Why is hitstun cancelling still in this game?

[shapular]

One of the main complaints about Brawl was hitstun cancelling, which allowed you to get out of almost any combo. PMBR removed the Brawl version of this from the game, but then decided that they wanted to put it back in in a different form: crouch cancelling. The reason for this is probably "because Melee", which is apparently a legitimate reason to put anything in this game, but why not take out a bad mechanic? Or rather, why put in a bad mechanic when you don't have to? Crouch cancelling is seriously just hitstun cancelling on the ground instead of the air, but even better. With Brawl hitstun cancelling you can't follow up on a move, with crouch cancelling you actually get punished for landing a move. Why does this still exist?

 

[Bleck]

Why does this still exist?

"because Melee"

 

[gnosis]

The defensive game is very different in Smash than other fighters - blocking punishes you beyond just blockstun with frames to drop your shield or forcing you into alternative OoS options, compared to the instant readiness to counter attack/whatever in traditional fighters. Smash supplements these nerfs to blocking with increased freedom of movement and, in Melee and PM, crouch canceling.

With crouch canceling you get punished for landing specific moves at specific spacings against a grounded opponent who is in a specific percent range. All of those things are elements that can be played around, it's not a universal '**** your combo' button like Brawl's hitstun canceling and isn't really comparable.

You can outspace, you can use moves that break their crouch cancel and lead to nasty tech chases based on their current percent, you can grab them. Some characters have moves that specifically punish crouch canceling like peach dsmash.

I'm not sure it would do good things to the game to up and remove crouch canceling completely. That said I think it could use changes (more moves to punish crouch canceling, less ability to do it any scenario like during recovery frames, how it basically invalidates certain moves regardless of percent, etc.).

 

[Bleck]

I don't think having four different ways to block is a nerf to blocking.

 

[gnosis]

Are you saying rolling/spotdodging is 'blocking' or what.

 

[Bleck]

Are you saying rolling/spotdodging is 'blocking' or what.

Yes.

 

[DrinkingFood]

CCing is def not better than brawl hitstun canceling what the hell are you smoking
CCing actually loses out to a lot of things. Brawl hitstun canceling doesn't beat good reads or characters with better reach. And even then it's not really hitstun canceling losing to anything, because the same thing would have happened without hitstun canceling, it's more of a "I didn't gain what I could have."

CCing loses to moves that cause knockdown, forcing a tech chase which is good against characters that are hard to combo other ways; it leads to bad DI on kill moves; in some cases it leads to additional damage or reducing your ability to escape moves, such as Peach's and ROB's dsmashes respectively.

Those are things CCing loses to, as in "it would have been better if you didn't". There is a much longer list of things that CCing just doesn't affect, things it doesn't lose to but isn't effective against, such as grabs/throws, multi-hits, anything with a downward trajectory, anything that lifts off the ground with too much forced to be ASDI'd into the ground, good spacing, or simply any hit while airborne, none of these things an be CC'd. And you are comparing brawl hitstun canceling to this? Brawl hitstun canceling works in all those cases. The only thing going for crouch canceling is that it provides a punishment, but only in the case that it's used in the right scenario.

Yes.

That's dumb then
DDing is a defensive maneuver, do you consider that blocking too?
Blocking describes blocking. Rolling/dodging are defensive maneuvers but lumping them in with blocking as if they served the same purpose is ignorant.

 

[Bleck]

I'm not actually sure whether or not DrinkingFood is arguing against or in favor of crouch canceling.

 

[gnosis]

This just in, dodging is actually blocking. In other news, jumping is actually sky dashing.

 

[Baky]

EDIT: Disregard- I don't care anymore

 

[DrinkingFood]

I'm not actually sure whether or not DrinkingFood is arguing against or in favor of crouch canceling.

Neither, I only said that it does not do the job of reducing hitstun nearly as universally as brawl hitstun canceling does. I also said that there's reasons not to do it, which doesn't apply to brawl hitstun canceling outside of hard reads.

EDIT: Disregard- I don't care anymore

wow lucky you finished that edit as soon as I hit reply.
But I have to say, CCing as a mindless counter is entirely fair, as it primarily counters mindless approaches.

 

[Celestis]

Crouch cancelling is a tactic so if course it will remain in. You're right, you do get punished for landing a move, but the player is perfectly aware of this ability at low percent and if you do get punished, then its just your fault for allowing it to happen. Brawl's hitstun cancel is global and is just get out of trouble free in any situation. CCing can be dealt with when you apply your brain and don;t use dumb attacks in that situation.

 

[Bleck]

Neither, I only said that it does not do the job of reducing hitstun nearly as universally as brawl hitstun canceling does. I also said that there's reasons not to do it, which doesn't apply to brawl hitstun canceling outside of hard reads.

Alright, I can agree with that.

This just in, dodging is actually blocking. In other news, jumping is actually sky dashing.

You're being pedantic.

 

[gnosis]

No, you're being needlessly vague. It's not what the word means and isn't what I was talking about so bringing it up like that is disingenuous.

 

[Bleck]

Thinking that I'm being vague doesn't mean you get to be pedantic - in fact, implying as much in itself is pedantic.

 

[DrinkingFood]

So it's settled, you're both dumb

 

[gnosis]

nvm 10 chars

 

[Bleck]

DDing is a defensive maneuver, do you consider that blocking too?

No, but I also don't think dash-dancing is a defensive maneuver, so...?

Blocking describes blocking. Rolling/dodging are defensive maneuvers but lumping them in with blocking as if they served the same purpose is ignorant.

The difference between shielding and dodging (and crouch canceling) in Smash is essentially the difference between blocking and low blocking in traditional fighting games - they serve the same purpose (avoiding damage) while still essentially functioning differently. They're the defensive maneuvers with which you respond to incoming attacks - you may execute them differently and they may lead to different courses of action depending on what you're trying to defend against, but the point from which you use them - and the purpose that they serve - is functionally the same (like high blocking and low blocking).

The number of options are increased from traditional fighters, though, as you also have rolling and crouch canceling. The problem with crouch canceling is one of obfuscation - it serves the same purpose as shielding and dodging, but it's not intuitive for the user (defensive options in Smash all stem from a single button, so an additional responsive defense option being hidden inside movement is relatively confusing, and I've previously argued that Smash' greatest strength is [or rather should be] that it's easy to learn, difficult to master) nor the attacker (an attacking player can easily understand that their attack has been shielded or dodged, but an attack being crouch canceled successfully is visually indeterminable and essentially looks like their attack "didn't work", which is not really a good principle for literally any facet of any game to function by). Also, as you yourself mentioned, there are a lot of things that crouch canceling just plain doesn't work on - which can't be said for shields (the only thing that shields "don't work" on is grabs) or dodges (you can dodge everything).

Essentially, the problem ends up being that crouch canceling "deepens" the metagame by forcing players to memorize information, instead of players being able to learn organically how to deal with a thing - players that shield excessively can easily be grabbed, and they'll eventually learn when and where to shield. Players can dodge (or dodgeroll) with bad timing (or in bad directions), and they'll eventually get better at it. Crouch canceling's efficacy is on a move by move basis, and the only way to possibly understand the depth of something that functions in that capacity is to use every move in the game against every character in the game as they crouch cancel in every conceivable position in the game. It's not a reasonable expectation to hold against players, it doesn't seem to serve any function other than to "make the game more deep" by presenting players with numerous (homogeneous) options, and I'm pretty sure the game would be just fine without it.

Why would I ever respond to a Bleck post... it's a damn trap.

I'm very engaging.

 

[gnosis]

Why is crouch canceling different from percentage based knockback? Other than the 'unintuitive' part, I'm referring to it being a move-by-move thing with lots of specifics. They add depth in the same way and have to be learned slowly over time in the same way because of all the different factors that go into how each scenario plays out.

It essentially just means 'characters can be heavier when grounded'.

 

[Bleck]

Why is crouch canceling different from percentage based knockback? Other than the 'unintuitive' part, I'm referring to it being a move-by-move thing with lots of specifics. They add depth in the same way and have to be learned slowly over time in the same way because of all the different factors that go into how each scenario plays out.

I don't understand what you're referring to - do you mean the fact that different moves have different scaling with percentage, or just the idea that higher percents usually mean higher knockback?

 

[gnosis]

Your last paragraph about how crouch canceling acts differently for each move at each percent against each character - the exact same thing is true of knockback scaling off percentage. Crouch canceling is basically just adding weight to your character (weight being something that reduces knockback and hitstun, it's not literally the same thing just functionally).

If it's bad that crouch canceling adds depth in that way is it bad that one of the fundamental features of smash adds depth in that way?

 

[Bleck]

Your last paragraph about how crouch canceling acts differently for each move at each percent against each character - the exact same thing is true of knockback scaling off percentage.

Yes, but for the latter, it works intuitively - moves always send opponents in the same direction (more or less if you consider DI), just farther when percentage gets higher/characters are lighter. The only things players have to really consider when getting a feel for these things are that higher percentage sends characters flying farther (intuitive; the whole game revolves around this concept) and heavier characters are generally harder to hit farther (intuitive; heavier characters are generally larger than other characters).

Crouch canceling in this respect is unintuitive, as there's no way to generally assume how a move is going to affect a character if they crouch cancel it - the size, weight and position of each character can affect how crouch canceling functions against any move, with barely any recognizable pattern.

The former is an example of intuitive depth; it's easy to understand that higher percentage sends a character farther, but the depth lies in how much farther, and applying that to your playing. The latter is an example of unintuitive depth; the most succinct explanation of crouch canceling is "it sometimes prevents knockback of a move depending on who you're playing as and who your attacker is playing as", and there's virtually no way to gain real familiarity with it beyond either brute force testing (or years of playing).

 

[DrinkingFood]

CCing is faaaarr from the only instance in smash in which you must memorize arbitrary bits of information such as percents. That's basically how you punish space animals in Melee, especially as marth. Did you know? The only way to get a guaranteed regrab on fox while chaingrabbing between 18-23 percent is to pivot grab? What's intuitive about that? There are lots of things like that. What percents Sheik's dthrow CG's end, what percents you are guaranteed kills off the top, what percents moves cause knockdown so you can start a tech chase (this is important regardless of the existence of CCing, especially for low angle throws like marth's fthrow). It's called matchup knowledge. Yes it's a lot of info to remember. PM is far and away the hardest smash game because of the sheer number of matchups. I don't think this is a bad thing, it's a part of the challenge of getting good at the game.

 

[Bleck]

CCing is faaaarr from the only instance in smash in which you must memorize arbitrary bits of information such as percents.

That doesn't matter.

That's basically how you punish space animals in Melee, especially as marth. Did you know? The only way to get a guaranteed regrab on fox while chaingrabbing between 18-23 percent is to pivot grab? What's intuitive about that? There are lots of things like that. What percents Sheik's dthrow CG's end, what percents you are guaranteed kills off the top, what percents moves cause knockdown so you can Start a tech chase (this is important regardless of the existence of CCing).

Neither does any of this.

I don't think this is a bad thing, it's a part of the challenge of getting good at the game.

This isn't about getting good at the game - this is about understanding how to play the game. The former should be challenging, but the latter should not.

 

[gnosis]

CC is not that erratic. I don't even think it's that unintuitive. It's ASDIing into the ground and, if you're actually crouching, reducing the initial knockback and hitstun. "I hold down and I'm heavier", and, conversely, "If I hit a grounded opponent they can be heavier than an airborne one". It's a little weird at first if you didn't know it was a mechanic but once you know it's a thing it doesn't ever do anything particularly strange.

Light attacks against undamaged opponents means they barely flinch, heavy attacks against damaged opponents mean they bounce off the ground/into the ground/go flying off at a low angle.

But again, I specifically was not talking about whether it was intuitive or not. I'm talking about how knockback scaling requires tons of rote memorization - if you truly want to understand its full depth you 'have to use every move against every character at every percent in every conceivable position'. You're saying knockback scaling is 'more intuitive' enough to justify that? I'm curious if you actually think rote memorization is bad or not because that was the paragraph I was responding to. If you actually just think CC is unintuitive then stick to that.

 

[teluoborg]

Breaking news : hitstun was still in Brawl, peasants were just canceling it.

Later today : L cancel canceling and wavedash canceling discovered ! The hope for smash 4 is not lost !


More delusions and meaningless terms at 7am PST.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Please explain why some bits of arbitrary data memorization are worse than others.
And please explain how knowing specific percents at which you can break CCing qualifies as understanding the game rather than getting good at it. Understanding the game Is knowing what allows CCs and why they happen at different percents. Getting good is applying that knowledge to your practice in the form of learning when your moves are safe from CC.

Also I want to add that I am not defending the mechanic as-is, I am only asking for a basis for disliking THIS mechanic in particular but not the results of other mechanics that ask similar things of the player.

 

[gnosis]

You can also get a decent enough grasp on dealing with and against CC just by playing, same as when to shield and when to roll and how far people are going to fly from a clean hit so you know to combo or just take positional advantage and so on. Again, because there's no weirdness in how it acts once you know it's something that can occur.

You can look into specific percents for each character if you want to be really high level, but plenty of smashers get by just fine in their playgroups with only that simple outline I laid out above.

In other words I think it fits just fine as something that's easy to learn but hard to master.

edit: I wanna bring up knockback scaling again because it seems very similar. "Hey I hit this guy with a really strong move and he went flying, then later I did it again and he barely went anywhere, wtf?" "Oh yea moves send people farther the more damaged they are and the lighter they are". After you accept that premise, the rest follows naturally. CC's simple premise of "grounded characters can hold down to get heavier and, since they're holding down, they DI down", accept it and the rest follows naturally.

 

[shapular]

Crouch canceling is basically just adding weight to your character (weight being something that reduces knockback and hitstun, it's not literally the same thing just functionally).

How does "crouching adds weight" make sense? Where is the extra weight supposed to come from?

 

[Bleck]

But again, I specifically was not talking about whether it was intuitive or not.

That's weird, 'cause that's all I'm talking about.

I'm talking about how knockback scaling requires tons of rote memorization - if you truly want to understand its full depth you 'have to use every move against every character at every percent in every conceivable position'. You're saying knockback scaling is 'more intuitive' enough to justify that?

Yes, because it's something that you can learn/experiment with while playing with little to no downside, whereas crouch canceling is either a) go into training mode for hours with two controllers ready or b) crouch cancel in all your matches against every move instead of shielding or dodging and note what happens until you've got it all down by heart. Neither of these options are particularly fun.

I'm curious if you actually think rote memorization is bad or not because that was the paragraph I was responding to. If you actually just think CC is unintuitive then stick to that.

Rote memorization of a thing can be softened if that thing is intuitive.

Please explain why some bits of arbitrary data memorization are worse than others.

I did.

And please explain how knowing specific percents at which you can break CCing qualifies as understanding the game rather than getting good at it.

You misunderstand - I'm arguing that depth should not be at the expense of the game being intuitive. Crouch canceling, to me, is an example of a thing that gives the game more depth, but at the expense of Smash' greatest asset as a fighting game (that it's easy to understand).

Also I want to add that I am not defending the mechanic as-is, I am only asking for a basis for disliking THIS mechanic in particular but not the results of other mechanics that ask similar things of the player.

Note that when I say Smash, I say as a series of games - I'm not necessarily implying that any of the previous games were entirely intuitive (Melee especially). I'm only talking about this mechanic in particular because it's the thread topic.

 

[shapular]

You can also get a decent enough grasp on dealing with and against CC just by playing, same as when to shield and when to roll and how far people are going to fly from a clean hit so you know to combo or just take positional advantage and so on. Again, because there's no weirdness in how it acts once you know it's something that can occur.

Even if it's not "weird", that doesn't make it okay. Suppose every time you hit Samus you bounced three feet away. You'd always know it was coming, and it adds "depth" because it's a new kind of matchup, but it's still a ridiculous mechanic.

 

[gnosis]

It doesn't make sense. Neither does double jumping. The premises of a game don't have to make sense, if they're easy to grasp and their implications follow naturally.

edit: I'm not going to respond to every 'weird' mechanic you come up with. I think it's a 'weird' mechanic that more damaged characters fly farther from the same exact hit, that doesn't make any sort of sense with regards to physics. But it's simple and makes the game better so I'm okay with it.

edit2: If you really want a silly explanation, like something someone would spin for why double jumping makes some amount of sense, crouching 'stabilizes' you, allowing you to better absorb the blow and reduce the chances it knocks you off your feet.

 

[DrinkingFood]

I can admit this much, even though I do not think the game would be better off if CCing were altogether removed or even changed in this particular game, the mechanic could still be implemented better. For consistency's sake I'd rather it didn't change In PM, but if I had to learn a new game or relearn smash, I'd rather the mechanic existed In an improved state.

The effects of it could be scaling. Rather than a flat 4, 5, or 6, frame landing lag depending on the receiving character's empty landing IASA, it would work better as a flat reduction to hitstun time upon successful standing landing. Say, 20 frames. If the move applies less knockback than what's needed for the full 20 frames, the character receives no lag and can retaliate instantly. Anymore, they receive the difference, causing a scaling effect in the effectiveness of CCing, up to 11 frames of lag. After 31 frames, it's ineffective of course because 32 frames is the knockback threshold for knockdown. Alternatively, and probably better, is a multiplier reducing hitstun if the defender is not knocked down. It's different from real CCing (2/3 KB while in crouch animation) in that it only applies if you stay grounded on your feet, but has the same ability to be available at any time. It's even got scenario specific draw backs, such as keeping you grounded and available to moves more effective against grounded opponents in situations when you still aren't reducing hitstun enough to punish, meaning it's not always the best idea to ASDI-down CC certain attacks even if it's possible to do so without being knocked down. It's still not entirely intuitive nor is it perfect, but it's much better than a binary system.

 

[Bleck]

Isn't that how it works in Brawl? Or at least, something similar to that?

 

[DrinkingFood]

.
You misunderstand - I'm arguing that depth should not be at the expense of the game being intuitive. Crouch canceling, to me, is an example of a thing that gives the game more depth, but at the expense of Smash' greatest asset as a fighting game (that it's easy to understand).

But CCing isn't hard to understand, and doesn't sacrifice that aspect of smash as a fighting game even partially. The mechanic itself is simple; the details what it affects how and when are not, but that does not increase the complexity of the mechanic. Suggesting that it is unintuitive is true, but suggesting that it thus does not fit in smash because of that is to misrepresent all the other things in smash that are not Intuitive at all.

 

[gnosis]

I think Brawl only reduces the defender's hitlag, no other effect.

I've played this game 8 years and didn't know the specifics of the ASDI-down part of crouch canceling in Melee until just now (the frame data drinking just posted), but I've never felt confused by how it's working. I'm still not convinced it's all that unintuitive (again, once you accept the premise). But I also said from the beginning I think it could be improved.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Isn't that how it works in Brawl? Or at least, something similar to that?

It's different from real CCing (2/3 KB while in crouch animation) in that it only applies if you stay grounded on your feet, but has the same ability to be available at any time. It's even got scenario specific draw backs, such as keeping you grounded and available to moves more effective against grounded opponents in situations when you still aren't reducing hitstun enough to punish, meaning it's not always the best idea to ASDI-down CC certain attacks even if it's possible to do so without being knocked down.

"Real CCing" is what brawl has. Melee and PM have it too. Nvm PM and Meleee have what I described is "real" or "true" CCing . Brawll just reduces hitlag. What I suggested does not exist in smash, or rather it does, as pseudo-CCing (ASDI down; what we are currently discussing) in PM/Melee, but not in a scaled fashion. As-is, it's binary, either 4 (or 5/6 depending on character) frames of lag, or the CC fails because of excessive knockback or low knockback angle.

 

[gnosis]

Crouch cancelling acts considerably more different than it does in the two previous games. Instead of lowering knockback, crouch cancelling instead reduces the amount of freeze frames suffered by the user by 33%; the attacker's freeze frames are unaffected

That's smashwiki though and I don't know how accurate it is.

 

[DrinkingFood]

See brawl is dumb
How is that anything short of useless in a game where you can't follow up anyways?

 

[gnosis]

Well it does mean you enter hitstun sooner and thus exit it sooner (I assume). So the wiki gives an example of CC'ing Falco's jab so you can powershield the second jab and usmash him. I dunno why you wouldn't just powershield the first jab and do that though? I don't play Brawl.