The lack of l canceling is not a bad thing.

[greenblob]

What risk is there to recovering? My understanding is that after you get hit off the stage, two things can happen: you can recover back to the stage, or you can fall to your death. I don't see any risk to not recovering other than dying. If there was a penalty for recovering incorrectly compared to there being no recovery at all, then it would make sense, but I don't think that's the case.

Um... anyway, not the best analogy, but I think I've made my point clear: technical skill isn't a bad thing--in fact, it's expected, if you consider the fact that Smash is a friggin' video game.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Um... anyway, not the best analogy, but I think I've made my point clear: technical skill isn't a bad thing--in fact, it's expected, if you consider the fact that Smash is a friggin' video game.

Why did you quote my post without addressing it?

 

[Zenjamin]

I agree that the mechanic of L-canceling should have been removed.
no reason not to do it, no stragety, simply makes the technical gap bigger while doing nothing for the mindgames.

However, everyone air attacks should have been reduced/auto Lcanceled.

charcters like ganon got an increase in landing lag tith no way to defend themselves.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

I agree that the mechanic of L-canceling should have been removed.
no reason not to do it, no stragety, simply makes the technical gap bigger while doing nothing for the mindgames.

However, everyone air attacks should have been reduced/auto Lcanceled.

charcters like ganon got an increase in landing lag tith no way to defend themselves.

I don't mind the difference in lag between Melee characters and Brawl characters. I see it simply as this: slow characters are powerful and hard to KO, while fast characters are weak and easy to KO.

 

[greenblob]

Why did you quote my post without addressing it?

Eh, maybe I should've boldfaced some stuff. Read the section in quotes.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Eh, maybe I should've boldfaced some stuff. Read the section in quotes.

I don't see any quotes, other than my post, which you quoted, yet did not address.

 

[Galt]

What risk is there to L-cancelling? My understanding is that after doing an aerial attack, two things can happen: you can L-cancel and minimize the landing lag, or you can neglect to L-cancel and have the normal amount of lag. I don't see any risk to "missing" the L-cancel other than there not being an L-cancel. If there was extra landing lag if an L-cancel was timed wrong compared to there being no L-cancel at all, then it would make sense, but I don't think that's the case.

The risk involved is that you plan your moves assuming your L-cancel will go through; your entire strategy is based on L-canceling. It affects which attack you use when. So if you blow it, you're much more likely to be punished, especially if you opponent can predict that you'll miss it. Take Falco, for example: his entire metagame assumes that you'll never miss an L-cancel. If you do, he gets shieldgrabbed because his optimal playstyle is so aggressive, and Falco can't really afford to take many hits. That's why, when I fight Falcos, I generally try to lure them toward the edge, so that, when they miss the cancel, I can b-throw them off the stage, which is a very dangerous position. If L-canceling didn't exist, Falco players wouldn't approach. They would laser-spam constantly from a safe distance, and they'd be very annoying. Edit: Forgot to finish the idea. But because L-canceling exists, Falco players are willing to approach, which means they sometimes makes mistakes, which means I can capitalize.

Or, suppose I'm playing G&W, who isn't fast and typically has a very predictable approach. I know that you know I'm going to SHFFL an f-air at you, so I know you're going to go for the shieldgrab and generally expect to punish me. That's why I'll throw out an f-air that stops just short, so you'll rush in to punish and I'll d-tilt or jab or whatever. But if I miss that L-cancel on the f-air, the entire strategy was worthless, and G&W becomes completely vulnerable/worthless.

Will I ever not want to L-cancel? No, of course not; the reward far outweighs the risk for a competent player. But if I blow it, I'm in serious trouble because of how I've planned my strategy. That's the risk.

 

[Nuvia]

You know, this discussion is rather pointless. L-Canceling is out. There is no point discussing what could have been or how it should be or how it's better.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

The risk involved is that you plan your moves assuming your L-cancel will go through; your entire strategy is based on L-canceling. It affects which attack you use when. So if you blow it, you're much more likely to be punished, especially if you opponent can predict that you'll miss it. Take Falco, for example: his entire metagame assumes that you'll never miss an L-cancel. If you do, he gets shieldgrabbed because his optimal playstyle is so aggressive, and Falco can't really afford to take many hits. That's why, when I fight Falcos, I generally try to lure them toward the edge, so that, when they miss the cancel, I can b-throw them off the stage, which is a very dangerous position. If L-canceling didn't exist, Falco players wouldn't approach. They would laser-spam constantly from a safe distance, and they'd be very annoying.

Or, suppose I'm playing G&W, who isn't fast and typically has a very predictable approach. I know that you know I'm going to SHFFL an f-air at you, so I know you're going to go for the shieldgrab and generally expect to punish me. That's why I'll throw out an f-air that stops just short, so you'll rush in to punish and I'll d-tilt or jab or whatever. But if I miss that L-cancel on the f-air, the entire strategy was worthless, and G&W becomes completely vulnerable/worthless.

Will I ever not want to L-cancel? No, of course not; the reward far outweighs the risk for a competent player. But if I blow it, I'm in serious trouble because of how I've planned my strategy. That's the risk.

I don't see that as a risk at all, because regardless of what you have planned if the exploit is executed, it is still an exploit. My point is that it is bad game design, and an unintended product of the game's engine because of the pointlessness in having to hit L or R every time you land. I agree that there is a huge difference in lag and possible combos depending on whether a move is L-cancelled or not, but because there is no built-in punishment for missing an attempted L-cancel compared to not doing it at all, it should not ever have been possible.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

You know, this discussion is rather pointless. L-Canceling is out. There is no point discussing what could have been or how it should be or how it's better.

I'm sure you have participated in meaningless discussions yourself, at some point. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Don't double post.

Also, L-canceling was intended, like I noted before.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Don't double post.

Also, L-canceling was intended, like I noted before.

Those were completely different messages, and I was replying to someone who posted while I was typing a reply to someone else. What's the problem?

 

[Eljin]

POINT BEING, AT kept the pros the pros and the noobs had to work hard as ever to say they good. No l-canceling makes it easy for a noob to beat good players and that sucks imo. Theres no real skill in it n e more. Its so easy to get gayed in this one I will prolly play Melee more if ppl still be interested


p.s. no l-canceling = ghey cuz they kept in shield grab

 

[anotherdeadcow]

I don't see that as a risk at all, because regardless of what you have planned if the exploit is executed, it is still an exploit. My point is that it is bad game design, and an unintended product of the game's engine because of the pointlessness in having to hit L or R every time you land. I agree that there is a huge difference in lag and possible combos depending on whether a move is L-cancelled or not, but because there is no built-in punishment for missing an attempted L-cancel compared to not doing it at all, it should not ever have been possible.

the "risk" and "punishment" in missing is that melee players have the lag timings down very well, and if you miss an lcancel, youve likely already input your next action, which will either do nothing because it was during lag or will do something entirely different in the case that it was a long string of buttons and only the latter half of them fell after the lag. there doesnt need to be a built in punishment, a competent player will take care of the punishing for the game. granted, its the same punishment that you would have gotten for not attempting the lcancel, unless of course the opponent was expecting the lcancel and wasnt planning to try to punish. missing is like throwing out the next three actions you had planned and recalculating them, often in a much less advantageous situation.

bottom line is theres no reason for the game to administer additional lag for a missed l cancel because in metagame for example its expected you will never miss and thus missing will already have some severe consequences.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

the "risk" and "punishment" in missing is that melee players have the lag timings down very well, and if you miss an lcancel, youve likely already input your next action, which will either do nothing because it was during lag or will do something entirely different in the case that it was a long string of buttons and only the latter half of them fell after the lag. there doesnt need to be a built in punishment, a competent player will take care of the punishing for the game. granted, its the same punishment that you would have gotten for not attempting the lcancel, unless of course the opponent was expecting the lcancel and wasnt planning to try to punish. missing is like throwing out the next three actions you had planned and recalculating them, often in a much less advantageous situation.

bottom line is theres no reason for the game to administer additional lag for a missed l cancel because in metagame for example its expected you will never miss and thus missing will already have some severe consequences.

You're missing the point. I'll use Street Fighter 3: Third Strike as an analogy here.

SF3 is a critically-acclaimed competitive game due to its various advanced techniques, the most popular (and most difficult) of which is Parrying. Parrying is a very simple system: hit forward instead of backward right before an attack hits your character, and your character will parry it, taking zero damage and opening up the opponent to a counter of your choosing. Because the parry timing is so difficult, most casual players will not attempt it, and will instead try to block the attack, which minimizes damage rather than negating it completely.

The risk of parrying instead of blocking is simple: you will get hit if you miss the parry. You will also get hit if you block, but you will take much less damage by doing so, and can still punish the opponent somewhat by attacking after the opponent's attack frames are finished.

In Smash, L-cancelling is a different story: there is no penalty for L-cancelling other than what would occur with the ONLY other option, which is simply enduring the landing lag. My understanding is that attacks, depending on when they are executed in the air (or rather, the frame of the attack in which you hit the ground), are SUPPOSED to have a certain amount of lag. That is the punishment for missing the attack. If you try to do an attack and miss, you will be punished with a lag time after that attack, which can be taken advantage of by your opponent. If there were anything else that could be done in Melee other than land normally instead of L-cancelling, then I would understand where you guys who miss the feature are coming from. It would then be a justified game mechanic.

However, as it is right now, it is completely illogical.

 

[anotherdeadcow]

You're missing the point. I'll use Street Fighter 3: Third Strike as an analogy here.

SF3 is a critically-acclaimed competitive game due to its various advanced techniques, the most popular (and most difficult) of which is Parrying. Parrying is a very simple system: hit forward instead of backward right before an attack hits your character, and your character will parry it, taking zero damage and opening up the opponent to a counter of your choosing. Because the parry timing is so difficult, most casual players will not attempt it, and will instead try to block the attack, which minimizes damage rather than negating it completely.

The risk of parrying instead of blocking is simple: you will get hit if you miss the parry. You will also get hit if you block, but you will take much less damage by doing so, and can still punish the opponent somewhat by attacking after the opponent's attack frames are finished.

In Smash, L-cancelling is a different story: there is no penalty for L-cancelling other than what would occur with the ONLY other option, which is simply enduring the landing lag. My understanding is that attacks, depending on when they are executed in the air (or rather, the frame of the attack in which you hit the ground), are SUPPOSED to have a certain amount of lag. That is the punishment for missing the attack. If you try to do an attack and miss, you will be punished with a lag time after that attack, which can be taken advantage of by your opponent. If there were anything else that could be done in Melee other than land normally instead of L-cancelling, then I would understand where you guys who miss the feature are coming from. It would then be a justified game mechanic.

However, as it is right now, it is completely illogical.

it is not at all the same as parrying. in competetive play, your not supposed to miss. at all. its not a feature but a requirement. so think of the lag as being l cancelled by default, and missing it as added lag. parrying is an option you have as opposed to blocking, and lcancelling is more of something you just have to do.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

it is not at all the same as parrying. in competetive play, your not supposed to miss. at all. its not a feature but a requirement. so think of the lag as being l cancelled by default, and missing it as added lag. parrying is an option you have as opposed to blocking, and lcancelling is more of something you just have to do.

L-cancelling is not mandatory. There are attacks other than aerials that can be done.

 

[Dark Sonic]

L-cancelling is not mandatory. There are attacks other than aerials that can be done.

And yet ground attacks are hard to chain into anything and in general have more lag than aerials.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

And yet ground attacks are hard to chain into anything and in general have more lag than aerials.

That's just one way of playing. Attacks don't necessarily all have to be chained.

And you guys still haven't disproved my argument, which is that L-cancelling was not intended to be in Melee.

 

[OrlanduEX]

I don't mind the difference in lag between Melee characters and Brawl characters. I see it simply as this: slow characters are powerful and hard to KO, while fast characters are weak and easy to KO.

Unfortunately, Smash does quite work that way at the competitive level.
Ganondorf, for example, is almost useless now in high level play due to the massive and irreducible lag on ALL of his moves.
His strength and weight don't count for much because he will spend most of the time getting punished during recovery time. Anyone with half a brain will shield grab the s*** out of all your aerials, so those are pretty much out the window. And all his ground moves are laggy too. At least when his airs were l-cancelable in Melee, he was actually playable, but now he is a joke for competitive play.
See what I'm saying? Slow characters with laggy air moves are much less capable of fighting at the competitive level than the rest.
If only there was no landing lag at all....

That's just one way of playing. Attacks don't necessarily all have to be chained.

And you guys still haven't disproved my argument, which is that L-cancelling was not intended to be in Melee.

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that l-cancel was a glitch or mistake? You DO realize that it was present in the ORIGINAL Smash Bros as well, right? Do you think they put it in accidentally twice?

To l-cancel, you actually have to press l, r, or z within a particular window of frames during an aerial attack. Such a mechanic could not possibly have been added by mistake.
It has long been documented that l-canceling was programmed into the game. I think you can tell if you use Action Replay.
Also, while a number of glitches and bugs were removed from the PAL release of Melee, l-cancel was not. It is not a glitch.

 

[Galt]

That's just one way of playing. Attacks don't necessarily all have to be chained.

And you guys still haven't disproved my argument, which is that L-cancelling was not intended to be in Melee.

...You're arguing because you think L-canceling is a glitch? I'll fix it: Smash 64 had Z-canceling, which was fully known by Melee's release and which canceled ALL lag on aerials. In Melee, Sakurai introduced L-canceling, which cancels exactly half the lag frames. Fully intended, programmed into the game on purpose. But you should've been able to find this info anywhere, even earlier in this thread.

 

[anotherdeadcow]

L-cancelling is not mandatory. There are attacks other than aerials that can be done.

when i say that, i imply that you would only apply them to aerials as thats the only scenario they are applicable in. but if you decide to not use aerials, you lose a huge chunk of your approach which i assume to be no better in smash than it would in, say, street fighter.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Unfortunately, Smash does quite work that way at the competitive level.
Ganondorf, for example, is almost useless now in high level play due to the massive and irreducible lag on ALL of his moves.
His strength and weight don't count for much because he will spend most of the time getting punished during recovery time. Anyone with half a brain will shield grab the s*** out of all your aerials, so those are pretty much out the window. And all his ground moves are laggy too. At least when his airs were l-cancelable in Melee, he was actually playable, but now he is a joke for competitive play.
See what I'm saying? Slow characters with laggy air moves are much less capable of fighting at the competitive level than the rest.
If only there was no landing lag at all....

Are you telling me that there is only one way to play Melee? And that it's by SHFFLing?

 

[Endless Nightmares]

LMFAO

How do you quote a post, and not even read it at all?

 

[Nuvia]

I'm sure you have participated in meaningless discussions yourself, at some point. There's nothing wrong with it.

Oh of course there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying it's... you know, pointless.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Are you telling me that there is only one way to play Melee? And that it's by SHFFLing?

>_>

I'm talking about competitive play here. Shffling as an absolute necessity to do well in Melee at a competitive level, ESPECIALLY with laggy characters such as Ganondorf.
If you don't believe this, then I don't even need to argue further.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Oh of course there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying it's... you know, pointless.

I think pointing out pointless discussion is even more pointless.

And pointing THAT out is worse. lol

 

[Endless Nightmares]

and peep the sig,

There is no right or wrong way to play Smash. Stop telling people how the game should be played. You don't have the right.

 

[KevinM]

These threads make me lol

Point A brought up

Point B flames making no concessions

Point A Flames back making no concessions or acknowledging other point

Both sides continue hating each other

Degenerate into flame war

have idiots like Vigilant start cycle over again

thread reaches 100 pages

nothing accomplished

 

[Nuvia]

Smash 64 had Z-canceling, which was fully known by Melee's release and which canceled ALL lag on aerials. In Melee, Sakurai introduced L-canceling, which cancels exactly half the lag frames.

It all makes sense now.

64 - All lag is canceled

Melee - Half the lag is canceled

Brawl - No canceling at all

 

[Layupfreak]

yup this was a great post. very nice ^_^. and i will always agree whole-heartedly

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^So SSB4-half the lag is added as punishment for trying to shield too early?

muhahahaha

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

These threads make me lol

Point A brought up

Point B flames making no concessions

Point A Flames back making no concessions or acknowledging other point

Both sides continue hating each other

Degenerate into flame war

have idiots like Vigilant start cycle over again

thread reaches 100 pages

nothing accomplished

The only person I see flaming is you, unless I was supposed to take being called an idiot as a compliment.

By the way, we all know that nothing will come of this discussion, because L-cancelling is not in Brawl. We are simply trying to figure out why that is.

 

[KevinM]

No the reason you are an idiot, which may be harsh but i stand by it, is saying L-cancelling is not mandatory that right there blatently said

I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPETITIVE MELEE IS I JUST WANT TO ARGUE SOMETHING

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

No the reason you are an idiot, which may be harsh but i stand by it, is saying L-cancelling is not mandatory that right there blatently said

I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPETITIVE MELEE IS I JUST WANT TO ARGUE SOMETHING

Caps lock is like cruise control for cool.

...You're arguing because you think L-canceling is a glitch? I'll fix it: Smash 64 had Z-canceling, which was fully known by Melee's release and which canceled ALL lag on aerials. In Melee, Sakurai introduced L-canceling, which cancels exactly half the lag frames. Fully intended, programmed into the game on purpose. But you should've been able to find this info anywhere, even earlier in this thread.

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

 

[KevinM]

Play Smash 64.. Hit Z before landing realize there is no landing lag

play Melee... notice that similar mechanics are included with L or R

Profit

 

[greenblob]

You could kinda say the same thing about edge-teching. There really is no penalty for attempting it every time.

Of course, they did take out the need for edge-teching...

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Play Smash 64.. Hit Z before landing realize there is no landing lag

play Melee... notice that similar mechanics are included with L or R

Profit

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.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^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.

 

[COMMOFDOOM]

I don't see that as a risk at all, because regardless of what you have planned if the exploit is executed, it is still an exploit. My point is that it is bad game design, and an unintended product of the game's engine because of the pointlessness in having to hit L or R every time you land. I agree that there is a huge difference in lag and possible combos depending on whether a move is L-cancelled or not, but because there is no built-in punishment for missing an attempted L-cancel compared to not doing it at all, it should not ever have been possible.

l2p baddie. Bet you can't even shieldgrab.