometimes, you might want a full jump. you don't want to attack out of shield sometimes, you might want to use your other moves OoS. there are other options, those tech simply extends it.

you either l-cancel, or you're bad at tech. there is no other non-gimmick option. the only difference between l-cancelling and just cutting landing lag is the disappearance of smug tones from people who think hitting the shield button on an incredibly easy window timing is an achievement of their skill and not one of the easiest things to do in smash

 

[KayB]

can someone explain to me how more buttons pressed doesn't equate to greater technical depth?

If pressing more buttons for the sake of being "more technical" is what defines a better game, then I want out please.

The reason why technicality is praised is because it expands your options, but while L-Cancelling does expand your options, it also turns into an on and off switch. Technicality should be an option, not a necessity.

 

[GaretHax]

For

If pressing more buttons for the sake of being "more technical" is what defines a better game, then I want out please.

The reason why technicality is praised is because it expands your options, but while L-Cancelling does expand your options, it also turns into an on and off switch. Technicality should be an option, not a necessity.

In what fighting game exactly is this the case? And if it is so easy, why is it a problem? It isn't poor game design or at least nothing in the obscene amount of hours I've poured into studying design and theory tells me that it is implicitly poor. It is an extended and additional input that would be expected and perhaps commented on with a cute little on-screen blurb like "technical" in high-level play within any other game, not some unreasonable atrocity against the title. For some reason smash players are among the few who would look at "the easiest thing in the game to do with loose timing", and complain about it as if some competitive cult slapped it into the title just so they could look down on others.
Adding the possibility of failure to the risk/reward scenario of playing technically and quickly via pressure or what-have-you through arbitrary technical barriers or difficulty plateaus is a standard in the industry. It makes it easier to make a mistake, so that those who do NOT make such mistakes are that much more proficient at the game, it isn't inherently good or bad.

 

[Soft Serve]

Guys this whole argument was taken out of context
all that started it was bleck being his abbrasive self and comparing L-canceling as a stupid mechanic to me complaining about the rage factor in Smash 4.

What i was trying to say that umbreon quoted out of context (I worded it poorly, so its understandable) was that L-canceling adds no depth because you always have to do it, and this rage mechanic would be a "better" mechanic in that theres interaction on how to use it, but I was unsure how it would affect the game play positively or negatively

Pls no fighting
We're all one big Ohana

 

[Rᴏb]

If pressing more buttons for the sake of being "more technical" is what defines a better game, then I want out please.

It's not... But I personally find it's inclusion enjoyable, at least in this instance.

The difference between L-Cancel and say Wavedashing is that L-Cancel is a button where in literally every situation you're put in a disadvantage if you don't do it. Wavedashing on the other hand can be controlled into various distances, and wavedashing isn't always an optimal form a movement in many scenarios.

That is very much true, but it doesn't really have anything to do with my question.

Technicality should be an option, not a necessity.

In this case, I disagree.

you don't want to shorthop sometimes, you might want a full jump. you don't want to attack out of shield sometimes, you might want to use your other moves OoS. there are other options, those tech simply extends it.

you either l-cancel, or you're bad at tech. there is no other non-gimmick option. the only difference between l-cancelling and just cutting landing lag is the disappearance of smug tones of people who think hitting the shield button on an incredibly easy window timing is an achievement of their skill and not one of the easiest things to do in smash

Why do you have to be so rude man? As insignificant as you may think that 1 button press is, I think being able to pull of that extra button press for every landed aerial without messing up is pretty cool to watch/satisfying to pull off. The room for error that's present in any outstanding punish adds enough reason for me to be fine with l canceling, because messing up those presses allows for interesting counter-play from the person originally being punished. If it's as easy as you say it is, people wouldn't be able to mess it up- Which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Vashimus]

oh okay then lets just make everything autocancel. also i'd like a wavedash button. and a shorthop button. and we should just make it so we can attack out of shield without jumping since its just an extra input and we're going to cancel the shield lag anyway.

if you want a game with no mechanics, just load the disc normally instead of using homebrew and stay really far away from the development team, thanks.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Nobody here has ever given legit argument for why we should care about L-canceling being in a Smash game. I certainly don't either way.

can someone explain to me how more buttons pressed doesn't equate to greater technical depth?

Depth and execution are mutually exclusive. Depth in games is defined by how many options a player is given to approach a situation, whether it be through the game mechanics or actual maneuvers the player must use (via their execution).

Simon is 100% execution with virtually no depth. Chess's execution boils down to picking up a piece and placing it somewhere, everything else is basically memorization and overall knowledge of the game. Execution will not make a game more deep, and it's terrible to design a fighting game that way.

 

[GaretHax]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Nobody here has ever given legit argument for why we should care about L-canceling being in a Smash game. I certainly don't either way.



Depth and execution are mutually exclusive. Depth in games is defined by how many options a player is given to approach a situation, whether it be through the game mechanics or actual maneuvers the player must use (via their execution).

Simon is 100% execution with virtually no depth. Chess's execution boils down to picking up a piece and placing it somewhere, everything else is basically memorization and overall knowledge of the game.

Depends on your definition of depth, if interaction between two players happens to define depth in this circumstance, you can actually make the argument that chess isn't very deep at all. An obscene amount of the game is learning ideal plays-per-situation, granted a personal optimization and spin can be placed upon this knowledge, but 75% or more of chess is ones ability to memorize and reproduce prior results in a fashion that benefits them the most in the anticipated future. Video games are a medium with near-infinitely more mitigation and interaction between player and system, much less other people who are along for the ride. Honestly I don't think that chess and videogames can easily be compared, because the TYPE of depth and the layers of NECESSARY technical interaction are worlds apart in practice. By the way you're also insinuating that Simon is somehow inferior as a game to chess, and diverging from the actual argument in extremes, which is arguing to an absurdity, just thought I would point that out. Tldr no depth and technicality are not really mutually exclusive in vidyagames, and actually tend to lend a helping hand to each other, technicality is arguably required past a certain point, while depth almost creates instances of the former in most mediums, especially those that fall into this genre.

 

[KayB]

That is very much true, but it doesn't really have anything to do with my question.

That wasn't directed towards you.

In this case, I disagree.

Could you maybe expand on that?

Why do you have to be so rude man? As insignificant as you may think that 1 button press is, I think being able to pull of that extra button press for every landed aerial without messing up is pretty cool to watch/satisfying to pull off. The room for error that's present in any outstanding punish adds enough reason for me to be fine with l canceling, because messing up those presses allows for interesting counter-play from the person originally being punished. If it's as easy as you say it is, people wouldn't be able to mess it up- Which clearly isn't the case.

Its not a matter of its consistency, its a matter of making something unnecessarily more difficult.

What if there was a mario game where every time you didn't press the b button right when you hit the ground, you died? Sure, it makes you feel better if you're able to execute it consistently, but it adds little depth and an unnecessarily higher difficulty curve.

 

[Rᴏb]

Depth and execution are mutually exclusive. Depth in games is defined by how many options a player is given to approach a situation, whether it be through the game mechanics or actual maneuvers the player must use (via their execution).

Simon is 100% execution withs virtually no depth. Chess is one of the deepest games out there with execution that basically comes down to picking up a piece and placing it somewhere.

Hmm, I disagree.

Depth and execution certainly don't have to be mutually exclusive, I could say there is depth within an execution by simply referencing the complexity of said execution. That is also what I would define "depth" as in this context (the complexity within an execution). L canceling doesn't add an insane amount of complexity, but it still adds an extra button press that can and is easily flubbed, which often leads to interesting counterplay imo.

 

[trash?]

reminding, though, that technicality for technicality's sake in other fighting games is exactly what smash had the opposite design of

in street fighter, you need to either look up a list of commands for each fighter, or guess it on your own, assuming you know the average commands like quarter-circles. this builds itself all the way up to supers and ultras, the inputs of ultras in particular being so obtuse in complexity I'm amazed it got through QA. you have to do an input twice, with some of those inputs meaning you have to spin the stick around 720 degrees, and hit three buttons at once. imagine seeing someone who's never played a fighting game before try something like that, and you get the problem there.

in smash, it's a button. a single button, which covers every base for special moves you can do. if you have items on, and you get a final smash, you have to deal with the sudden complexity of holding the button in for a half a second. that's it.

what street fighter does there applies to a lot of things in street fighter, and what smash does applies to a lot of things in smash. that's why most of us played smash as a kid; it was a game that gave you every option in the world in an instant, and let you figure out the rest. l-cancelling, at best, sticks out like a sore thumb

 

[GaretHax]

reminding, though, that technicality for technicality's sake in other fighting games is exactly what smash had the opposite design of

in street fighter, you need to either look up a list of commands for each fighter, or guess it on your own, assuming you know the average commands like quarter-circles. this builds itself all the way up to supers and ultras, the inputs of ultras in particular being so obtuse in complexity I'm amazed it got through QA. you have to do an input twice, with some of those inputs meaning you have to spin the stick around 720 degrees, and hit three buttons at once. imagine seeing someone who's never played a fighting game before try something like that, and you get the problem there.

in smash, it's a button. a single button, which covers every base for special moves you can do. if you have items on, and you get a final smash, you have to deal with the sudden complexity of holding the button in for a half a second. that's it.

what street fighter does there applies to a lot of things in street fighter, and what smash does applies to a lot of things in smash. that's why most of us played smash as a kid; it was a game that gave you every option in the world in an instant, and let you figure out the rest. l-cancelling, at best, sticks out like a sore thumb

Wouldn't taking something from other titles in the genre normally be considered a good thing? (It was, if it didn't exist we wouldn't be here)
Don't get me wrong, I'm obsessed with options, and accessibility, but in this case L-canceling is being looked at retro-actively without considering context. L-canceling added infinitely more options to the game while only adding a single button press, whilst weighting that against a newfound possibility of failure. That's pretty solid, sure it could be improved, but as it stands I see no problems inherent to its' design or what it accomplishes. I wish counterplay was somewhat more potent, but that would have insane impacts on the meta. Adding in the chance to fail at something can have a huge impact on a game.

 

[Rᴏb]

Could you maybe expand on that?

I think technicality being a necessity in this case makes the game more interesting to play considering you are pretty much competing with your opponent in the technical aspect on top of everything else. Basically what Garethax said:

Adding the possibility of failure to the risk/reward scenario of playing technically and quickly via pressure or what-have-you through arbitrary technical barriers or difficulty plateaus is a standard in the industry. It makes it easier to make a mistake, so that those who do NOT make such mistakes are that much more proficient at the game, it isn't inherently good or bad.

Its not a matter of its consistency, its a matter of making something unnecessarily more difficult.

What if there was a mario game where every time you didn't press the b button right when you hit the ground, you died? Sure, it makes you feel better if you're able to execute it consistently, but it adds little depth and an unnecessarily higher difficulty curve.

Why can't it be a matter of consistency? It's just another aspect of them game that you are trying to be consistently better at than your opponent. Your mario example holds up since it's a single player game where you aren't really competing, but even then I could bring up speedrunning where the mechanics you listed would make for very interesting competition.

 

[trash?]

Wouldn't taking something from other titles in the genre normally be considered a good thing? (It was, if it didn't exist we wouldn't be here)

that would be an incorrect assumption, because smash's entire existence came from some bloke in japan thinking "the way fighting games do complexity normally is really silly" and starting from scratch. with that in mind, smash is proof that complex tech doesn't have an even remotely close relation to complex gameplay, because disconnected from all the techskill, smash is still an incredibly smart game about constantly keeping up with combos and DI options. fwiw, the natural combo potential based off of reading instead of muscle memory is why I'm here

 

[Vashimus]

Basically agree with Canon. There are plenty of other fighters out there that can satisfy your execution fetishism.

Not saying there should be no complexity / tech skill in Smash, I love that it's there, but it's definitely not main reason why I play it, or what even makes Smash fun in my eyes.

 

[GaretHax]

that would be an incorrect assumption, because smash's entire existence came from some bloke in japan thinking "the way fighting games do complexity normally is really silly" and starting from scratch. with that in mind, smash is proof that complex tech doesn't have an even remotely close relation to complex gameplay, because disconnected from all the techskill, smash is still an incredibly smart game about constantly keeping up with combos and DI options. fwiw, the natural combo potential based off of reading instead of muscle memory is why I'm here

And even without L-canceling Melee would still have an apm rivaling competitive starcraft, I would say that one can't really exist without the other, given the current forms of input available to the industry. In fact, I did already haha.

 

[Rᴏb]

@ trash? I guess all I can say at this point is that I disagree! This conversation is getting pretty tired anyway.

 

[Player -0]

What if there was a mario game where every time you didn't press the b button right when you hit the ground, you died? Sure, it makes you feel better if you're able to execute it consistently, but it adds little depth and an unnecessarily higher difficulty curve.

This example is blown out of proportion.

While the idea is similar Smash is focused on interaction of players outplaying other players or in doubles, that plus teamwork. In Mario, you simply avoid or kill the enemies on the intent of reaching a flag or in the long run, Bowser (typically). The enemies are pretty negligible as you can pass them without too much worry (depends), they're there for the point of pressuring you into not messing up via overwhelming you or limiting where you can go. You could argue that enemies in Mario are similar to mechanics in smash in that they're there to add "depth" to the game and not just have it so it's just Tic Tac Toe.

Got distracted and don't remember if I have anything else to say.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

And the last 2 pages are a textbook example of why we don't discuss L Cancelling on these boards.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Technical depth is an oxymoron. Depth implies some kind of interaction between the player and some other element, be it the opponent or something in-game. Technical execution is not interaction because failing said execution is never a goal. In the case that failing a technical execution would produce a DESIRABLE result, it would not be a failure, but rather a choice, in which case the depth to the aspect would be the choice to not execute something, and not in the manner of which you go about "failing" the execution.

 

[trash?]

every time you make a move in chess, you need to successfully bawk like a chicken and prance around your opponent or you have to skip the next turn

what's next, I bet you'll want to ban thinking, too!!!!!

 

[DMG]

Hey guise what's going on in th-

*looks around*

Hell no. HELL NO. We're outta here

 

[Deleted member]

i could understand being against a mechanic if there was a good reason, but "youre always going to do it anyway" is a terrible reason because 1 the game was created WITH landing lag whether you like it or not 2 you dont actually always want it because auto cancels float cancels iasa aerials and wavelands exist with and without landing buffer options 3 my comparisons to wavedash shorthop shield cancel are all quite comparable- and lets be real, a platform drop specific input wouldnt hurt either and a footstool button already exists. you can dumb the game down all you want but that doesnt make it more enjoyable- on the contrary we have a living example already on how its the opposite. using l cancel is a CHOICE the player can make in his or her arsenal of many many decisions. as a sheik player, i barely use l cancel at all because i have autocancels on all my aerials. if you want to play lucas aka "L-cancel The Character" thats YOUR choice.

if youre too stuck on my posting style to get the point for what it is maybe you shouldnt be on the internet.

 

[trash?]

"the game was created WITH landing lag whether you like it or not" is not an argument, that's an appeal to tradition and exactly what I was taking the piss out of you giant goofus

you just kind of responded with "well I'M RIGHT" without actually explaining why any of your comparisons aren't absolutely asinine and reactionary, and your pissbaby attitude isn't adding to the experience. time to mash the ignore button

 

[GaretHax]

every time you make a move in chess, you need to successfully bawk like a chicken and prance around your opponent or you have to skip the next turn

what's next, I bet you'll want to ban thinking, too!!!!!

What? If this is where we're at I think I'm done here.
@Drinking food, I'm actually of the opinion that it is more of an artificial construct used to describe complex series of inputs on awkward and limiting devices that almost always have to be memorized due to how unnatural and unintuitive they are in practice.

 

[Deleted member]

i just listed off a bunch of examples for when you don't want to l cancel, the "i'm right" post was all yours

i for one appreciate having the ability to differentiate myself from weaker players with my knowledge and effort in the game

 

[trash?]

bizarro_flame sez: if you can't edgeguard, you're not disrespecting hard enough

 

[DMG]

That gif is hacks. Mario can always recover in PM, dunno who forgot to tell you

 

[trash?]

disrespect has the highest priority of all attacks including meta knight's, this is fact I have the frame data

 

[Rᴏb]

Technical depth is an oxymoron. Depth implies some kind of interaction between the player and some other element, be it the opponent or something in-game. Technical execution is not interaction because failing said execution is never a goal. In the case that failing a technical execution would produce a DESIRABLE result, it would not be a failure, but rather a choice, in which case the depth to the aspect would be the choice to not execute something, and not in the manner of which you go about "failing" the execution.

I think this boils down a semantic argument, because the way I've been using "technical depth" doesn't make it an oxymoron. The depth of a technical execution can be found within the difference between failing and not failing the act of l canceling: the button press. Just because one outcome isn't desirable doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an interaction happening.

 

[Sol0ke]

Guys, would any of you know how to fix a wobbly or loose analog stick on a Gamecube controller

 

[GaretHax]

Guys, would any of you know how to fix a wobbly or loose analog stick on a Gamecube controller

There's a technical knowledge thread on the melee boards that covers a ton of different ways to tinker with and otherwise fix/extendthelifeof a controller.

 

[Soft Serve]

Guys, would any of you know how to fix a wobbly or loose analog stick on a Gamecube controller

You have to either solder a new box onto the board or just get a new board from another controller.

 

[trash?]

can't you just replace that box with some durable cardboard + break it in to fit the analog stick shape? I remember that was what I'm gonna try doing with mine, anyways