Why isn't auto L Canceling an option?

[GP&B]

input that needs skills to be performed for a rewards had always exits in fighting games and are equally important in game design.

Yet none of your post substantiates this. "Liveliness" isn't a reason. If you're to say that purely execution that doesn't offer a choice is as equally important as strategy and decision making, you need to provide way more than this.

they just find that there is reward in succeeding to perform a particular imput and they deal with it.

We're playing a game that has often received changes for the sake of balancing of mechanics or making them more meaningful. We don't have to deal with it because the game can be made better. Using this kind of description to support L-canceling should be an immediate red flag.

L-Cancel in his manner, is nothing but a common input with a common function in a fighting game.

This is an arbitrary reason. Why is it a common input? It's especially out of place in a game series like Smash whose goal is to reduce inputs to their simplest form while still offering a lot of options. Execution of advanced options is usually made up of multiple actions put together rather than certain buttons being pressed at once (ie. medium Punch and medium Kick being pressed together to do something). The major difference between any option and L-canceling is that these options are not optimal 100% of the time and the appropriateness to use them is also dependent on whether or not it's a good choice to make against the player you're fighting (an extremely important distinction). L-canceling doesn't offer this in any way. Aerial landing lag is inherently unsafe and most combo options aren't available without reducing it as is. Choosing not to L-cancel is suboptimal in nearly every situation except for maybe edge canceling and that's dodgy at best. Its involvement in interaction is small and can be minimized even further by using multiple inputs.

And must people against l-Cancel are fanatics of a point of view about game play design that are thinking their position is the entire definition of design in fighting games.

Is making decisions somehow not the crux of literally any competitive game?

 

[Yoship]

I honestly thing the best thing to do is know your move and practice, since it more than likely won't be back.

 

[robosteven]

remember that time that traditional fighters had no landing lag when doing an aerial and it automatically happened every time without an arbitrary button press and nobody complained about it

 

[CORY]

i don't.

but i'm sure pepperidge farm does!

 

[W.A.C.]

@W.A.C Are you full pressing or light pressing your L-cancels?

Crap now it's not gonna ping him even if I edit it

I've done light and full presses, along with it mapped to Y and do not like the move.

 

[Foo]

Alright, masterpad just doesn't agree that artificial difficulty is a bad thing, so arguing that any further with him will get absolutely nowhere.

Do we all agree that having L-cancelling as an optional would be the worst thing to do?

 

[KeyOfTruth]

This would be a factor with or without l-cancelling.

This is true, but nothing is as universal as the L-Cancel. Can every character waveshine? No. Not all characters have equal depth in tech skill right now, and that means not all characters have an equal chance of screwing up inputs. The L-Cancel is by far the most used tech skill in a match and all characters are required to practice it. That way an expert Ganon player who virtually has no tech skills in his arsenal whatsoever, would still be required to L-Cancel. This adds to the mistakes of ALL characters no matter the player's play style. L-Cancel is designed to bring out human error, no matter how skillful the player and no matter how tech absent the character.

So yes, human error would still be a factor with or without L-Cancelling, but removing L-Cancelling would be removing the arguably largest factor of human error present in Project M.

 

[GP&B]

I'll elaborate later, but


Honestly now, that's atrocious reasoning.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Honestly now, that's atrocious reasoning.

Let me attempt to clear up my atrocious reasoning then. Let's compare L-Cancelling to Powershielding. You L-Cancel to reduce landing lag and you Powershield to reduce shield lag, minimize shield damage, and reflect projectiles. In both of these cases as a player, you would never choose to not perform these actions. L-Cancel is unnecessary the same way timing a Powershield is, why not just remove the timing aspect of Powershielding altogether? Yes I know Powershielding is a reaction to an opponent whereas L-Canceling is not, but this is irrelevant. The specific timing Powershielding requires has nothing to do with the mental aspect of reacting to an opponent. The only difference in removing proper timing in order to perform a Powershield is human error. The reason these optimal actions are not automatic is because after a certain degree, the soul of a fighting game diminishes.

What truly defines a fighting game for me, is not the mental aspect of challenging another human mind alone. No the defining factor of a fighting game for me is face-paced, on-the-go decisions coupled with intricate and often difficult technicalities. These factors are what divides Smash Bros. from say, Pokemon. You can study match-ups all you want, duke it out with the most brilliant minds on Pokemon, but it's not a fighting game. You are (hopefully) never going to misclick an action on Pokemon, the controls of the game are bare-bone simple. To accuse L-Cancel of being arbitrary is to pretty much accuse muscle memory being arbitrary. It's Project M Developers' decision to judge how difficult actions should be to input and how much muscle memory should be required to play competitively.

 

[GP&B]

The comparison fails because the crux of PS-ing (both Power and Perfect) works solely on interaction with your opponent. It's like saying that you should parry every time in Third Strike when that's not a feasible option. PS-ing is a 4 frame window (2 frames for Power) as well and you have to be on the ground and either in the walk, dash, or run action to put up a shield.

In fact, what you try to pass as factors for both PS-ing and L-canceling doesn't work at all. L-canceling can be done consistently regardless of scenario. You can condition yourself for shield and body hitlag and also cover yourself better by using multiple inputs. And the reaction reason is not irrelevant at all, are you out of your mind? That's entirely what makes both PS-ing and parrying (Smash and Third Strike respectively) nowhere near as guaranteed as they should be. You can't guess when they're going to throw the hitbox correctly 100% of the time. Against projectiles, PS-ing can be a much more consistent deal but a lot of factors still go into that.

To accuse L-Cancel of being arbitrary is to pretty much accuse muscle memory being arbitrary.

Muscle memory is an important factor in nailing down the timings of everything with a character. What baffles me though is that you think L-canceling is the most important factor here. It's absolutely not. Part of why I didn't initially respond to that last post is that you're making the same mistake that several others in this thread have made: there's dozens of other far more valuable techniques that require practice to master and ultimately serve the player better than L-canceling ever will. How can you make a case for L-canceling being the most central part of human error when anything related to the Melee Air Dodge exists? Failed ledgedashes resulting in dropped stocks, failed shield drops causing spot dodges and leaving you vulnerable to further assault, failed B-reversals compromising stage position, failed DACUS' making you use a suboptimal move, the list goes on. You make it sound like somehow everyone is going to play near-perfectly with the removal of L-canceling when the mere existence of movement game is an enormous obstacle to climb over and improve at. Even top players will continue to make bad move choices, space poorly, and put out an undesired move. L-canceling is not one of the biggest factors to getting punished, it's losing the neutral.

You cannot claim that L-canceling is critical for the human error part of the game when there are many other more important (and get this: valuable) parts of execution that come into play. Additionally arguing that L-canceling serves as a balancing factor so that low tech ceiling characters have arbitrary execution barriers is hardly something that could be supported as good for the game. Not when movement mastery is a factor and especially not when neutral game is a factor (which it always is).

 

[Giygacoal]

I don't feel like reading all the pages to see if this was already brought up, but auto l-cancel would be a good special mode, if only to get beginners to see through example how l-canceling is important when the training wheels come off.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

And the reaction reason is not irrelevant at all, are you out of your mind?

No I am not out of my mind, but thank you for your concern.

Please read what I said carefully.

Yes I know Powershielding is a reaction to an opponent whereas L-Canceling is not, but this is irrelevant. The specific timing Powershielding requires has nothing to do with the mental aspect of reacting to an opponent.

If you are reading my quote in context I am clearly stating that Powershielding being a reaction to an opponent was irrelevant within my comparison. Predicting when and where an opponent will attack/approach (often referred to as a read) is purely a mental feat alone. Just because you can read your opponent doesn't guarantee that you will capitalize on it.Human error can prevent you from reflecting a projectile even if you perfectly predicted it. This is because Powershielding requires precise timing. In my comparison between L-Cancelling and Powershielding I was discussing them both from a technical standpoint alone. After all, whether or not Powershielding requires specific timing or not will not change the fact you can properly predict your opponents' projectiles. So reviewing my comparison from a purely technical standpoint, I will reiterate my point: Both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are always optimal decisions and as such players would never choose not to perform these actions during the correct circumstances. However it doesn't mean Powershielding should be automatic nor L-Cancelling, because human error is an important aspect in competitive play and helps resolve stalemate matches and may provide an opportunity to gain a lead in matches.

How can you make a case for L-canceling being the most central part of human error when anything related to the Melee Air Dodge exists?

Simple. The sheer number of times L-Cancel is used in a match nearly overshadows all other technical inputs. (Wavedashing probably being a close second.) That means L-Cancelling holds the highest number of chances an input has that you can screw up. Removing L-Cancelling would result in a large portion of potential mistakes also being removed from matches. No matter how trivial L-Cancelling may seem, the possibility of human error is still present.

Even top players will continue to make bad move choices, space poorly, and put out an undesired move.

You are once again drifting from technical mistakes to mental mistakes. Bad judgement is a totally different topic, I am discussing technical mistakes due to human error.

L-canceling is not one of the biggest factors to getting punished, it's losing the neutral.

Losing the neutral is quite significant in my book for an offensive favored fighting game like Project M. This also assures matches do not become linear when someone has gained momentum.

 

[SpiderMad]

I've done light and full presses

If you have finger fatigue, stick to light presses. I'm not sure why you'd mention both like that, there's no reason to hard press it when light press can trigger it.

 

[GP&B]

If you are reading my quote in context I am clearly stating that Powershielding being a reaction to an opponent was irrelevant within my comparison. Predicting when and where an opponent will attack/approach (often referred to as a read) is purely a mental feat alone. Just because you can read your opponent doesn't guarantee that you will capitalize on it. Human error can prevent you from reflecting a projectile even if you perfectly predicted it. This is because Powershielding requires precise timing. In my comparison between L-Cancelling and Powershielding I was discussing them both from a technical standpoint alone. After all, whether or not Powershielding requires specific timing or not will not change the fact you can properly predict your opponents' projectiles. So reviewing my comparison from a purely technical standpoint, I will reiterate my point: Both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are always optimal decisions and as such players would never choose not to perform these actions during the correct circumstances. However it doesn't mean Powershielding should be automatic nor L-Cancelling, because human error is an important aspect in competitive play and helps resolve stalemate matches and may provide an opportunity to gain a lead in matches.

Again, the comparison fails because while both are optimal choices, L-canceling is something you always want to attempt and doesn't directly punish you for missing it. Attempting to PS risks taking damage and on the other side with more dangerous projectiles, risks taking a lot of shield damage (and say against Wolf, puts you in shield against a character with crazy pressure tools). The returns, however, are greater than if you had shielded normally so PS-ing grants a defensive risk:reward option. For every aerial you know won't AC, L-canceling is not a choice but a requirement. It's the game basically saying "Do this or you might as well not have safe aerials or combo options". Note how nothing else in the game behaves like this.

That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with the importance of human error in regards to execution. Countless matches have had momentum shot or stocks lost in many different ways whether it's a misjudged recovery, a misplaced air dodge, or an attack in a frame tight combo whiffing, resulting in a reversal punish. Some elements of performing well in a match are dependent on taking risks that simultaneously offer a lot of protection and reduce the opponent's options (such as a safe but difficult to perform recovery option or an invincible ledgedash). Again though, L-canceling plays some part but it's nowhere near as substantial as you make it out to be. There's so much more that goes into a match that mixes both mental and technical aspects (and they're rarely exclusive). The biggest reason this subject comes up so much is that L-canceling offers almost exclusively technical elements and nothing else. L-canceling has no no risk:reward scenario or any kind of mixup. It's just something that the game requires you to do. It raises the skill floor without granting any additional options. It is by definition arbitrary.


Sorry if this post has some repetition or is a little scatterbrain. I quoted multple parts but ended up sticking with just the one quote and elaborating on it.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

L-canceling has no no risk:reward scenario or any kind of mixup.

You've had no problem elaborating on ways Powershielding yields risks and rewards, yet somehow you cannot do the same for L-Cancelling? It is the same exact case; if you miss an L-Cancel while your using a SHFL to approach, you have just made yourself easy bait for a shield grab. L-Cancel's yield similar risks and rewards, just because they are easier to perform (Arguably trivial, arbitrary) does not mean that all risks magically vanish. In the (unlikely) event that you do miss an L-Cancel you are very much at risk of dropping a combo, letting your opponent escape shield pressure, and in worse case scenarios could very well cost you the match. My comparison between Powershielding and L-Cancelling still stands firm, both have potential risks if failed. By eliminating L-Cancelling you would lessen the input difficulty of SHFLs, should we make Powershielding easier next?

 

[robosteven]

jesus christ this thread is horrible

 

[robosteven]

My comparison between Powershielding and L-Cancelling still stands firm

You yourself said tech errors and mental errors are separate. It's almost as bad as the sports analogies because they're completely different scenarios and should be treated as such.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

You yourself said tech errors and mental errors are separate. It's almost as bad as the sports analogies because they're completely different scenarios and should be treated as such.

I'm not sure what your hinting at, nothing you have stated in your post refutes my quote you implemented? I can refer you to my previous post where I discuss the validity of my comparison between L-Cancelling and Powershielding.

If you are reading my quote in context I am clearly stating that Powershielding being a reaction to an opponent was irrelevant within my comparison. Predicting when and where an opponent will attack/approach (often referred to as a read) is purely a mental feat alone. Just because you can read your opponent doesn't guarantee that you will capitalize on it.Human error can prevent you from reflecting a projectile even if you perfectly predicted it. This is because Powershielding requires precise timing. In my comparison between L-Cancelling and Powershielding I was discussing them both from a technical standpoint alone. After all, whether or not Powershielding requires specific timing or not will not change the fact you can properly predict your opponents' projectiles. So reviewing my comparison from a purely technical standpoint, I will reiterate my point: Both L-Cancelling and Powershielding are always optimal decisions and as such players would never choose not to perform these actions during the correct circumstances. However it doesn't mean Powershielding should be automatic nor L-Cancelling, because human error is an important aspect in competitive play and helps resolve stalemate matches and may provide an opportunity to gain a lead in matches.

If there is any further confusion please be more specific.

 

[GP&B]

You've had no problem elaborating on ways Powershielding yields risks and rewards, yet somehow you cannot do the same for L-Cancelling? It is the same exact case; if you miss an L-Cancel while your using a SHFL to approach, you have just made yourself easy bait for a shield grab. L-Cancel's yield similar risks and rewards, just because they are easier to perform (Arguably trivial, arbitrary) does not mean that all risks magically vanish. In the (unlikely) event that you do miss an L-Cancel you are very much at risk of dropping a combo, letting your opponent escape shield pressure, and in worse case scenarios could very well cost you the match. My comparison between Powershielding and L-Cancelling still stands firm, both have potential risks if failed. By eliminating L-Cancelling you would lessen the input difficulty of SHFLs, should we make Powershielding easier next?

Are you seriously not seeing how PS-ing is a risk while L-Canceling is not? L-Cancel on its own is not a risk; performing an aerial is. L-Canceling is a requirement to make your combo options possible but there is no flipside to choosing not to L-Cancel. You must perform it or you don't get reduced lag. Choosing to PS means attempting to shield within 1-4 frames of a projectile or attack connecting. Too late and you eat the move in full, tacking on damage and possibly setting you up for further punishment. Too early and you take shield damage and stun, endangering your position and leading to potential shield pressure/grabs. I don't know how to explain this any better to you: there is no inherent risk to L-Canceling itself, only succeeding to do so and failure resulting in the same effects as not L-Canceling. By the design of the mechanic within the context of the game, you need to perform L-Canceling to succeed in the game. You do not need to use PS-ing, but practiced use of it can provide an edge. And even if you can't PS that well? Shielding as a suboptimal choice is still pretty good, certainly better than getting hit and you still have a number of options to interact with your attacker while in shield (jump and all respective options, roll, spotdodge, shield DI, shield tilt, lightshielding in Melee).

Do you see where I'm getting at? Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? This comparison doesn't work because PS-ing is not only a risk:reward tool, but a choice in place of another option. The same way that shield dropping is a more technically difficult but faster way of escaping pressure on a platform or how ledgedashing is a riskier but quicker way getting off the ledge. Note how all of these have room for technical error compared to their sibling options but in turn offer greater rewards for succeeding at them. L-Canceling confers no risk and there's nothing in place or similar to it that would warrant choosing not to do it.

 

[robosteven]

If there is any further confusion please be more specific.

There's no confusion, it's just interesting to me that you seem to support fighting games being about raw technical perfection and punishing tech mistakes as opposed to punishing mental mistakes. I just figure if l-cancelling were to be made automatic the game would be just a little more about decision-making and less about button presses, and I think that would directly make a better game for both people playing it and people watching it.

Apparently we're in total disagreement on that front however, and that's fine with me.

 

[Bleck]

I agree with everything robosteven and GP&B are saying, here

 

[KeyOfTruth]

L-Cancel on its own is not a risk; performing an aerial is.

I'm afraid your wrong, both hold their own separate risks, one is just a dependent risk rather than an independent risk. Deciding where and when an aerial attack is appropriate is determined by your judgement (As you've been very adamant about; choice) this is the mental aspect of gameplay. Poor decision making can easily mean defeat, but so can technical deficiencies. You see, L-Cancelling is a risk of it's own that is dependent on a decision. If you decide to commit yourself to an aerial attack in combat, you have to ready yourself to L-Cancel. Mental decisions alone do not secure you victory, you must also have technical prowess. Your judgement may tell you an aerial is completely safe, but if you are not prepared to make that decision, then you may very well miss that L-Cancel. This is an added layer of depth that differentiates fighting games from other strategy heavy-minded games, such as Pokemon.

This comparison doesn't work because PS-ing is not only a risk:reward tool, but a choice in place of another option.

As I explained above, the reason L-Cancelling is a necessity instead of an intellectual choice is because it is purely dependent on a prerequisite decision. If you made the choice to perform an aerial attack, you have also just made the choice to L-Cancel as well. Criticize it as you will, but it adds greater technical complexity to the Project M competitive scene.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

There's no confusion, it's just interesting to me that you seem to support fighting games being about raw technical perfection and punishing tech mistakes as opposed to punishing mental mistakes.

I emphasize "raw technical perfection" because this is what truly sets fighting games apart from other genres. Mental decisions are still far more important than technical efficiency, however subtracting from the latter would hurt the Project M competitive scene as a fighting genre.

 

[Foo]

Power shielding is is rarely a reaction, though. So many moves come out faster than human's can react, that you have to predict when and how your opponent is going to hit you. The only exception is power shielding projectiles, but that could be another giant thread or two. I think PSing projectiles is fine solely because

1. It's completely fine to normal shield a projectile
2. Projectiles aren't nearly as important as aerials
3. Most importantly, practically no one ever does it.

I personally that the game would get worse once (if) everyone learns to powershield projectiles perfectly, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Point is, PSing and L-cancels are incomparable.

I emphasize "raw technical perfection" because this is what truly sets fighting games apart from other genres. Mental decisions are still far more important than technical efficiency, however subtracting from the latter would hurt the Project M competitive scene as a fighting genre.

Not even close, actually. Fighting games are far from the most technical genre imo. Fighting games have always been focused more on mental reads, though tech skill has been important too. The thing is, you want the tech skill to be there for a reason. You could put in a million things that would add tech skill to the game without adding anything, but why would you? If you want the game to have more tech skill, add more mechanics that require it. Stuff like wavedashing, dacusing, etc. are about as simple as you can get without losing depth.

Also, it's really really easy to L-cancel when you get used to it, and there is no risk-reward. Just mash your grab button during aerial lag and you will l-cancel every time and won't prevent yourself from being able to tech if you missed your l-cancel.

 

[Bleck]

I emphasize "raw technical perfection" because this is what truly sets fighting games apart from other genres.

sounds like you've never played a racing game

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Fighting games are far from the most I hi technical genre imo.

I'm not sure what your individual interpretation of "technicality" is but if it's what I assume, fast-paced, awareness demanding, complicated button inputs, etc I am scared to ask what kind of gaming genres you've experienced.

Fighting games have always been focused more on mental reads, though tech skill has been important too.

I feel like there isn't much room for opinion when determining defining factors of a gaming genre, but I will respect your interpretation on fighting games. I must add though, I agreed with you in the portion of text you quoted from me.

I emphasize "raw technical perfection" because this is what truly sets fighting games apart from other genres. Mental decisions are still far more important than technical efficiency, however subtracting from the latter would hurt the Project M competitive scene as a fighting genre.

There may have been a misunderstanding on how I communicated the difference technicality brings to fighting games. I will try to be more clear. I was not implying ever once that technical prowess outweighed good decisions, it is quite the opposite. The reason I emphasize on technical prowess is not because it is more important than the mental aspects of competitive fighting games, but because it's what sets fighting games apart from other mentally challenging games. Technical fighting games bring more than just heavy thinking to the tables, they demand your full attention and require not only smart decisions, but fast ones coupled with input reflexes. (Better known as muscle memory) This is all of course relevant to the importance of L-Cancelling some may not understand yet.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

sounds like you've never played a racing game

Where can I find a racing game that requires me to input forward > backward half-circle > forward > button in less than half a second? Please enlighten me. I do not believe a racing game to date would require such intricate button inputs, but if you manage to find one tell me how it worked out.

 

[GP&B]

There may have been a misunderstanding on how I communicated the difference technicality brings to fighting games. I will try to be more clear. I was not implying ever once that technical prowess outweighed good decisions, it is quite the opposite. The reason I emphasize on technical prowess is not because it is more important than the mental aspects of competitive fighting games, but because it's what sets fighting games apart from other mentally challenging games. Technical fighting games bring more than just heavy thinking to the tables, they demand your full attention and require not only smart decisions, but fast ones coupled with input reflexes. (Better known as muscle memory) This is all of course relevant to the importance of L-Cancelling some may not understand yet.

Please explain to me how any of the other tech PM offers isn't already sufficient in terms of providing technical gameplay. Forget L-Canceling for a moment and try to because you're a little too content ignoring tech that offers expanded options while still having a learning curve to deal with.

Where can I find a racing game that requires me to input forward > backward half-circle > forward > button in less than half a second. Please enlighten me. I do not believe a racing game to date would require such intricate button inputs, but if you manage to find one tell me how it worked out.

Give F-Zero GX a shot sometime. It's not about intricate (read: obtuse) inputs, but keeping track of a dozen different factors while also perfecting lines. There's an incredible amount of precision involved.

On another note, I seriously hope you're not suggesting that complicated inputs are required for a game to be technical.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Please explain to me how any of the other tech PM offers isn't already sufficient in terms of providing technical gameplay. Forget L-Canceling for a moment and try to because you're a little too content ignoring tech that offers expanded options while still having a learning curve to deal with.

Well of course I'm focusing on L-Cancelling, it's what the topic is about. If it seemed I was avoiding or ignoring other techniques it was to prevent the conversation from steering off topic. My answer to other tech is: it's sufficient. There are plenty of other universal techniques characters share while many individual characters still possess unique techniques of their own. (Some characters still lack this) It's hard to judge exactly what would happen if L-Cancel were to be removed, but I definitely could not argue that it would improve any aspects of the game besides sheer player convenience. I do not think that removing L-Cancelling in any way would truly lower the competitive floor. If the difference L-Cancelling imposed on Project M was trivial, then the difference from L-Cancelling being absent within Project M must be trivial as well.

I fail to understand how reviewing other techniques in Project M impacts the decision of whether or not to remove L-Cancelling. You and many others' arguments have been that L-Cancelling should be removed because it is arbitrary, not because there is too much or already sufficient techniques present in the game. But even with the arbitrary argument, I have brought many valid points to attention that explain how L-Cancelling is not an unnecessary technique and that it does serve a purpose.

On another note, I seriously hope you're not suggesting that complicated inputs are required for a game to be technical.

I am not, however it may be one factor contributing to a game that excels in technical play.

 

[DahremRuhar]

I'm going to address the OP directly, and I'm sorry if this comes across as impolite.

You want there to be an "auto-lcancel" option so you can use it in competitive play... exactly what makes you think any standardized ruleset would allow that? Here's the thing, there are many who have put the time in to learn to l-cancel the vast majority of the time. The have sunk hours, and hours into the game. If automatic lcanceling were to be permitted in competitive play it would be a rather rude way to treat those who have stuck with PM since the initial releases, etc. In addition there are (depending on who you main) reasons to intentionally miss an l-cancel here and there.

You have said that you can't even effectively play Smash 4 with the state of your fingers. That game is hardly technical, and if you have sunk time into that and aren't good you have problems that will carry over to PM that won't change even with a lower technical barrier. Don't take this as me trying to put you down I want everyone to be the best player they can be.

Finally, L-canceling is honestly not a tough input. It's 7 frames. If you can't get that consistently, you have more to worry about than just l-canceling.

I understand that you have a disability but here's the thing. A game of any sort does not need to make itself more accessible at a competitive level to people who are unable to perform a key part of it for whatever reason. You could argue that playing hockey on ice is unnecessary, it can be played on concrete or a gym floor. There are people who can't ice skate. The NHL is not going to change a fundamental aspect of how the game is played because someone who can't ice skate wants to play professionally.

Tl;dr: Give up, it will not happen in competitive play. Sorry. Assimilate or play a different game.

 

[GP&B]

Well of course I'm focusing on L-Cancelling, it's what the topic is about. If it seemed I was avoiding or ignoring other techniques it was to prevent the conversation from steering off topic.

That's a rather poor conclusion to come to seeing as I'm making a point about the mechanic's relative contribution compared to the rest of the game. Never at any point did I try make the thread not about L-Canceling, but point to other technical parts of the game to show how it provides nowhere near the same benefits while discouraging new players from the game (hell, we both agree it's an arbitrary input).

My answer to other tech is: it's sufficient. There are plenty of other universal techniques characters share while many individual characters still possess unique techniques of their own. (Some characters still lack this)

I don't really understand what you've been getting at with the bolded part as you've said this a couple times before. All characters don't need to have unique techniques, that's the point of their moveset. Additionally, not all characters need to be technical either and even characters with a lot of technical depth don't need to be so to succeed.

It's hard to judge exactly what would happen if L-Cancel were to be removed, but I definitely could not argue that it would improve any aspects of the game besides sheer player convenience.

That's the point. The idea is to remove arbitrary technical barriers so that newer players can spend more time practicing with aspects that will give them more marked improvement.

I do not think that removing L-Cancelling in any way would truly lower the competitive floor. If the difference L-Cancelling imposed on Project M was trivial, then the difference from L-Cancelling being absent within Project M must be trivial as well.

You'd be mistaken and you're still overlooking previous points that were made. L-Canceling becomes trivial as players reach around mid level so the remainder of their improvement does not consider L-Canceling a factor, but just a thing you do because (read: arbitrary). The removal of L-Canceling would lower the skill floor while leaving the skill ceiling where it is.

I fail to understand how reviewing other techniques in Project M impacts the decision of whether or not to remove L-Cancelling. You and many others' arguments have been that L-Cancelling should be removed because it is arbitrary, not because there is too much or already sufficient techniques present in the game.

It's both, bud. You seem to have a serious problem with being hyperfocused on one point instead of connecting the dots so let me summarize:

-L-Canceling is an arbitrary input, don't need to explain this as we've already went over it
-The input for it is trivialized by using multiple inputs and the Grab button doesn't even have a fail window
-L-Canceling is a barrier early on that falls off later in its difficulty of execution yet because it lacks any other inherent value, it serves no other purpose than to increase the skill barrier for new players while the most it does for top players is increase the risk of arthritis (mostly joking, but it's that pointless)
-When it comes to human error (the point that was originally the crux of your argument for L-Canceling), the game has many legitimately more valuable techniques with high execution barriers and a much better risk:reward scenario going for them. The loss of L-Canceling relative to these would be insignificant.

But even with the arbitrary argument, I have brought many valid points to attention that explain how L-Cancelling is not an unnecessary technique and that it does serve a purpose.

Where do you get off saying this when you've been constantly ignoring other points that were made?

I am not, however it may be one factor contributing to a game that excels in technical play.

Then it's not really relevant to your remark on racing games.

 

[robosteven]

Assimilate or play a different game.

I know you're specifically addressing the OP, but you could've just said "git gud" and it would've held as much weight as your entire post.

 

[DahremRuhar]

I know you're specifically addressing the OP, but you could've just said "git gud" and it would've held as much weight as your entire post.

Well, I like to pretend to know what I'm talking about.

I'm really just stroking my ego; everyone knows these threads will never go away.

 

[robosteven]

I'm really just stroking my ego; everyone knows these threads will never go away.

There's a reason for that.

 

[Bleck]

Where can I find a racing game that requires me to input forward > backward half-circle > forward > button in less than half a second? Please enlighten me.

F-Zero GX

yeah

Well, I like to pretend to know what I'm talking about.

I don't see it

 

[masterpad]

Alright, masterpad just doesn't agree that artificial difficulty is a bad thing, so arguing that any further with him will get absolutely nowhere.

Do we all agree that having L-cancelling as an optional would be the worst thing to do?

"artificial" you said, and i say "soooo natural" where is this going take us?
Since nobody can explain me why should i be able to Bair/Nair/Dair/Fair ,then landing and protect myself (shield/dodge) or stryke again without any condition or requierement.....All this is just a religion

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

"artificial" you said, and i say "soooo natural" where is this going take us?
Since nobody can explain me why should i be able to Bair/Nair/Dair/Fair ,then landing and protect myself (shield/dodge) or stryke again without any condition or requierement.....All this is just a religion

In this situation where the attacker commits to an aerial, a few things happen:
A) Attacker misjudges his distance, whiffs, gets punished (ideally, the attacker could retreat if the distance isn't bad)
B) Attacker hits the defender's shield, depending on the frame advantage on landing, punishment or advantage is taken.
C) Attacker hits his target, depending on the frame advantage on landing, punishment or advantage is taken.
D) Attacker gets anti-aired

I might have missed a few scenarios, but that's the jist.

 

[SmokeOut]

There's a reason for that.

These threads will never go away because L-canceling will never go away.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

That's a rather poor conclusion to come to seeing as I'm making a point about the mechanic's relative contribution compared to the rest of the game.

Let's read what you really said.

Forget L-Canceling for a moment and try to because you're a little too content ignoring tech that offers expanded options while still having a learning curve to deal with.

You asked me to forget L-Cancelling. Instead you do indeed steer the topic toward analyzing other techniques in Project M, in which I so graciously assessed as you asked me to. However I did not include a comparison between L-Cancelling and other abundant techniques present in Project M. Instead I completely drop L-Cancelling from my assessment just as you asked me to.

-L-Canceling is a barrier early on that falls off later in its difficulty of execution yet because it lacks any other inherent value, it serves no other purpose than to increase the skill barrier for new players while the most it does for top players is increase the risk of arthritis (mostly joking, but it's that pointless)

L-Cancelling does serve a purpose, just as any other input does. As I've explained before, despite being an arbitrary input, L-Cancelling still holds a purpose. Just as you must press A to punch and B to shoot a fireball, you must press L for an L-Cancel.
The only difference here is that performing an L-Cancel is not an independent choice. Whether or not your going to perform an L-Cancel is dependent on a prerequisite decision. If a player chooses to perform an aerial attack, said player also chooses to perform an L-Cancel as well. If your still having difficulty understanding this topic, think of it in terms of choice and consequence. (I do not mean to depict L-Cancel in a negative perspective) If a responsible adult makes a decision (good or bad) he/she must be ready to accept the consequence(s). Put simply, players do choose to L-Cancel, it is just an indirect choice. Aerial attacks and L-cancelling are one in this understanding. You can argue that this raises the skill floor, and I won't really argue with that, it's legitimate. L-Cancelling isn't supposed to make the game easier, it introduces more human error to the game and frankly it doesn't matter if there are more worthy or justified techniques already present in Project M, that's not a sound enough reason to remove a universal technique as basic as L-Cancelling.

 

[SpiderMad]

Not replying to anything just making a statement post

L-cancelling as a Auto option should pry be available.

As a player tip: L-cancelling should be performed on the GCC by doing a light press on the analog spring, not having to waste effort (and your tech windows) by hard pressing it with the click (which some people do).

Sometimes people say "Why not put a dumb cancel mechanic on Smash Attacks that you have to time too" or something of the such who are against L-cancelling.

- Well one thing that's a little ironic is IASA already does sort of that, versus the Animation's actual End: and the differences between what you can do out of each (with the animation being over obviously allowing anything).

- L-cancelling being on Aerials, rather than anything else like a Smash Attack, is exactly what you would want to put the mechanic over. Melee's Aerial game is the center point of the game where so many factors come into play. You always want it performed (unless you're going for something crazy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DavS35HGDE ) but that doesn't mean it doesn't require thought: the thought is indeed more of a innate technical one based on quickly interacting with your character's velocity, the judgement on whether you're going to hit the opponent's body, the opponent's shield/light shield/shield angling and pushing, items/stage hazards/slopes/platforms/wind-boxes. Changing the timing through actual point of landing or by hitlag: which in PM's case apparently might have been discovered to not affect the window like it does in Melee.

It's easy to think you'd want it removed after you've reasoned yourself to think it's dumb, but there's hundreds of factors that made Brawl just a worse game: and some of them are still beyond our understanding. With L-cancelling making Melee more intense in an arcane way.

Also you can L-cancel by spamming it (or quickly tapping both shoulders after the other) because it has no fail window, but that has it's own detriments (if you're near the Auto-cancel window for the aerial and do manage to reach it, which will give you 4 frames of landing lag depending on your character and not require the L-cancel, it's gonna easily trigger your shield).