The lack of l canceling is not a bad thing.

[flyinfilipino]

That is reasoning, not proof. It is also no different from any of the posts that I have made as far as an argument for or against L-cancelling being an intended feature of Melee.

Does it matter? Why does it matter to you?

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

l2p baddie. Bet you can't even shieldgrab.

Yet another quality ad hominem post on Smashboards.

^^Does anybody have a link to the official super smash bros 64 site?

Under "tips" sakurai says that you can move quicker after an aerial (in other words, cancel lag) by pressing Z right before you land. He publicly tells anybody who checked the site how to do it, just like he tells us how to perfect shield in brawl.

I've seen that site, but that doesn't relate to Melee very much.

Does it matter? Why does it matter to you?

Proof matters to me because he claims to be stating a fact. I just want solid proof that it is indeed a fact, and not some popular belief the forums came up with after a while.

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

Yet another quality ad hominem post on Smashboards.

The point is you know nothing about Melee or Brawl therefore you need to shut your ****ing mouth.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Yet another quality ad hominem post on Smashboards.



I've seen that site, but that doesn't relate to Melee very much.

So Sakurai specifically telling you how to Z-cancel in smash 64 and leaving a modified version of it in melee 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and PAL is not enough to prove that it was intentional?!

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

So Sakurai specifically telling you how to Z-cancel in smash 64 and leaving a modified version of it in melee 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and PAL is not enough to prove that it was intentional?!

Obviously not.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

So Sakurai specifically telling you how to Z-cancel in smash 64 and leaving a modified version of it in melee 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and PAL is not enough to prove that it was intentional?!

Well, the argument you guys are using to prove that it was intentional can also be used to prove it wasn't. That's why I'm asking for proof.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Well, the argument you guys are using to prove that it was intentional can also be used to prove it wasn't. That's why I'm asking for proof.

But what's your point? Why does it matter if it was intentional or not? So you can tell people that they're using glitches that weren't intended to be used, because the creator didn't say so?

 

[Galt]

Hmm... Where would I be able to verify what you said about L-cancelling in Melee?

If you search, as you really should've before forming your argument around this idea, you'll find frame data for any character, normal vs. L-cancels. I think you can probably find it on M2K's site, since he has tons of crazy numbers on there. I'm certainly not about to go look it up for you, as it would be a waste of my time, but you shouldn't think that gives your position any hope. The decrease by half isn't something which is debatable or even questioned.

But if you were serious, you could try it for yourself with some of the laggier moves, like Ganon's d-air. L-cancel it, and you'll notice you can attack in about half the time. Less precise than frame data, but maybe easier for you to see for yourself.

 

[Revven]

I've seen that site, but that doesn't relate to Melee very much.

Okay, so Sakurai basically telling it to your face that there is a way to cancel lag in Smash 64 isn't enough proof for Melee's L-Canceling? Wow, you fail on a whole different level than anyone ever could. The fact that it requires a button press is more than enough proof that it was intended. Hell, even the fact that it wasn't taken out of the other versions is proof enough!

This guy confuses me.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^In that case does anybody have a link to the official melee site?

Although I don't see how that arguement could even possibly be used to say that L-canceling was unintentional.

 

[Kittah4]

I'm glad they removed L-Cancelling, if only because it was something you had to do every time and there was no advantage to not doing it.

Imagine if ground attacks were L-Cancellable as in Melee as well? You'd wear your L or R triggers down twice as fast just so you got less lag on every single attack.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

If you search, as you really should've before forming your argument around this idea, you'll find frame data for any character, normal vs. L-cancels. I think you can probably find it on M2K's site, since he has tons of crazy numbers on there. I'm certainly not about to go look it up for you, as it would be a waste of my time, but you shouldn't think that gives your position any hope. The decrease by half isn't something which is debatable or even questioned.

But if you were serious, you could try it for yourself with some of the laggier moves, like Ganon's d-air. L-cancel it, and you'll notice you can attack in about half the time. Less precise than frame data, but maybe easier for you to see for yourself.

I didn't find this data you talked about, but you're missing the point. I know L-cancelling is in. I'm saying it wasn't intended.

And for everyone saying "It was in the original Smash, so it must have been intended for Melee," why isn't it in Brawl?

 

[flyinfilipino]

I didn't find this data you talked about, but you're missing the point. I know L-cancelling is in. I'm saying it wasn't intended.

And for everyone saying "It was in the original Smash, so it must have been intended for Melee," why isn't it in Brawl?

Directional air-dodging from Melee isn't in Brawl, so was it unintentional?

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Directional air-dodging from Melee isn't in Brawl, so was it unintentional?

No, but it is in Melee's How To Play video, as well as the manual, if I recall correctly.

 

[flyinfilipino]

No, but it is in Melee's How To Play video, as well as the manual, if I recall correctly.

Even if we somehow found out whether or not L-cancelling is intentional or not, why do you want to know? Do you have some other point?

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Proof so the noobs can STFU

Proof that L-canceling was intended

http://web.archive.org/web/20010623090216/www.smashbros.com/moves_advattacklanding.html

 

[flyinfilipino]

There ya go!

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Proof that L-canceling was intended

http://web.archive.org/web/20010623090216/www.smashbros.com/moves_advattacklanding.html

L-canceling was indeed intended for Super Smash Bros., but not for Melee.

 

[flyinfilipino]

L-canceling was indeed intended for Super Smash Bros., but not for Melee.

Let's see some proof, sir.

See how this is all pointless?

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Let's see some proof, sir.

See how this is all pointless?

Non-existence is impossible to prove. For instance, I can't prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist.

However, if you claim that she does, then the burden of proof falls on you.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Non-existence is impossible to prove. For instance, I can't prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist.

However, if you claim that she does, then the burden of proof falls on you.

Once again, what's your point?

 

[Galt]

I didn't find this data you talked about, but you're missing the point. I know L-cancelling is in. I'm saying it wasn't intended.

And for everyone saying "It was in the original Smash, so it must have been intended for Melee," why isn't it in Brawl?

Wait, what? ... Alright, I'll go simpler.

Evidence:
1) Precedence in Smash 64
2) Similar functionality in Melee
3) L-cancel removes HALF of the lag frames. That's numerical precision which is different for every attack for every character.
4) The L-cancel effect was retained throughout all versions of Melee, despite other "glitches" being removed, like flame-canceling.

I really don't think it's possible to have more convincing evidence than that, short of Sakurai releasing a statement on the issue. There's no question here: L-canceling was fully intended. Don't doubt it. Stop trying to preserve your Smash worldview. It is completely unreasonable and to doubt at this point.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Can somebody please post a link to the official melee dojo just to appease this guy?

 

[Nuvia]

L-canceling was indeed intended for Super Smash Bros., but not for Melee.

AND THE CIRCLE CONTINUES

Enjoy arguing all night.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Wait, what? ... Alright, I'll go simpler.

Evidence:
1) Precedence in Smash 64
2) Similar functionality in Melee
3) L-cancel removes HALF of the lag frames. That's numerical precision which is different for every attack for every character.
4) The L-cancel effect was retained throughout all versions of Melee, despite other "glitches" being removed, like flame-canceling.

I really don't think it's possible to have more convincing evidence than that, short of Sakurai releasing a statement on the issue. There's no question here: L-canceling was fully intended. Don't doubt it. Stop trying to preserve your Smash worldview. It is completely unreasonable and to doubt at this point.

Since there doesn't seem to be an official statement, I'll have to go with the probability that it was intended to be in Melee. There is a way to extend the debate further, but there's no point, seeing as no completely infallible conclusion will be drawn.

Now, the only question is "Why isn't L-canceling in Brawl?" And my answer to that is the one of the first things I said in this topic: L-canceling is bad game design.

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

Since there doesn't seem to be an official statement, I'll have to go with the probability that it was intended to be in Melee. There is a way to extend the debate further, but there's no point, seeing as no completely infallible conclusion will be drawn.

Now, the only question is "Why isn't L-canceling in Brawl?" And my answer to that is the one of the first things I said in this topic: L-canceling is bad game design.

You're bad human design.

 

[KevinM]

Told you about the circle didn't I

 

[flyinfilipino]

You're bad human design.

This is bad post design. Seriously, what did you expect to get out of posting this?

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

This is bad post design. Seriously, what did you expect to get out of posting this?

It's a flame. So you do the math.

 

[flyinfilipino]

It's a flame. So you do the math.

0 + 0 = 0

yay math

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

0 + 0 = 0

yay math

Yeah it is pointless. But it makes me feel good. And there's the off-chance that it annoys him. Which also makes me feel good. Also +1 to you for a witty response.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

This is bad post design. Seriously, what did you expect to get out of posting this?

He expected what I think a lot of people do when they flame: post count +1.

And I don't let flames get to me. You're nothing more than a few bytes of data on a server somewhere.

 

[Nuvia]

Told you about the circle didn't I

Indeed you did. A vicious circle, that one.

 

[greenblob]

I don't see why adding technical depth is necessarily bad. I could argue that not having a separate button for short hopping is bad game design using the same arguments.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

I don't see why adding technical depth is necessarily bad. I could argue that not having a separate button for short hopping is bad game design using the same arguments.

I disagree, because sometimes you might want to short hop, and other times you might want to do a full jump or double jump.

There is no time when you wouldn't want to L-cancel, and that is precisely why it is bad game design.

 

[Sosuke]

Yea I agree with this

 

[Endless Nightmares]

I disagree, because sometimes you might want to short hop, and other times you might want to do a full jump or double jump.

There is no time when you wouldn't want to L-cancel, and that is precisely why it is bad game design.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just goofing around, nobody is this dense...

We mentioned why L-canceling added to the game several times in this thread...one of which is the concept that if you miss an l-cancel, you're liable to be punished, or you just miss the chance to land that oh-so-awesome combo. It just adds another layer to the game

 

[greenblob]

I disagree, because sometimes you might want to short hop, and other times you might want to do a full jump or double jump.

There is no time when you wouldn't want to L-cancel, and that is precisely why it is bad game design.

No, I meant having a button for full jumps and a separate button for short hops.

You could use the same logic to make a case for powershielding.

I also would've pointed out auto-sweetspotting the ledge, but that's in anyway...

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

I disagree, because sometimes you might want to short hop, and other times you might want to do a full jump or double jump.

There is no time when you wouldn't want to L-cancel, and that is precisely why it is bad game design.

You can either execute a move requiring an L-cancel that has a chance of failing or you can execute one that doesn't require an L-cancel.

You lose. Forever.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

You do realize that the removal of l-canceling HURTS slower characters, right? The fact that faster characters land with almost no lag, while slower one land with huge amounts, makes them much worse than in Melee.

For example, if Fox's nair is 12 frames in Melee, 6 frames l-canceled, and Ganon's fair is 25 frames, 12 frames l-canceled, who benefits more (note: I don't know the actual frame data, this is just an example)? Ganondorf drops 13 frames, while Fox drops 6. Plus Fox's running speed is faster, giving him more maneuvrability.

If anything, the removal of AT's HURT slower characters. Except you wouldn't know that because you are a non-competitive noob.

Except in this game power characters actually have priority, super armor and can now get by with good prediction (see why Ike isn't made of fail yet?), something they lacked in Melee. Yes Ganon got screwed. Yes slower characters get hurt with less L cancelling... IN TERMS OF MELEE. You're going to keep hearing tired phrases of "MELEE 2.0 LOL" and "IT'S A NEW GAME LAWL" because all of your complaints are still centered as if this game should be played EXACTLY like Melee, which is completely false. You can play it SIMILARLY to Melee because the core game isn't gone. Exactly doesn't cut it anymore. SHFFL's a viable strategy only for Marth and a few others now as opposed to everyone having to do it just to stand a chance. Some characters actually have... *gasp* viable ground moves! Heck, Ganondorf, the worst character around, even has a forward b that can eat through most aerials (though that doesn't save him from being not predictable)! And yes, I played the **** game as testimony to this fact.

So no, I'm not going to trash talk and say "LAWL U NOOB TOURNEY***" and save any sort of condescending attitude for actual idiots instead of people that disagree with you.