Why isn't auto L Canceling an option?

[KeyOfTruth]

And now we're circling back to the main point I've been making: L-Canceling offers no variability or depth in its usage.

From a purely mental standpoint yes, but fighting games are largely founded on both mental and technical skill. Stating that L-Cancelling contributes absolutely no depth whatsoever is simply false because it does add depth to the technical portion of Project M.

Another thing is that none of those other techniques can be simplified to a one-button macro without damaging their variability.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as if your suggesting that controls should always be made as simple as possible. Without much thought one could easily agree with this logic, buttons are just a way to convey our thoughts and decisions. However in fighting games like Project M, technical prowess can very well become the determining factor of who wins a match. Inputs that are made purposely more difficult is what can divide two otherwise equally intelligent players. Currently in the form L-Cancel is in, this argument crumbles because you can spam the Z button and successfully execute it with laughable ease. If Project M Developers fix this the L-Cancel definitely has a rightful place in the game.

 

[The Soap]

Inputs that are made purposely more difficult is what can divide two otherwise equally intelligent players.

And this is precisely why l-cancelling shouldn't be in the game.

 

[Ningildo]

I don't disagree with the need for a execution barrier, I disagree with the notion they're there just for the sake of it and don't allow application in different situations for which you require experience.

The main arguments for pro seem to be that missed l-cancels allow for punishes and that L-cancelling does give you something; reduced landing lag. The first has been addressed. As for the second one, yes, it does, but it doesn't let you do much else after you've mastered it. It doesn't give you more options in any area in exchange for the admittedly little time spent mastering it.

Of course, if I'm assuming a bit too much here, feel free to correct me.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

And this is precisely why l-cancelling shouldn't be in the game.

Would you rather determine winner with a game of rock-paper-scissors? Obviously in the event two equally intelligent players are pitted against another, it is only fair that the one who invested more time and effort into practicing the game should earn the victory.

 

[GP&B]

Well, Street Fighter 4 is a crap competitive game. See:

So please don't compare the greatness of Project M to a terrible, overrated, horrible, campy game like that. No self-respecting PM fan should like Street Fighter.

That you're calling USF4 crap is much more indicative of your understanding of fighting games than anything else.

From a purely mental standpoint yes, but fighting games are largely founded on both mental and technical skill. Stating that L-Cancelling contributes absolutely no depth whatsoever is simply false because it does add depth to the technical portion of Project M.

L-Canceling has no depth because it adds very little meaningful interaction to the game which is ultimately where all of your technical skill is applied to: fighting the other player.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as if your suggesting that controls should always be made as simple as possible. Without much thought one could easily agree with this logic, buttons are just a way to convey our thoughts and decisions.

In designing literally any type of game, pressing a button should produce a logical reaction. This is game design 101. Now whether you can do a combination of actions to perform one complex action at the scrutiny of the designers themselves, but fortunately Smash has that in spades and it's important to note that they're all made up of otherwise simple actions.

However in fighting games like Project M, technical prowess can very well become the determining factor of who wins a match. Inputs that are made purposely more difficult is what can divide two otherwise equally intelligent players. Currently in the form L-Cancel is in, this argument crumbles because you can spam the Z button and successfully execute it with laughable ease. If Project M Developers fix this the L-Cancel definitely has a rightful place in the game.

It can, but it rarely is. You greatly overstate the influence of L-Canceling on this (and have been constantly for the entirety of this thread). Again I restate that Aftershock is a recent but not even remotely unique example where punishes and reads dominate the result of a match. Performing most of your important tech is a given at the top level, otherwise you wouldn't even be a high level player.

Would you rather determine winner with a game of rock-paper-scissors? Obviously in the event two equally intelligent players are pitted against another, it is only fair that the one who invested more time and effort into practicing the game should earn the victory.

You're making a gigantic leap here. Where does the removal of L-Canceling somehow magically lead to the game being RPS? Game knowledge plays entirely into who wins the game.

 

[The Soap]

Would you rather determine winner with a game of rock-paper-scissors? Obviously in the event two equally intelligent players are pitted against another, it is only fair that the one who invested more time and effort into practicing the game should earn the victory.

I would rather one of them beat out the other in a mental interaction to win the game rather than win it because their opponent failed to press a shoulder button as they were landing from an aerial.

 

[Ningildo]

By that logic, only the longest playing players should win. Except they don't, because they get outplayed. Their opponents made better decisions and that earned them the win. Technical prowess should mean something, but most matches are won by a player who had more knowledge and situational awareness.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

L-Canceling has no depth because it adds very little meaningful interaction to the game which is ultimately where all of your technical skill is applied to.

Since when does "no" mean "very little"? I don't want to have to continually correct you that L-Cancel does add some (Call it minimal if you will) depth. Repeating a false statement doesn't make it anymore true than the first time.

They should be simplified without directly affecting the interaction between them. Wavedashing can't be simplified because it's a combination of two distinctly different actions.

This is just an opinionated statement with no conclusion. Why should controls be simpler? Why does it improve Project M's competitive scene? I've already touched on these questions myself.

It can, but it rarely is. You greatly overstate the influence of L-Canceling on this (and have been constantly for the entirety of this thread). Again I restate that Aftershock is a recent but not even remotely unique example where punishes and reads dominate the result of a match. Performing most of your important tech is a given at the top level, otherwise you wouldn't even be a high level player.

There is little meaning that can be derived from this quote, everyone knows high level players had to practice inputs and hone their muscle memory; in fact, it is exactly the point I emphasized on when justifying the purpose of L-Cancel.

 

[Quillion]

L-Canceling has no depth because it adds very little meaningful interaction to the game which is ultimately where all of your technical skill is applied to.


In designing literally any type of game, pressing a button should produce a logical reaction. This is game design 101. Now whether you can do a combination of actions to perform one complex action at the scrutiny of the designers themselves, but fortunately Smash has that in spades and it's important to note that they're all made up of otherwise simple actions.


It can, but it rarely is. You greatly overstate the influence of L-Canceling on this (and have been constantly for the entirety of this thread). Again I restate that Aftershock is a recent but not even remotely unique example where punishes and reads dominate the result of a match. Performing most of your important tech is a given at the top level, otherwise you wouldn't even be a high level player.


You're making a gigantic leap here. Where does the removal of L-Canceling somehow magically lead to the game being RPS? Game knowledge plays entirely into who wins the game.

I would rather one of them beat out the other in a mental interaction to win the game rather than win it because their opponent failed to press a shoulder button as they were landing from an aerial.

L-canceling is more than just an arbitrary skill barrier. It does provide legitimate depth.

To proper L-cancel you actually have to READ THE OPPONENT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT TIMINGS FOR L-CANCEL ON SHIELD, HIT, AND WHIFF

Is it possible to L-cancel regardless of shield/hit/whiff? Yes, but it's really difficult and only the top of the top can do it.

But the top of the top-level play is honestly dull to watch. All they're doing is jumping around, throwing out little moves, and waiting for an opening. Do you want all of PM to be like that? Or would you rather have most of PM be aggressive and fast-paced while just a small group of elite players are lame?

That you're calling USF4 crap is much more indicative of your understanding of fighting games than anything else.

Also, I don't care how much I understand fighting games and how difficult it is to spam projectiles. I'm not the one playing the game and fireball spam is lame to watch regardless of any game.

 

[GP&B]

Since when does "no" mean "very little"? I don't want to have to continually correct you that L-Cancel does add some (Call it minimal if you will) depth. Repeating a false statement doesn't make it anymore true than the first time.

Fair enough. But if the minimal technical depth it does add comes at the cost of a higher initial learning curve and with no variability or utility in its use, its existence is questionable.

This is just an opinionated statement with no conclusion. Why should controls be simpler? Why does it improve Project M's competitive scene? I've already touched on these questions myself.

Project M and Smash in general already has simplified controls. Smash was made almost deliberately in response to fighters with complex inputs for simple actions. L-Canceling is incredibly out of place in this regard.

There is little meaning that can be derived from this quote, everyone knows high level players had to practice inputs and hone their muscle memory; in fact, it is exactly the point I emphasized on when justifying the purpose of L-Cancel.

And my point is that L-Canceling does not contribute nowhere near enough to be a worthwhile inclusion.

Is it possible to L-cancel regardless of shield/hit/whiff? Yes, but it's really difficult and only the top of the top can do it.

This is blatantly false, are you serious?

But the top of the top-level play is honestly dull to watch. All they're doing is jumping around, throwing out little moves, and waiting for an opening. Do you want all of PM to be like that? Or would you rather have most of PM be aggressive and fast-paced while just a small group of elite players are lame?

Literally the whole point is to use safe attacks and movements to reduce your opponent's options and force them to make a bad decision so you can punish them for it. That is what the game becomes focused on as you reach the top. This isn't even exclusive to PM or Melee; every fighting game is like this.

Also, I don't care how much I understand fighting games and how difficult it is to spam projectiles. I'm not the one playing the game and fireball spam is lame to watch regardless of any game.

Again, while I also felt that GF's of USF4 at EVO wasn't as great as the rest of the tournament, this is incredibly ignorant.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Project M and Smash in general already has simplified controls. Smash was made almost deliberately in response to fighters with complex inputs for simple actions. L-Canceling is incredibly out of place in this regard.

This is the first I've heard about this, how do you know this? Please cite something so I can acknowledge this. I always thought the Smash Bros. series was reluctant in being considered an actual fighting game and originated as a party game.

Also it seems like your still missing a great deal of explanation if your wanting to convince anyone that Project M would benefit from removing L-Cancelling. A lot of things can be considered out of place in the Smash Bros. series, that's highly subjective.

And my point is that L-Canceling does not contribute nowhere near enough to be a worthwhile inclusion.

It's at PMDT's discretion of whether L-Cancel is a worthwhile inclusion or not and you're certainly not convincing them with that statement.

Furthermore, removing L-Cancelling would be counterproductive to Project M's goals.

http://projectmgame.com/en/about

Read:

"Where the player has a great degree of control over their character due to the technical skill that they've achieved."

 

[Ningildo]

"Is it possible to L-cancel regardless of shield/hit/whiff? Yes, but it's really difficult and only the top of the top can do it."

...you can't be serious. I consider myself a mid level player, high level on my best days/moments and can do this easily. Hitting body and hitting shield are more or less the same for nearly all moves and on whiff is easy. We've established it's an easy input regardless of circumstances.

And then, because people who respect all the opponent's options at all times and thus wait till an opening presents itself (not an l-cancel, cause no) before going ham are boring to watch. Right. Your mindset seems to be more of a spectator then a competitor and, considering that, you're not in a position to say with certainty why L-cancelling is good/bad, especially when a difference in timing making L-cancelling adding complexity is your main argument.

 

[GP&B]

This is the first I've heard about this, how do you know this? Please cite something so I can acknowledge this. I always thought the Smash Bros. series was reluctant in being considered an actual fighting game and originated as a party game.

I'm trying to sift through the Smash 4 interviews and find the old Brawl interviews that originally brought this up so pardon if it takes a bit to find a ~10 year old article. It's true that the series is reluctant to be considered as such, but regardless of Sakurai's intentions where genre is concerned, the idea for directional-based special and attack inputs was very much in reply to fighters following SF's motion inputs.

Also it seems like your still missing a great deal of explanation if your wanting to convince anyone that Project M would benefit from removing L-Cancelling.

You'd have some validity with this statement if you weren't ignoring the explanations I already provided. Do we need to reestablish arguments again or should I not bother arguing in circles with you at this point?

A lot of things can be considered out of place in the Smash Bros. series, that's highly subjective.

Hence why I used examples to explain other technical aspects of the game that are logically consistent with each other. Again: do you want a discussion or are you only interested in undermining the purpose of me writing those out to make poor statements like this? I'm sincerely not interested in having a back and forth with someone who is, willingly or not, unable to track and remember previous points made throughout a thread.There's no reason I should have to be re-typing as much stuff as I am for you, only for it to get forgotten shortly after.

Furthermore, removing L-Cancelling would be counterproductive to Project M's goals.

http://projectmgame.com/en/about

Read:

"Where the player has a great degree of control over their character due to the technical skill that they've achieved."

I am contesting with the view of whether or not L-Canceling is a worthwhile technical skill to begin with. Not only this, but making L-Canceling automatic would not remove any important degree of control over your character (besides choosing not to L-Cancel, but the entire argument is that there isn't).

 

[Quillion]

I'm trying to sift through the Smash 4 interviews and find the old Brawl interviews that originally brought this up so pardon if it takes a bit to find a ~10 year old article. It's true that the series is reluctant to be considered as such, but regardless of Sakurai's intentions where genre is concerned, the idea for directional-based special and attack inputs was very much in reply to fighters following SF's motion inputs.

Let me make it easy for you:

However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult."

NOTE: I'm not switching sides, I'm just understanding the other side.

Though for the record, I only think wavedashing needs to be turned into a simple button+direction input (and NOT a timing-based thing). At least that would have some roots in other games with dash buttons/commands and it wouldn't impact the amount of depth the game has.

But Project M won't do it probably because of limitations on control customization hacking.

 

[KeyOfTruth]

You'd have some validity with this statement if you weren't ignoring the explanations I already provided. Do we need to reestablish arguments again or should I not bother arguing in circles with you at this point?

You are once again assuming that I have ignored your explanations (ignore meaning intentionally disregard) this is not the case. I have read all of your posts and after reviewing them to entertain your assertion I can reassure myself that I have missed nothing. You have successfully argued how L-Cancel is an arbitrary input, but it's all for naught if you can't prove removing L-Cancelling would benefit Project M.

Only one benefit from removing L-Cancelling as been brought to attention on this thread: That removing L-Cancelling would lower the skill floor. This is of course an assumption with absolutely no proof and very little reasonable persuasion. If someone were to be discouraged by an arbitrary input that is laughably easy (especially spamming the Z button in its current form) then its highly likely that playing Project M competitively is not in their interest. Everyone has stated it is by no means difficult to L-Cancel, so how would removing L-Cancelling change the skill floor in any way? I do not see the logic behind this thinking, the best thing removing L-Cancel would do for newcomers is save them maybe a week of practice if they even decided to dedicate that much time toward L-Cancelling alone. Removing L-Cancelling is not going to lower the skill floor in a competitive scene where nobody messes up inputs.

I am contesting with the view of whether or not L-Canceling is a worthwhile technical skill to begin with. Not only this, but making L-Canceling automatic would not remove any important degree of control over your character (besides choosing not to L-Cancel, but the entire argument is that there isn't).

Read the quote carefully as a whole statement:

"Where the player has a great degree of control over their character due to the technical skill that they've achieved."

Degree of control is the dependent factor, and technical skill is the varying factor. The bolded text in your reply is irrelevant, what is relevant to Project M's goal here is that making L-Cancel automatic would remove the technical skill needed for that degree of control. The goal does not say: "Where the player has a great degree of control over their character due to good decision making." Project M wants players's control over their characters to directly reflect their technical prowess NOT their ability to make good decisions. So it is absolutely irrelevant to argue any further whether L-Cancel has a form of choice or not, because that is not its purpose in Project M.

 

[platologic]

I realize that appealing to authority is not a valid argument, but I want to share an excerpt from David Sirlin's design overview of Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix (HDR) that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

To provide context for anyone not familiar with Sirlin and/or HDR, he's a world-class Street Fighter player, a tournament organizer, and a game developer with about 20 years of experience between them all. In 2007 he was in charge of creating an HD remake of Super Turbo (originally released in 1994) and took on the challenge of balancing the game and making it more accessible.

On the subject of easier controls Sirlin writes,

Making Street Fighter more accessible is good for everyone, in my opinion. Experts aren't really affected, but new players can get past the awkward beginner phase faster and into the intermediate phase where the interesting strategy starts to emerge.

There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes toward easier execution of moves have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw.

Another wrong-headed comment I often get is that easier controls don't leave enough skills in the game to separate good and bad players. The statement is absurd. Easier special moves don't change the strategic depth of the game at all (and the actual balance changes in HD Remix increase the strategic depth). Furthermore, there's no shortage of nuance for experts. Does Cammy's dragon punch beat Fei Longs? It depends on exactly who did it first, which means that 1/60th of a second timing is just as important as ever. So is positioning, spacing, the difficulty of performing combos, and the skill of reading the mind of the opponent.

Source: http://www.sirlin.net/sf-hdr/street-fighter-hd-remix-design-overview

To reiterate in terms of Smash and bring the point home,

"It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw L-canceling is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief Falcon to land the throw aerial."

 

[Quillion]

I realize that appealing to authority is not a valid argument, but I want to share an excerpt from David Sirlin's design overview of Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix (HDR) that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

To provide context for anyone not familiar with Sirlin and/or HDR, he's a world-class Street Fighter player, a tournament organizer, and a game developer with about 20 years of experience between them all. In 2007 he was in charge of creating an HD remake of Super Turbo (originally released in 1994) and took on the challenge of balancing the game and making it more accessible.

On the subject of easier controls Sirlin writes,


Source: Street Fighter HD Remix Design Overview (sirlin.net)
I'm unable to post links so if someone would be kind enough to post the link for reference, I appreciate it.

To reiterate in terms of Smash and bring the point home,

"It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw L-canceling is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief Falcon to land the throw aerial."

Here's a fun fact: HD Remix pretty much KILLED the once-thriving Super Turbo competitive community BECAUSE IT WAS EASIER.

An article on TVTropes gives the gory details:

In the Street Fighter II community, after Super Turbo HD Remix was released, the near-two-decade-old Super Turbo community lost its collective ****. Some liked the balance retweakings, the updated graphics and music, easier command inputs, and other changes, and declared it the new ST tournament standard. Others proclaimed it The Antichrist of fighting games which ruined the scene forever because the "retweakings" were more like "rebreakings", the new art was ugly weeaboo crap, the music was like razor blades directly to the eardrums, and the new command inputs made stuff like the formerly Difficult but Awesome Spinning Piledriver an instant Game Breaker. For years, the ST community was at war with itself over which version would be played, with many players intentionally sabotaging the other game to promote their own. Few players dedicated enough time to play both, and the new players that HDR brought in quickly lost interest. For a time, both versions disappeared from the scene (aside from extremely dedicated tournaments). In the end, classic ST won, but you could say it was a Pyrrhic Victory.

So there is some legitimate, actual (sorry, redundant) value in this "barrier for the sake of barrier". Easing things would just devalue the game and destroy the community because there's no more reward for skill.

 

[platologic]

An article on TVTropes gives the gory details:

As much as I enjoy TVTropes, I do not recognize it as a credible, accurate source of information. Nevertheless, your excerpt also addresses the rebalances and the music/art changes as factors contributing to the community fracturing. If you have a more authoritative source pointing blame directly at the easier controls, I would like to read it.

Your excerpt also fails to acknowledge the release of Street Fighter 4 a mere three months after the release of HDR. To what extent this played in the downfall of Super Turbo/HDR I can only speculate, but it seems similar to how Brawl went on the decline after the release of Project M and Smash 4.

 

[Ningildo]

Keyoftruth, could you explain what L-cancelling adds to enrich the game besides being a tech barrier? All of the other tech give options to approach or extend combos in creative ways, while also being an entry barrier. L-cancelling does not do this, you get the lag reduction, but as said, it's less getting frame advantage and more avoid giving such advantage to your opponent. That being said, what options does L-cancelling give you directly? What other purpose bar barrier of entry does or serve? I'd like that question answered.

Also, GP&B clearly says removing L-cancelling wouldn't affect tech skill much due its ease mentioned by yourself, removing it does little on high-top level play. He never said that degree of control is determined by how well you make decisions, you brought it up. Please stop cherry picking, as, on closer inspection, it seems he already said what I did in my paragraph above and you haven't addressed it at all.

This discussion feels all too familiar. Every argument really HAS been brought up, beaten to death, and then reanimated as a zombie horse at this point...

 

[KeyOfTruth]

Keyoftruth, could you explain what L-cancelling adds to enrich the game besides being a tech barrier?

Absolutely nothing. If you read my previous post then you should know that there doesn't need to be any other reason for L-Cancel to exist, it blends well with Project M's goal in which higher technical mastery returns you with greater control over your character.

Also, GP&B clearly says removing L-cancelling wouldn't affect tech skill much due its ease mentioned by yourself, removing it does little on high-top level play. He never said that degree of control is determined by how well you make decisions, you brought it up.

Actually its completely relevant, GP&B and yourself have been recycling the same reason in your arguments as to why L-Cancel should be removed. "It's a useless tech barrier", "There's no other options" "Its Arbitrary". I was making a point that all of these poor reasons are irrelevant in terms of Project M's main goals and would be in fact, counter productive to remove L-Cancelling. Please do not bring these points up again, it is Project M's design choice to incorporate tech barriers as they please and tech barriers do serve a purpose.

And before you ask me what that purpose is, here you go:

However in fighting games like Project M, technical prowess can very well become the determining factor of who wins a match. Inputs that are made purposely more difficult is what can divide two otherwise equally intelligent players.

 

[Starfall11]

Please don't bash USF4 or other gaming communities. I don't like Street Fighter personally (More of a Guilty Gear fan), but don't insult another game.

I think this thread has become too toxic, and I trust that the PMDT can handle it from here.

 

[Bleck]

Easing things would just devalue the game and destroy the community because there's no more reward for skill.

if the community was made up of people that threw a collective tantrum because now people other than themselves can enjoy the game, it was better off dead

(also as a person who actually played SF2 and HD Remix when it came out, the loudest voices in the anti-Remix bandwagon were the people who were just autistic enough to have perfect control over tech but just dumb enough that they were suddenly not-as-good at the game when other people had an easier time with inputs

the only people who lost in that community's situation were the people who didn't really deserve anything anyways, 'cause all they cared about were themselves and their own experiences in the first place)

 

[platologic]

...there doesn't need to be any other reason for L-Cancel to exist, it blends well with Project M's goal in which higher technical mastery returns you with greater control over your character.

You're right, the existence of L-canceling supports the goal of promoting technical mastery. However, you're looking at the project goals too narrowly.

From the Project M about page (emphasis mine),

Project M hopes to achieve a game similar to Super Smash Bros. Melee in many respects. It does not, however, intend to be a 1:1 Melee clone. The following is a list of the main aspects of Super Smash Bros. Melee that inspired and have carried over into Project M:

1. A fast-paced game
2. with flowing, natural movement
3. where the player has a great degree of control over their character due to the technical skill that they've achieved.
4. The balance of offense and defense changes depending on the exact matchup and playstyle, but overall tends to favor offense slightly.
5. Offstage edgeguarding is risky but rewarding, while on-stage edgeguarding is safer but less rewarding.
6. Recoveries generally require great skill to use, with the advantage usually being with the edgeguarding player, with some exceptions.
7. The combos are challenging and spontaneous, with anything longer than 2-3 hits requiring a knowledge of both characters' options and some degree of prediction and/or a deep understanding of the mental aspect of the game.

In short, Project M aims to capture the essence of what made Melee a truly great game in our eyes.

Consider point #2. Flowing, natural movement. L-canceling is neither flowing nor natural, yet it is absolutely required in order to produce that smooth Melee feel. By your own admission, it is an arbitrary input for the sake of having a technical barrier.

Consider point #7. Knowledge of both characters' options, prediction, and/or deep understanding of the mental game. Notice how nowhere in this entire point mentions that combos require physical technical skill. Yes, the point is implied by #3 and yes, combos will always require technical skill in practice, but it's clear that the PMDT intend for combos to emphasize the mental game. However, no amount of character knowledge will help you combo if you don't L-cancel.

If you want to use the project goals as a guideline, it's 1 point for and 2 points against L-canceling.

 

[Quillion]

Please don't bash USF4 or other gaming communities. I don't like Street Fighter personally (More of a Guilty Gear fan), but don't insult another game.

I think this thread has become too toxic, and I trust that the PMDT can handle it from here.

Thing is, people are constantly trying to want to make PM and Smash just like Street Fighter, and they need to know that making an unorthodox fighter (PM) follow a conventional fighter (SF) is just going to make the unorthodox fighter worse.

Also, they're just a bunch of conformist sheep who are stifling the creativity of the industry.

 

[MagnesD3]

L Canceling Mediocre, Wave dashing good.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Thing is, people are constantly trying to want to make PM and Smash just like Street Fighter, and they need to know that making an unorthodox fighter (PM) follow a conventional fighter (SF) is just going to make the unorthodox fighter worse.

Also, they're just a bunch of conformist sheep who are stifling the creativity of the industry.

Lmfao. The Anti L-Cancel Alliance is only interested in L-Canceling being revamped. Is there a reason why you blindly compare this game to SF4?

 

[Quillion]

Lmfao. The Anti L-Cancel Alliance is only interested in L-Canceling being revamped. Is there a reason why you blindly compare this game to SF4?

I'm not. I'm saying that other people are, and they're completely fallacious.

Just because other games don't have something like L-cancelling doesn't mean that PM shouldn't.

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

Why isn't auto Shaq cancelling an option?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

I'm not. I'm saying that other people are, and they're completely fallacious.

Just because other games don't have something like L-cancelling doesn't mean that PM shouldn't.

Hmmk. My bad, it just irks me a bit when people compare the two games.

 

[Starfall11]

Thing is, people are constantly trying to want to make PM and Smash just like Street Fighter, and they need to know that making an unorthodox fighter (PM) follow a conventional fighter (SF) is just going to make the unorthodox fighter worse.

Also, they're just a bunch of conformist sheep who are stifling the creativity of the industry.

I would never want that though. I love the rushdown and speed of Melee/PM. And I like the mixups that are offered by more conventional fighting games. Lately, I have favored smash, but I love myself some Anime fighter from time to time.

 

[Shaq]

Playin without havin to l-cancel is like traveling in basketball. It just aint rite.

Why isn't auto Shaq cancelling an option?

Why r u tryna cancel Shaq, son?? Smh

 

[platologic]

Getting back to the discussion at hand, the L-canceling debate can be summarized in three points:

1. L-canceling is a bad mechanic.
2. Even though L-canceling is a bad mechanic, people still like it (and that's okay).
3. PMDT will not remove manual L-canceling.

Point #3 is the only point that really matters. Standard competitive Project M will be played with L-canceling and that's final.

We'd see no problem to provide a toggle for auto L-cancel in the future however, more options are great to have, and also great to keep having these thought provoking discussions here with actual concrete data. But the manual one would not leave its place as the default option.

Cheers, and keep discussing. That can only contribute to the development of the community.

So let's keep discussing.

I don't know how many other fighting games do this, but HDR included a feature called the "dipswitch hat" which was an icon that would appear on the screen if any game-changing settings were changed from the default value (such as the ability to store certain characters' Supers).

The same concept could be used in Project M to indicate that either Input Assist or Auto L-Canceling were enabled. Tournaments can run with confidence that no one changed the settings and players can enjoy a faster game with less technical barriers. For best results, the icon should also be visible on replays.

 

[Quillion]

Again, quit bringing Street Fighter into this discussion. It's irritating as hell, and you're comparing apples to oranges. Or in this case, trying to put the element of an apple into an orange. That won't taste good.

 

[TGT | Ghosty]

The Basketball analogy works. No one says "It's too hard to dribble, and we should focus on the mental game".

 

[Quillion]

When you think about it, Melee and PM are the only real electronic sports.

Every other game in existence is just a mere video game with limits. Like Street Fighter, for example. Sure Brawl may have had that luck-based mechanic, but Smash U is as terrible as all other fighting game in existence. They just spoon-feed you fun without giving you any challenge of pulling things off.

Actually, nearly all modern games are like that these days. Except Dark Souls. Dark Souls is like the Melee of all video games right now.

 

[Bleck]

Dark Souls is like the Melee of all video games right now.

no, Dark Souls is a good game

 

[platologic]

Again, quit bringing Street Fighter into this discussion. It's irritating as hell, and you're comparing apples to oranges. Or in this case, trying to put the element of an apple into an orange. That won't taste good.

Your opinion is both ignorant and invalid. I'm suggesting a visual indicator that settings have been changed to make the game easier. Yes, Street Fighter used this feature. Variants of this feature also appear in NetHack, Doom, Super Mario Land 2, Civilization, and I Wanna Be the Guy. Features get recycled across genres and generations all the time, and any game designer worth their salt will keep an eye out for useful features that support their objectives regardless of the source material.

To revise my suggestion, the indicator should also appear on the results screen just to cover all the bases.

 

[Quillion]

Your opinion is both ignorant and invalid. I'm suggesting a visual indicator that settings have been changed to make the game easier. Yes, Street Fighter used this feature. Variants of this feature also appear in NetHack, Doom, Super Mario Land 2, Civilization, and I Wanna Be the Guy. Features get recycled across genres and generations all the time, and any game designer worth their salt will keep an eye out for useful features that support their objectives regardless of the source material.

To revise my suggestion, the indicator should also appear on the results screen just to cover all the bases.

Casuals are nothing but a periphery to Project M the same way competitives are nothing but a periphery to official Smash. They should not be treated as anything more.

 

[Evilzpet]

The Basketball analogy works. No one says "It's too hard to dribble, and we should focus on the mental game".

It's not a good analogy at all because dribbling is not arbitrary. Dribbling produces a visual result that is pleasing to the crowd and the offensive and defensive structure of the game is built around it. L-canceling on the other hand doesn't provide the slightest bit of meaning to smash from any standpoint and is completely arbitrary.
Stick and ball sports are a terrible comparison in general because over 50% of the elements of those games are dictated primarily by the athleticism and physical explosiveness of the players. Video games are 100% mental so that aspect is weighed much more heavily in those regards.

 

[GP&B]

Casuals are nothing but a periphery to Project M the same way competitives are nothing but a periphery to official Smash. They should not be treated as anything more.

Funny because the existence of the Alternate Stage Loader, alternate costumes, and PM-exclusive special modes say otherwise. Everyone is a casual player starting out and this is precisely the kind of mindset that can kill the game in the long run. PM may be geared for competitive play (the only Smash of its kind to be explicitly designed for such), but you can find sprinkled among almost every character a fun reference or gimmicky/entertaining element. None of these add to the game from a competitive standpoint but they help give PM personality.