Why isn't auto L Canceling an option?

[LancerStaff]

Not even sure why Sakurai added it to begin with... I honestly doubt he intended us to use it as much as we do.

That's really neither here nor there. This is PM. Me, I'd make a petition for it to be made automatic and take it to the biggest PM tournament I can find. But I'm not really interested in PM either way.

 

[TTTTTsd]

The idea of auto L-cancelling is to me, not bad at all!

It would definitely mess with my muscle memory for a bit, and it would change up how I practiced, I'm not a large advocate for it but I'm far from against the idea. It would help a lot of players focus on what their character is doing before having to press buttons at a high rate, I think. It's hard to really word this but I think if it WAS integrated it would be really good for certain players and do literally nothing to the top ones. Would let me focus on other things like my movement and it would help centralize the L and R buttons as wavedash/airdodge buttons only, and would probably make execution across the board a lot more consistent from both low to high level play. Of course it's important to note how it would affect certain characters (i.e. too easy to play for reward, etc.) but that's kind of stuff you iron out as you go when introducing stuff like this.

I guess it's a matter of opinion but I'd be pretty okay with it if they decided to go this route.

 

[Foo]

On the topic of optional auto L-canceling, I am strongly against it. I feel that it either has to be one or the other. If new players aren't forced to L-cancel but L-canceling is still tourney standard, then the amount of flow of new tournament players will halt. If I wasn't forced to learn L-canceling, I never would have started entering tournaments. (unless, of course, you didn't have to L-cancel at tourney's either).

Auto L-cancel as an option could be valid outside competitive play. But begging for putting it as standard is like eliminating bouncing the ball in basket. It's something that requires you to be concentrated, to be inside the game. If you fail, you are going to be punished. Coordination can be a good skill floor.

From a post I made in response to this same faulty point that was made earlier

Yes, the core mechanic behind which basically all strategy in basketball is based around is totally comparable to being forced to hit an extra button that isn't needed because reasons. Can you imagine how ******** basketball would be without dribbling? You could just tuck it and walk calmly up to the hoop and boom. Nothing they could do without fouling you. Now, let's imagine competitive smash without L-canceling. Now that would be absolutely ridi- wait, no it would be exactly the same. Yep, nothing different.

If in basketball, players had to wink every time the ball hit the ground while dribbling, that'd be comparable. Something comparable to taking out dribbling in basketball would be taking out aerials from smash altogether.

Mechanical skill is important, but it shouldn't just be arbitrarily put there for no reason. There should be depth behind it.

Challenge for everyone here:

Find a replacement for L-cancelling that maintains the speedy flow of this game. Auto-L-cancelling will lead to lame play, so find a way to replace it that doesn't cause lame play.

Because even though Brawl/SmashU's slowness and Melee/PM's speed are opposites, they both lead to the same outcome if they're mastered. It's just happens that it takes longer to master Melee and PM and therefore it's much more rewarding and satisfying.

The flow would be exactly the same... I play every game as if I am going to hit every L-cancel because... well, I do. I almost never miss them (unless I am edge canceling an aerial or I don't need to). I'm not even that good, so there's no way that top level melee and PM players struggle with L-canceling lmao.

 

[QuickRat]

So, bouncing in basketball should be removed basing on your statements?

 

[GP&B]

For like the fiftieth time in this thread alone, the dribbling analogy doesn't work.

 

[Bleck]

So, bouncing in basketball should be removed basing on your statements?

please read the thread

 

[QuickRat]

please read the thread

I did, and I don't why there's people that say somthing is indefensible and arbitrary without giving much more arguments than "it's indefensible" and "its arbitrary".

I believe this technique is actually useful, I just put an example to understand something could look stupid and arbitrary but become the base of a sport. Hopefully, PMDT would eventually introduce auto L-cancel as an option outside tourneys... but eliminating L-cancel would be an error.

 

[Bleck]

I did

I don't believe you

 

[Ningildo]

It seems I can't wait for the next thread after all...

Cause it's tech that does nothing but add difficulty when other tech that are harder to get the hang of and infinitely harder to master (due the options they give you. The options that L-cancelling doesn't have) exist. This was and still hasn't been addressed.

It separates scrubs and good players? So does the ****ton of other tech present in the game (and those give you options and mix ups, unlike L-cancelling). Missed L-cancels providing an opening for a punish? Name an example at top level play.

Most arguments pro manual has mentioned are either those above this paragraph or are those along the lines of "get gud". The only one who had a decent point with saying that L-cancelling has a purpose in aiding the tech mastery goal in the PM goals was KeyofTruth (IMO) and even then, he said that it does absolutely nothing else besides that.

It's fine to disagree, but saying that all the other side has been doing is saying that L-cancelling is arbitrary and defenseless with no argument behind their claims just shows you haven't read the thread, although to be fair, above reasoning is all mine and I have no clue if others agree with it (I have said this before in this thread tho)

One faulty statement that does absolutely nothing and is really not a comparison that should be made deserves another, IMO. If L-cancelling wasn't in Melee, would it be here?

 

[GP&B]

I just put an example to understand something could look stupid and arbitrary but become the base of a sport.

Except this has been debunked for the numerous times it's been brought up. You know, like I said in my previous post that you ignored.

 

[platologic]

But begging for putting it as standard is like eliminating bouncing the ball in basket. It's something that requires you to be concentrated, to be inside the game. If you fail, you are going to be punished. Coordination can be a good skill floor.

To adapt Godwin's Law, "As an L-canceling discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving basketball or dribbling approaches 1."

L-canceling is not like dribbling. There is no mechanic in basketball that is analogous to L-canceling. I'm convinced that anyone making this comparison doesn't understand how dribbling works as a mechanic. Here's some reading for you.

Basketball is a limited-contact sport. Allowing players to move while holding the ball would encourage players to make physical contact in order to gain possession (a willful violation of rules) and/or lead to degenerate play because there would be few reasons to risk letting go of the ball. That's a bad idea and a bad mechanic, so we won't allow it.

Let's say we have a simplified version of basketball with no dribbling. When you have the ball, you can either pass or shoot. Your teammates can run around evading opponents and trying to get better positions. The defender has the advantage of knowing that a player with the ball can't move and has limited options, but the player with the ball can mixup with fake shots or fake passes. Sounds fine in theory, but in practice the defender has too much advantage. If you're defending a player outside of the 3-point line, you can assume they will pass and ignore any attempt at shots because they're probably not going to make it. If you're defending close to the basket, you can assume they will shoot because it's so hard to get that close within the shot clock timer. Depth only exists in the mid-range where players could pass or shoot 50/50.

We need a way to balance out the defender's advantage. The simplest solution would be to let players move around so the defense can't optimize on the offense's options. But as shown above, we can't let players move while holding the ball. The solution? Let players move without holding the ball. And thus, we have dribbling.

Now that we've added the dribbling mechanic, let's look at how it affects the game. At any time, a player can either pass, shoot, or dribble (excluding the double-dribble). Outside the 3-point line, defenders have to deal with both passing and dribbling at 50/50. Closer to the basket, the offense can escape pressure more easily (but not much more easily, it's tough to dribble when it's crowded). I don't play basketball anymore, but I'd say there's a slight advantage to the offense without being degenerate.

Dribbling in itself allows for several variations. You can alter the height at which you dribble, you can alter the timing, you can crossover to change sides. You can "spend" your dribble to gain an extra step by dribbling once at low height then catching the ball with both hands to prevent interception. You have to know how far ahead to bounce the ball in order to dribble while running. You can dribble while backing into a defender to advance without giving them a chance to steal. You can dribble into a bounce pass to give defenders less time to react. But every time a player dribbles, they have a chance to mess up and a good defender will capitalize on that mistake. This rarely happens in the NBA (and even in the NCAA), but is much more common in high school or youth club basketball.

(This is the bit where people draw the comparison with L-canceling. As you can see, you have to remove a lot of context to make the comparison work.)

New plays and strategies emerge with dribbling. A defender who is quick enough to steal the ball can make a mad dash for the opponent's basket, but only if he's good at dribbling while running fast. A player who notices a move to steal can either pick up the ball to prevent the turnover and lose the ability to move, or they can risk a crossover dribble to the other side and take advantage of the defensive whiff. A defender can be evaded by teammates setting up a standing screen while another player dribbles around them (the "pick and roll"). There's strategy in deciding when to stop dribbling. If a player stops dribbling in a bad location, the defense has a good chance of taking possession, but a player can still receive a pass in that same location and be safe since they can dribble out of it. In short, a player's ability to gain an advantage is dependent on both their ability to dribble consistently and their knowledge on when to use/not use it.

^ This is depth. Read it over and over again until you get it. Complexity is added with the addition of rules. Depth is achieved when the addition of rules or mechanics leads to multiple, non-optimal, non-degenerate game states (more or less, I'm paraphrasing here). The higher the depth-complexity ratio, the better (that is, the most depth with the least complexity).

You can't remove dribbling from basketball without ripping out half the game. You can remove L-canceling with minimal impact on Project M.

Fun fact: Dribbling was never specified in the original rules of basketball. The game was played for 6 years without it before Yale "invented" the technique. For various reasons there were movements to ban dribbling, but players and coaches defended it and it stuck. Honestly, dribbling is more like wavedashing than L-canceling.

 

[GP&B]

I was actually going to elaborate on the dribbling point instead of just being dismissive (was in the middle of a test), but uh

wow

Nothing I could possibly add to that.

 

[Bleck]

^ ^ excellent post, kudos to platologic

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Cause it's tech that does nothing but add difficulty when other tech that are harder to get the hang of and infinitely harder to master (due the options they give you. The options that L-cancelling doesn't have) exist. This was and still hasn't been addressed.

This actually has been brought up more than once in this thread if I'm correct, but even so, why exactly should we compare L-Cancelling to other techniques present in Project M? If anyone's kept up with this thread it's already been established without a doubt that L-Cancelling offers nothing to add to the mental depth of the game, so there's no reason to further compare L-Cancel in this way.

It separates scrubs and good players? So does the ****ton of other tech present in the game (and those give you options and mix ups, unlike L-cancelling). Missed L-cancels providing an opening for a punish? Name an example at top level play.

As I've previously stated, L-Cancelling does not widen the division between "scrubs" and good players. L-Cancelling aids in separating two equally intelligent players by forcing them to hone their technical prowess and can very well distinguish the winner of a match. However one cannot really justify L-Cancelling alone; it is one of many different factors that currently make up the technical aspect of Project M.

Additionally, L-Cancelling isn't alone. I made a previous comparison with L-Cancelling and PowerShielding and to my interpretation nobody has proved my points invalid. The choice between Powershielding or regular shielding in a circumstance where shielding is inevitable or opportune, is much like, if not nearly identical to the analysis that's been made for L-Cancelling. In both situations the input is arbitrary and offers no mental depth value, however it remains to challenge the players' reaction speed or muscle memory as does all (well designed) technical inputs. For all those pro auto L-Cancel, does this mean PowerShielding should become automatic as well? This is the basis of your argument for making L-Cancelling automatic after all.

The only one who had a decent point with saying that L-cancelling has a purpose in aiding the tech mastery goal in the PM goals was KeyofTruth (IMO) and even then, he said that it does absolutely nothing else besides that.

Thanks Ningildo, I try my best to clearly explain and argue with logic instead of just shoving my opinions down people's throats.

 

[xquqx]

I'm not that great at this game and don't post very often here, but I'll take a crack at discrediting the power shield analogy.

L-canceling is all on you. You do the aerial, you do the L-cancel. So obviously you always want to do it, and with practice you can, no problem. Power shielding isn't all on you. You can shield, but it's the opponent who chooses when to attack. So while you do always want to power shield, it's not a matter of pure muscle memory. Your opponent can mix up the timings or even fake you out and not attack. If you shield too early, you get grabbed, and if you shield too late, you get hit. It's a mechanic that's a reward for good reads and opens up mind game potential, unlike L-canceling. The player interaction behind it is what makes it not just superfluous tech skill.

 

[GP&B]

There's been plenty of valid counterarguments against PS-ing as is earlier in this thread though the contribution is appreciated. Your post more concisely sums up the point I made pages back about it. That's also without mentioning that PS-ing is ultimately a more optimal version of a still viable defensive option: regular shielding.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

L-canceling is all on you. You do the aerial, you do the L-cancel. So obviously you always want to do it, and with practice you can, no problem.

This goes for both L-Cancelling and Powershielding, there is never a case you would ever want to regular shield instead of Powershield.

You can shield, but it's the opponent who chooses when to attack. So while you do always want to power shield, it's not a matter of pure muscle memory. Your opponent can mix up the timings or even fake you out and not attack. If you shield too early, you get grabbed, and if you shield too late, you get hit.

How does this entire statement apply to Powershielding individually? Shielding as an option is a different story, however I claimed that the addition of Powershielding on top of regular shielding does not add any more mental depth and is just as arbitrary of an input as L-Cancelling. The only difference is that the prerequisite action is different in both situations. L-Cancelling is self dependent on when you commit to an aerial attack and Powershielding is dependent on your opponents actions. In either case though, once these requirements are met both are equally arbitrary in the sense of always being an optimal decision. Yes there is mental play involved in reading and predicting your opponents to evaluate the necessity to shield, however this doesn't change the mental value of Powershielding specifically. Since Powershielding is always optimal just as L-Cancelling always is, it is still sound to state that if one were to be made automatic the other should be made so as well.

I'm not criticizing Powershielding, I'm simply using it as example in a comparison to further explain my point of view and how contradicting and unsubstantial the reasoning is to make L-Cancelling automatic in a game modification designed to enhance its competitive scene.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Difference is though one option clearly needs you to interact with an opponent where as another does not require it.

 

[GP&B]

To add onto what Ryu said, you can condition yourself for every kind of scenario that could vary up your L-canceling timing as the variance is fairly low and is only partially influenced by player interaction. This is because you're not trying to react when you L-cancel, but rather know when you're going to land. This is the reason why L-canceling becomes less of an interference from mid level play and upwards. PS application is purely reactionary as your opponent dictates when you need to take up a defensive and thus, make a decision on whether you're going shield let alone powershield. That and PS-ing is a 2 frame window so that kind of makes a huge difference.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Difference is though one option clearly needs you to interact with an opponent where as another does not require it.

Yes I clearly mentioned this right here:

This goes for both L-Cancelling and Powershielding, there is never a case you would ever want to regular shield instead of Powershield.



The only difference is that the prerequisite action is different in both situations. L-Cancelling is self dependent on when you commit to an aerial attack and Powershielding is dependent on your opponents actions. In either case though, once these requirements are met both are equally arbitrary in the sense of always being an optimal decision.

This difference in my comparison is irrelevant according to the logic used to deem L-Cancelling arbitrary and therefore should become automatic.

I will try to make my explanation more clear.

Shielding in general and of itself is a core mechanic to the game and is a huge and versatile choice. Shielding as an option is heavily reliant on your opponents actions and your ability to analyze these actions. Shielding is a reaction dependent on your opponent. However, Powershielding is NOT. Powershielding is in fact a self dependent reaction just as L-Cancelling is because it is dependent on when you shield. Deciding when to shield and deciding when to Powershield are two completely different decisions. There are instances where you may not want to shield, when it is undesirable, however this is not the case for Powershielding. When you decide to shield, there is never a case you do not want to Powershield. The limitation? Powershielding demands a higher reaction speed and a more specific timing. It's not so much an arbitrary input since it shares the same button, it's rather an arbitrary timing. My comparison still holds up though, both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are never undesirable. It can also be argued that both unnecessarily raise the difficulty of controls without adding any mental depth.

If you think L-Cancelling should be automatic ask yourself, should Powershielding be made automatic too?

 

[Bleck]

My comparison still holds up though, both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are never undesirable. It can also be argued that both unnecessarily raise the difficulty of controls without adding any mental depth.

being able to powershield consistently involves being able to predict your opponents attacks correctly and reacting to them with the right timing

l-canceling doesn't involve any prediction; you just do the thing

the comparison doesn't hold up

 

[KeyOfTruth]

being able to powershield consistently involves being able to predict your opponents attacks correctly and reacting to them with the right timing

l-canceling doesn't involve any prediction; you just do the thing

the comparison doesn't hold up

On the contrary, it does hold up. As far as my memory goes, anyone and pretty much everyone on this thread that has tried to convince or prove that making L-Cancelling automatic would benefit Project M has accused L-Cancelling as being an arbitrary input that's only purpose is to raise the skill floor because it adds no mental depth to the game. Using this same logic, I can accuse Powershielding in an identical manner, thus rendering this reasoning ineffective. Unless of course these same people agree that auto Powershielding should exist as well and just remove all timing aspects of the shield. Doing so wouldn't hurt the mental depth of shielding whatsoever, you still predict your opponent and evaluate when shielding is necessary, the execution is just simplified.

My point being there is a reason for these techniques, even if they are small, insignificant, easy to execute, arbitrary, and don't add any mental depth. These techniques define the way you can play Project M, they determine the boundary and set the limits of what is executable and how consistently. Project M isn't just a thinking match between two players, it's a game of honing one's own ability to control and understand the game itself.

 

[QuickRat]

To adapt Godwin's Law, "As an L-canceling discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving basketball or dribbling approaches 1."

L-canceling is not like dribbling. There is no mechanic in basketball that is analogous to L-canceling. I'm convinced that anyone making this comparison doesn't understand how dribbling works as a mechanic. Here's some reading for you.

Basketball is a limited-contact sport. Allowing players to move while holding the ball would encourage players to make physical contact in order to gain possession (a willful violation of rules) and/or lead to degenerate play because there would be few reasons to risk letting go of the ball. That's a bad idea and a bad mechanic, so we won't allow it.

Let's say we have a simplified version of basketball with no dribbling. When you have the ball, you can either pass or shoot. Your teammates can run around evading opponents and trying to get better positions. The defender has the advantage of knowing that a player with the ball can't move and has limited options, but the player with the ball can mixup with fake shots or fake passes. Sounds fine in theory, but in practice the defender has too much advantage. If you're defending a player outside of the 3-point line, you can assume they will pass and ignore any attempt at shots because they're probably not going to make it. If you're defending close to the basket, you can assume they will shoot because it's so hard to get that close within the shot clock timer. Depth only exists in the mid-range where players could pass or shoot 50/50.

We need a way to balance out the defender's advantage. The simplest solution would be to let players move around so the defense can't optimize on the offense's options. But as shown above, we can't let players move while holding the ball. The solution? Let players move without holding the ball. And thus, we have dribbling.

Now that we've added the dribbling mechanic, let's look at how it affects the game. At any time, a player can either pass, shoot, or dribble (excluding the double-dribble). Outside the 3-point line, defenders have to deal with both passing and dribbling at 50/50. Closer to the basket, the offense can escape pressure more easily (but not much more easily, it's tough to dribble when it's crowded). I don't play basketball anymore, but I'd say there's a slight advantage to the offense without being degenerate.

Dribbling in itself allows for several variations. You can alter the height at which you dribble, you can alter the timing, you can crossover to change sides. You can "spend" your dribble to gain an extra step by dribbling once at low height then catching the ball with both hands to prevent interception. You have to know how far ahead to bounce the ball in order to dribble while running. You can dribble while backing into a defender to advance without giving them a chance to steal. You can dribble into a bounce pass to give defenders less time to react. But every time a player dribbles, they have a chance to mess up and a good defender will capitalize on that mistake. This rarely happens in the NBA (and even in the NCAA), but is much more common in high school or youth club basketball.

(This is the bit where people draw the comparison with L-canceling. As you can see, you have to remove a lot of context to make the comparison work.)

New plays and strategies emerge with dribbling. A defender who is quick enough to steal the ball can make a mad dash for the opponent's basket, but only if he's good at dribbling while running fast. A player who notices a move to steal can either pick up the ball to prevent the turnover and lose the ability to move, or they can risk a crossover dribble to the other side and take advantage of the defensive whiff. A defender can be evaded by teammates setting up a standing screen while another player dribbles around them (the "pick and roll"). There's strategy in deciding when to stop dribbling. If a player stops dribbling in a bad location, the defense has a good chance of taking possession, but a player can still receive a pass in that same location and be safe since they can dribble out of it. In short, a player's ability to gain an advantage is dependent on both their ability to dribble consistently and their knowledge on when to use/not use it.

^ This is depth. Read it over and over again until you get it. Complexity is added with the addition of rules. Depth is achieved when the addition of rules or mechanics leads to multiple, non-optimal, non-degenerate game states (more or less, I'm paraphrasing here). The higher the depth-complexity ratio, the better (that is, the most depth with the least complexity).

You can't remove dribbling from basketball without ripping out half the game. You can remove L-canceling with minimal impact on Project M.

Fun fact: Dribbling was never specified in the original rules of basketball. The game was played for 6 years without it before Yale "invented" the technique. For various reasons there were movements to ban dribbling, but players and coaches defended it and it stuck. Honestly, dribbling is more like wavedashing than L-canceling.

While I can understand everything you said, let me explain I didn't try to make an absolute comparison, just a simple analogy, an example.

Anyways, producing auto-LC would simplify too much the playgame. Yes, you are reducing skill floor, but you would make IC desyncs and SHFFL not to work as it had to.

While it could be arbitrary, I think eliminating it would simplify too much some other segments of PM's metagame. So I do not find a good reason in this debate. As an option? Of course! As the standard? Do not see it...

Sorry for dribbling comparison by the way, it tried to be jusr an example, but thanks for answering with a comprehensive, well explained post.

 

[Wave Dan Landon]

I think auto-L-cancelling would be an ideal option

show players of other games just how much faster the melee engine can go.

You can show off the thrilling experience of swift and fluid movement

no need for the "enjoyment barrier" to be overcome by grinding out the landing timings.

This game become far more interesting and rewarding when you have a basic amount of technical skill to consistently L-cancel

Like buffer, it would absolutely never be allowed in a tournament match and should be discouraged at all times in serious training.

If I'm playing against my less than exceptional friends it would certainly make things more interesting for both of us.

They're not serious about the game (for now) and not-L-canceling is already a bad habit they have, so no harm done in my book

I can L-cancel consistently, and even if the game is doing it for me I'm going to instinctively input shield anyways, so I won't notice a difference either.

 

[Foo]

Shielding in general and of itself is a core mechanic to the game and is a huge and versatile choice. Shielding as an option is heavily reliant on your opponents actions and your ability to analyze these actions. Shielding is a reaction dependent on your opponent. However, Powershielding is NOT. Powershielding is in fact a self dependent reaction just as L-Cancelling is because it is dependent on when you shield. Deciding when to shield and deciding when to Powershield are two completely different decisions. There are instances where you may not want to shield, when it is undesirable, however this is not the case for Powershielding. When you decide to shield, there is never a case you do not want to Powershield. The limitation? Powershielding demands a higher reaction speed and a more specific timing. It's not so much an arbitrary input since it shares the same button, it's rather an arbitrary timing. My comparison still holds up though, both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are never undesirable. It can also be argued that both unnecessarily raise the difficulty of controls without adding any mental depth.

If you think L-Cancelling should be automatic ask yourself, should Powershielding be made automatic too?

That doesn't work because shielding in and of itself is almost always a guess in a fast pace game. You predict that you are going to get hit, and then preemptively try to block it. However, if you feel that you know exactly when you are going to get hit, you can delay your shield and risk getting hit by a fast move in order to get a punish on their hit. As for projectiles, there are many projectiles that are used for shield pressure rather than just camping such as falco laser, mario fireball, diddy banana, turnips, gyro, bombs, bacon, etc. Also, there is a small amount of depth between the two types of power shields. If mario is attacking you with a b reverse fireball approach, if you powershield (reflected) it, he would get knocked back a bit and take some damage, where as if you did the other type of powershield, you might be able to dsmash him or something. It's also worth noting that, while everyone who is good can L-cancel with almost perfect consistency and all the aerials are built around it. However, it's rare to even see someone powershield (reflecting) projectiles even fifty % of the time in a single game, and projectiles are not built around being reflected every time, so making powershield auto would make projectiles basically unusable, so it would need to be removed if anything, and we don't need to do anything to make camping a better strategy.

 

[robosteven]

On the topic of optional auto L-canceling, I am strongly against it. I feel that it either has to be one or the other. If new players aren't forced to L-cancel but L-canceling is still tourney standard, then the amount of flow of new tournament players will halt. If I wasn't forced to learn L-canceling, I never would have started entering tournaments. (unless, of course, you didn't have to L-cancel at tourney's either).

I'd just like to remind you about the buffer assist option. :B

 

[KeyOfTruth]

That doesn't work because shielding in and of itself is almost always a guess in a fast pace game. You predict that you are going to get hit, and then preemptively try to block it. However, if you feel that you know exactly when you are going to get hit, you can delay your shield and risk getting hit by a fast move in order to get a punish on their hit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to argue that Powershielding is different from L-Cancelling because it has a risk vs. reward scenario? Since Powershielding relies on a prerequisite decision of shielding in the first place? Well this is true, but it doesn't differentiate itself from L-Cancelling in this way. L-Cancelling's prerequisite decision is just as risky; you are most likely approaching an opponent or pressuring their shield, so committing to an aerial attack can be just as risky as trying to properly time your shield in response to your opponent. The difference that certainly comes between the two are the difficulty of execution, it is obvious that Powershielding is much more difficult to execute successfully than L-Cancelling. Predicting or reading your opponent is not what sets Powershielding's difficulty above L-Cancelling however; the greater difficulty lies in it's more precise timing. If you already know an opponent is going to throw a projectile at you, then it's no longer a matter of if, but when you need to shield. Making Powersheilding automatic would not change the "if" part of the statement above, but rather only the "when" part. This is exactly what people want with L-Cancelling, so how could they argue against not making Powershielding automatic? Instead of making L-Cancelling automatic they should make the execution of L-Cancelling harder.Even if there are two types of Powershielding as you've explained both are optimal choices over the other depending on the situation. So even with a choice present both types of shielding are arbitrary because there really is no choice; one choice is always desirable over the other and this does not increase mental depth. There is no room for play style diversity either, all good players will use shielding the same and as perfectly as possible.

However, it's rare to even see someone powershield (reflecting) projectiles even fifty % of the time in a single game, and projectiles are not built around being reflected every time, so making powershield auto would make projectiles basically unusable, so it would need to be removed if anything, and we don't need to do anything to make camping a better strategy.

I can't argue with this logic, it would be game-breaking to Project M and that is why I'm using such an extreme example in my comparison. How exactly do we know if aerials were in fact built around being L-Cancelled every time? Maybe when Melee was created that was not the intention at all and players took it to a whole new level? The only reason we do not see consistent Powershielding is because of it's more difficult execution. If the timing was removed from Powershielding a majority of high level players wouldn't have a problem at all Powershielding at the rate of L-Cancelling.

 

[Foo]

I'd just like to remind you about the buffer assist option. :B

I am well aware, but the buffer option doesn't really do that much and it's also a fairly

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to argue that Powershielding is different from L-Cancelling because it has a risk vs. reward scenario? Since Powershielding relies on a prerequisite decision of shielding in the first place? Well this is true, but it doesn't differentiate itself from L-Cancelling in this way. L-Cancelling's prerequisite decision is just as risky; you are most likely approaching an opponent or pressuring their shield, so committing to an aerial attack can be just as risky as trying to properly time your shield in response to your opponent. The difference that certainly comes between the two are the difficulty of execution, it is obvious that Powershielding is much more difficult to execute successfully than L-Cancelling. Predicting or reading your opponent is not what sets Powershielding's difficulty above L-Cancelling however; the greater difficulty lies in it's more precise timing. If you already know an opponent is going to throw a projectile at you, then it's no longer a matter of if, but when you need to shield. Making Powersheilding automatic would not change the "if" part of the statement above, but rather only the "when" part. This is exactly what people want with L-Cancelling, so how could they argue against not making Powershielding automatic? Instead of making L-Cancelling automatic they should make the execution of L-Cancelling harder.Even if there are two types of Powershielding as you've explained both are optimal choices over the other depending on the situation. So even with a choice present both types of shielding are arbitrary because there really is no choice; one choice is always desirable over the other and this does not increase mental depth. There is no room for play style diversity either, all good players will use shielding the same and as perfectly as possible.

.

L canceling has no risk reward. If it did, you would be penalized for missing it more so than just not doing it at all. With shielding, you can either take the safe normal shield that will probably put you at a slight disadvantage, or you can risk getting hit and try to delay your shield to match what you think the enemy is about to hit you with. That means there are 3 outcomes

1. You take the normal shield
2. You successfully predict your opponents next move and successfully time a powershield and get a hard punish
3. You guessed wrong and either shielded early (see 1) or didn't shield in time and got hit.

The risk reward is built upon prediction and skill creating an organic mechanic, rather than an arbitrary button press. Commiting to an aerial is just as risky, but that's why aerial moves have depth, that is independent of L-canceling entirely.

"So even with a choice present both types of shielding are arbitrary because there really is no choice; one choice is always desirable over the other and this does not increase mental depth."

While this part is technicall true, this is assuming inhuman levels of reaction. If people had instant reaction and processing/decision making time, then the entire fighting game genre would be artificial difficulty.

I can't argue with this logic, it would be game-breaking to Project M and that is why I'm using such an extreme example in my comparison. How exactly do we know if aerials were in fact built around being L-Cancelled every time? Maybe when Melee was created that was not the intention at all and players took it to a whole new level? The only reason we do not see consistent Powershielding is because of it's more difficult execution. If the timing was removed from Powershielding a majority of high level players wouldn't have a problem at all Powershielding at the rate of L-Cancelling.

This isn't melee, friend, this is PM. A very large portion of the cast was re-balanced from brawl and melee with new and tweaked moves (yes, landing lag included). Melee wasn't really designed around people playing the game well at all. It was designed to be a party game. Happy accidents and what not.

Powershielding projectiles when you have had plenty of time to react to said projectile is technically arbitrary but here's the problem. How is the game going to decide whether a player had time to react to that projectile or not? We can't remove a good and deep mechanic just because there are cases where it doesn't have depth. Should we also remove wavedash catching items because I don't always use it when I predict a diddy is gonna throw it oos?

 

[robosteven]

You say that buffer doesn't do much, but I'm like 99% sure I've airdodged offstage because of my garbo-tier timing. lol

Auto l-cancelling as an option would make the game faster automatically. Faster Smash is half the reason I prefer Melee and PM over Sm4sh, and even that has the smooth lander badge.

 

[Foo]

You say that buffer doesn't do much, but I'm like 99% sure I've airdodged offstage because of my garbo-tier timing. lol

Auto l-cancelling as an option would make the game faster automatically. Faster Smash is half the reason I prefer Melee and PM over Sm4sh, and even that has the smooth lander badge.

Oh, whoops, was making a post in response to you a while ago but didn't finish it and didn't notice it saved. Here's a more complete thought.

I am well aware, but the buffer option doesn't really do that much and it's also a fairly unspecific thing. It means you can be a little sloppier with some of your inputs at the price of speed. Also, in my experience, that buffer makes the game harder lol. I tried turning it on when I was still terrible and it just made things harder. But anyway, having double landing lags on your aerials is a much bigger deal, and it's also a very specific thing you have to learn (or wouldn't have to, were it an option). I can't really speak for how much the buffer actually changes though, since I never really used it. However, I've never heard of anyone using it either, so I assume it isn't popular. I know for a fact that if everyone at my school knew that there was an option for auto L-canceling, they'd demand I'd turn it on lol.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

L canceling has no risk reward. If it did, you would be penalized for missing it more so than just not doing it at all.

You can and most certainly will be punished for missing an L-Cancel. Missing an L-Cancel can very well mean the following:

1. Unsafe shield pressure.
2. Dropped combo.
3. Lost momentum/neutral game.

Also the L-Cancel is vital particularly when it comes to the integrity of the SHFL technique. Making L-Cancelling automatic around the table for all characters would simplify SHFL complexity and change the limitations and boundaries of what is executable in Project M and how consistently, as I mentioned previously.

The risk reward is built upon prediction and skill creating an organic mechanic, rather than an arbitrary button press. Commiting to an aerial is just as risky, but that's why aerial moves have depth, that is independent of L-canceling entirely.

The risk reward is built upon prediction? Certainly not in this case. The only reason Powershielding is riskier than L-Cancelling is because it's execution requirements are more difficult, NOT because you have to predict your opponent. If the timing for Powershielding was changed to say the first 10 frames of shield, the difference would bring out how obviously arbitrary the decision to Powershield really is. There is no reason not to Powershield vs regular shield, just because there is an inferior choice that's easier to execute does not justify this. Both L-Cancel and Powershielding are the same in this regard.

If L-Cancelling is completely independent of aerial attack depth, then the same can certainly be said about Powershielding and regular shielding. Committing to shielding is risky, therefore shielding has depth, however that depth is independent from Powershielding.

While this part is technicall true, this is assuming inhuman levels of reaction. If people had instant reaction and processing/decision making time, then the entire fighting game genre would be artificial difficulty.

It was not my intention to make that assumption, I was just theorizing what the difference between Powershielding and L-Cancelling would be if Powershielding were made as easy to execute as L-Cancelling.

Should we also remove wavedash catching items because I don't always use it when I predict a diddy is gonna throw it oos?

I know you were most likely joking with this statement, but this obviously does not follow the same logic. There are plenty of instances where wavedash catching an item is not an optimal decision, considering holding an item can prevent you from using normal A attacks.

 

[Foo]

You can and most certainly will be punished for missing an L-Cancel. Missing an L-Cancel can very well mean the following:

1. Unsafe shield pressure.
2. Dropped combo.
3. Lost momentum/neutral game.

Also the L-Cancel is vital particularly when it comes to the integrity of the SHFL technique. Making L-Cancelling automatic around the table for all characters would simplify SHFL complexity and change the limitations and boundaries of what is executable in Project M and how consistently, as I mentioned previously.



The risk reward is built upon prediction? Certainly not in this case. The only reason Powershielding is riskier than L-Cancelling is because it's execution requirements are more difficult, NOT because you have to predict your opponent. If the timing for Powershielding was changed to say the first 10 frames of shield, the difference would bring out how obviously arbitrary the decision to Powershield really is. There is no reason not to Powershield vs regular shield, just because there is an inferior choice that's easier to execute does not justify this. Both L-Cancel and Powershielding are the same in this regard.

If L-Cancelling is completely independent of aerial attack depth, then the same can certainly be said about Powershielding and regular shielding. Committing to shielding is risky, therefore shielding has depth, however that depth is independent from Powershielding.



It was not my intention to make that assumption, I was just theorizing what the difference between Powershielding and L-Cancelling would be if Powershielding were made as easy to execute as L-Cancelling.



I know you were most likely joking with this statement, but this obviously does not follow the same logic. There are plenty of instances where wavedash catching an item is not an optimal decision, considering holding an item can prevent you from using normal A attacks.

There is no risk to attempting an L-cancel. There is no ifs and or buts about that. If you fail an L-cancel, you are exactly where you would have been had you not tried to L-cancel. If you try to powershield and fail, you get hit rather than just doing a regular shield (unless you shield early).

Prediction just IS a key part of it, there's no way around that. Get a friend to be mario and stand directly in front of you. Tell him to foward smash at random times and try to block it at all. (hint, you won't). Most moves have a very low amount of startup, so you shield because you think you are about to get hit, not because you see that you are about to be hit. That's why grabbing shielding opponents is so effective. If everyone shielded off reaction, this would never be relevant.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

There is no risk to attempting an L-cancel. There is no ifs and or buts about that. If you fail an L-cancel, you are exactly where you would have been had you not tried to L-cancel. If you try to powershield and fail, you get hit rather than just doing a regular shield (unless you shield early).

The risk is involved with the prerequisite conditions that these optimal choices depend on. Both committing to an aerial attack and committing to shielding share their own risks. How well you execute these actions is determined by your technical prowess and whether or not you can follow your mental decisions up properly (L-Cancel or Powershield). Once you've decided to either commit to an aerial attack or shielding there is no longer any prediction or mental decisions going on. If you have already committed yourself to the decision to shield or air attack, the next step involved is purely technical. You either input the L-Cancel or Powershield successfully or you do not. Prediction is not present here, it is strictly based on your own performance. As such, if both L-Cancelling and Powershielding were to be made automatic it would not hurt mental gameplay in any way whatsoever, but in fact create a greater focus on the mental aspects of Project M. This is what many people argued for when persuading others that making L-Cancelling automatic would benefit Project M, so why not automatic Powershielding as well? It is the same situation, is it not?

 

[Bleck]

shielding (and powershielding) are something you do in response to your opponent's actions

l-canceling is not

comparison doesn't matter

 

[KeyOfTruth]

shielding (and powershielding) are something you do in response to your opponent's actions

l-canceling is not

comparison doesn't matter

Oh and I'm sure committing yourself to an aerial attack has absolutely nothing to do with analyzing, reading, predicting, or responding to your opponent? Everyone blindly commits to an aerial attack without any discretion whatsoever. It's not like your trying to stop your opponent's movement or limit their options by SHFLing on their shield. This is only one example of potentially hundreds. If your not predicting your opponent when your closing in on an approach from the air your match isn't going to last long.

Also aerial approaches are an obvious response to projectile spamming opponents.

 

[GP&B]

He's talking explicitly about L-canceling, not aerials.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

He's talking explicitly about L-canceling, not aerials.

Bleck said:

shielding (and powershielding) are something you do in response to your opponent's actions

l-canceling is not

comparison doesn't matter

This is the proper comparison to be making.

shielding (and Powershielding)
VS.
Aerial attacks (and L-Cancelling)


Bleck was pointing out the prerequisite condition for Powershielding (shielding) being a reaction to the opponent and therefore Powershielding too relies on an your reaction to an opponent which makes sense. But then he doesn't make the same comparison with L-Cancelling as shown above. I clearly explained that committing to aerial attacks can indeed and should be a reaction to your opponent in some way if you're a competent player. So Bleck's same statement can be said with L-Cancelling as well. The prerequisite condition for L-Cancelling is committing to an aerial attack, which is still a response to your opponent in some way, thus L-Cancelling relies on your reaction to an opponent just the same as shielding and power shielding.

Comparison does matter.

 

[GP&B]

I'd sooner let Bleck clarify that statement than blatantly reach to achieve the conclusion you want.

And besides, powershielding is not an independent action while L-canceling is.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

And besides, powershielding is not an independent action while L-canceling is.

I think I understand what you mean, but can you elaborate?

 

[GP&B]

You can't shield without inducing the powershield window. You can aerial without inducing L-cancel whether it's by choosing not to, auto-canceling, or letting the move finish before landing. PS-ing and shielding are tied to the same action. L-canceling is not.

Additionally, when and how you choose to attack with an aerial is independent of when you need to L-cancel. You choose to use an aerial based on your opponent's interaction (like shielding). With L-canceling though, you have near-complete control over when you land (hitlag being the only factor in this).