Why L-cancelling shouldn't be in Smash 4.

[[Corn]]

OR we can implement a new system, similar to one I mentioned previously which doesn't have the 'always l-cancel' mentality.

Oh I understand that completely reworking the system would help, its just I dont expect that to happen.

I just expect for SSB4 to have lower landing lag in general, as that wouldnt hurt higher play and lower play would be faster. It would also be the easiest thing I could think of doing.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

All of these have already been discussed here.

You yourself have added nothing with this post.

L cancelling is this initial technical wall that keeps some players out, and I really think that the community would be bigger if that particular skill barrier wasn't there.

What was the point of simply restating this? Especially when I've wholly acknowledged and responded to this point. Look:

The barrier argument is perfectly valid and I don't deny that it's a con to keeping L-canceling. Personally, I feel that it isn't too great a barrier to new players because anyone who is willing to play competitively is by necessity down for practicing extensively, knowing that technical proficiency is going to take considerable time. L-canceling, in regards to all the other things one must practice, isn't overly complicated and comes pretty naturally and steadily as you are working on all the other skills. So there is my argument for why the "bad" isn't so bad.

I've played Melee since 2005 and have taught a few people who had never played and are now technically proficient. I've never heard of anyone complaining about L-canceling to the point that it drove them from competitive smash, because it isn't that big of a deal in light of all the other things one must learn and practice. The barrier effect is real, but L-canceling is only one small part of it. We wouldn't want to just completely dumb down every aspect of our game to make it more accessible, though I admit L-canceling would be one of the first things to let go if we want to dumb it down a little bit. But still, L-canceling alone isn't going to make or break many people's decisions (if anyone's at all) to play smash competitively. It's a small thing, considering everything else you need to pick up.

I would like to add that lowering the skill floor whilst maintaining a high skill ceiling is a very good thing. I dont understand the hate for lowering the floor.

It's certainly possible to maintain a relatively high skill ceiling without L-canceling; it's just one mechanic. But the skill ceiling, as well as the floor, are still higher with its inclusion.

I'm getting the feeling that most of the people who don't want L-canceling back are people who started competitive smash with Brawl, though I know there are a few exceptions. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but trust us: L-canceling isn't hard to pick up, and it keeps things a little more interesting.

 

[Sedda]

You yourself have added nothing with this post.


What was the point of simply restating this? Especially when I've wholly acknowledged and responded to this point. Look:


I've played Melee since 2005 and have taught a few people who had never played and are now technically proficient. I've never heard of anyone complaining about L-canceling to the point that it drove them from competitive smash, because it isn't that big of a deal in light of all the other things one must learn and practice. The barrier effect is real, but L-canceling is only one small part of it. We wouldn't want to just completely dumb down every aspect of our game to make it more accessible, though I admit L-canceling would be one of the first things to let go if we want to dumb it down a little bit. But still, L-canceling alone isn't going to make or break many people's decisions (if anyone's at all) to play smash competitively. It's a small thing, considering everything else you need to pick up.


It's certainly possible to maintain a relatively high skill ceiling without L-canceling; it's just one mechanic. But the skill ceiling, as well as the floor, are still higher with its inclusion.

I'm getting the feeling that most of the people who don't want L-canceling back are people who started competitive smash with Brawl, though I know there are a few exceptions. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but trust us: L-canceling isn't hard to pick up, and it keeps things a little more interesting.

I restated it because every new person who comes to this thread defending L cancelling forgets to read at least some of it and your points have already been brought up and discussed. I'm trying to make the conversation move forward, not in circles.

Also, it has nothing to do with Brawl. I don't play Brawl. I play 64. My whole argument isn't that it's difficult. It can be to some people and the scene could grow bigger if it wasn't here. However, the whole issue is that it's a bad mechanic because it doesn't promote thinking. It has no trade off, and it's just there to accelerate a landing animation that no one would ever want, so it would be better to make it automatic.

Removing L cancelling wouldn't "dumb down" the game. Having L cancelling is what dumbs it down, because it requires no thinking. There's never a reason not to do it. You're never at a disadvantage for L cancelling, hence it's a bad mechanic that discourages choice and strategy.

 

[[Corn]]

I restated it because every new person who comes to this thread defending L cancelling forgets to read at least some of it and your points have already been brought up and discussed. I'm trying to make the conversation move forward, not in circles.

Also, it has nothing to do with Brawl. I don't play Brawl. I play 64. My whole argument isn't that it's difficult. It can be to some people and the scene could grow bigger if it wasn't here. However, the whole issue is that it's a bad mechanic because it doesn't promote thinking. It has no trade off, and it's just there to accelerate a landing animation that no one would ever want, so it would be better to make it automatic.

Removing L cancelling wouldn't "dumb down" the game. Having L cancelling is what dumbs it down, because it requires no thinking. There's never a reason not to do it. You're never at a disadvantage for not L cancelling, hence it's a bad mechanic that discourages choice and strategy.

I think we need like a list to repost.

AUTO L CANCEL (Ending Lag is automatically halved on landing during an air attack or Ending lag is halved across the board)
-L canceling currently has no depth, you should always L cancel or get punished for not doing so. Mechanics that have no decision making in doing them aren't beneficial or part of why the skill ceiling is high.
-Uneeded technical barrier, L canceling is such a basic skill to even think of getting better at the game, its a pretty easy and simple mechanic, but why have it in the first place? Why not just have less ending lag like that for default? If removed it wouldnt change high level play at all while speeding up every other level.
-If removed, the skill floor of the game goes down while maintaining the same skill ceiling. Thats a good thing for a game to get spread out with.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

It wouldn't maintain the same skill ceiling though. L-canceling makes the game harder; it makes pulling off combos harder.
I have to go to work so this is all I can say for now. Also I think someone just said having l canceling dumbs down the game? O man. Might wanna think on that one guys.

 

[[Corn]]

It wouldn't maintain the same skill ceiling though. L-canceling makes the game harder; it makes pulling off combos harder.
I have to go to work so this is all I can say for now. Also I think someone just said having l canceling dumbs down the game? O man. Might wanna think on that one guys.

What, technical skill isnt the biggest thing that raises a skill ceiling at all. Stuff like wavedashing which brings so many options and isnt used 24/7 does and that has a much higher skill barrier then l canceling. Choices, playstyle varieties, and endless stratagies are what raise a skill ceiling.

Nothing at all would change besides not pressing l every single time you land, just because something is tedious or challenging doesnt make it an acceptable mechanic.

 

[Signia]

As players become accustom to the game and their rate of success goes up, that risk factor heavily shrinks. It's a similar situation with guard impact in Soul Calibur II. The technique itself, when successful or not, needs to be better balanced in with the rest of the game.

You get launched for missing a GI....

 

[JOE!]

Lemme rephrase the question: are you glad that Brawl had no L-canceling?

 

[choknater]

there is no benefit to NOT l-cancelling

totally unnecessary mechanic

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Stop pointing at Brawl as a case in favor of L-Canceling because it's simply not relevant to the conversation. The fact of the matter is, Brawl was designed to actively discourage competitive play. The designer stated as much unambiguously, and you can see it in the game's mechanics (tripping) and overall feel. My guess is, when Brawl was being developed, between the developers (who I recall were competitive Melee fanatics) and the QA team, they had highly skilled people playtesting the game in order to make sure that certain aspects of high-level competition were limited as much as possible.

l cancel were to adjusted to include both a fail window and an alternate hitbox during landing (like 64) I would consider that to be way better then universal auto canceling.

You don't seem to realize this, but you want the same thing as the people you're arguing with.

Just to be clear, we don't necessarily want L-canceling removed; we just want it at least justified, and that would require modification. Failing that, we wouldn't miss it if it was gone.

Do you play GGX? So roman canceling should be removed because it has no pros and cons? (Similar to l cancel)?

Roman Canceling: Recover from an attack instantly. Costs meter, but allows mixups, movement, and combos that would not be possible otherwise.

Not Roman Canceling: Recover from an attack normally. Meterless, but limits options after an attack.

Reasons to RC: Damage, mobility, safety, and setups.

Reasons not to RC: Save meter for other uses

Let's compare this to L-canceling in Melee.

L-Canceling: Cut aerial attack landing recovery time in half. Allows combos that would otherwise be impossible. Makes aerial attacks safe from punishment.

Not L-Canceling: Full recovery time on aerial attack landing. Many combos are impossible. Many aerial attacks are unsafe, and can easily be punished.

Reasons to L-Cancel: Damage, mobility, and safety.

Reasons not to L-Cancel: N/A.

And you know what everyone loves it. To the extent that a team of passionate fan dedicated time to fix a game ( brawl ) -that discarded all the effort a community gave over the years - and created project M

and you know what it has L CANCEL also. It is the way smash has been played and the way we all enjoy it.

"This one game isn't like this older game, so we hacked it instead of just playing the damn older game." gs.

 

[JOE!]

If you're referring to P:M, that is it's own beast and the redefined characters make it much different.

 

[nLiM8d]

I really wish we could be analyzing that right about now. I'd like people to add their own commentary on circumstances that make the mechanic flawed.

Reasons Not to L Cancel:

You forgot.

I gotta ask, because this way of thinking has totally warped my perspective, how many aspects of the game are players focused on the benefit in Not doing something? So like the choice in not tech-ing, there's a wake up attack involved with invincibility frames involved to prevent abuse (maybe just in brawl). This is a scenario where the success rate in your anticipation abilities is something to be scrutinized to such an immeasurable degree, you've almost got to rely on faith for your strategy to work.

Faith? Call me crazy, but that's not an concept that I can attribute to skill.

 

[Sedda]

I really wish we could be analyzing that right about now. I'd like people to add their own commentary on circumstances that make the mechanic flawed.



You forgot.

I gotta ask, because this way of thinking has totally warped my perspective, how many aspects of the game are players focused on the benefit in Not doing something? So like the choice in not tech-ing, there's a wake up attack involved with invincibility frames involved to prevent abuse (maybe just in brawl). This is a scenario where the success rate in your anticipation abilities is something to be scrutinized to such an immeasurable degree, you've almost got to rely on faith for your strategy to work.

Faith? Call me crazy, but that's not an concept that I can attribute to skill.

The difference is that teching gives you options even if you do have to do it all the time. You can tech in place, left or right. L cancelling doesn't allow you to adjust any kind of movement depending on the situation. It's the same for any aerial that you want to L cancel, regardless of direction or intention. I thought about teching being similar to L cancelling in that respect as well, but the truth is that it does reward you with DECISIONS if you can get the timing down, which isn't hard in the first place.

 

[nLiM8d]

You know what, I appreciate that. I guess what I'm trying to acknowledge is how not tech-ing, as a decision unto itself, is a positive. Like my digital logic class, introduce negative logic and everyone's heads explode.

The argument against L-cancels is how there is no downsides for not doing it. I believe there
should be more emphasis (discussion) over situations where when you don't do it correctly, can be detrimental. I'm getting the impression that its assumed that players will accomplish an L-cancel every single time. Is this a practical assumption?

What I'm interpreting is that not Tech-ing is regarded as an option, fair enough.
The aspect that concerns me is the outcome of that option is challenging to both predict and control. What do you have to say about this?

 

[Chiroz]

You know what, I appreciate that. I guess what I'm trying to acknowledge is how not tech-ing, as a decision unto itself, is a positive. Like my digital logic class, introduce negative logic and everyone's heads explode.

The argument against L-cancels is how there is no downsides for not doing it. I believe there
should be more emphasis situations where when you don't do it correctly, can be detrimental. I'm getting the impression that its assumed that players will accomplish this every single time. Is this a practical assumption?


What I'm interpreting is that not Tech-ing is regarded as an option, fair enough.
The aspect that concerns me is the outcome of that option is challenging to both predict and control. What do you have to say about this?

No, that isn't an assumption. The consensus is that having something solely to punish that person who can't get the timing down is just an artificial barrier that is in no way needed or beneficial to the overall health of the community. Why would making something failable be better? We could make jump a 4 button combination with strict timing, but how does that make the game depper?

In my opinion a game should give you full control of your character, nothing should be as trivial as if you fail one out of 20 L Cancels or 1 out of 200 you have an advantage. Again that is opinion and preference.

 

[nLiM8d]

I believe that you are thinking offensively when I'm leaning more towards the defensive attributes of things. Once you make a misstep, you've now switched from offensive options to defensive.

So someone DI's out of your aerial, you were once on the offensive side, but now you have to consider defending yourself either by resetting, counterattacking, or physically defending yourself. L-canceling may be considered a form of defense since when doing so, you're focused on closing the window of opportunity for someone to punish your endlag.

Feel free to correct me on whatever. As it stands, I'm not sure how much control you have against someone's tenacity to punish. I might need some clarification on the scenarios involved in your vision of 'Full Control'

The consensus is that having something solely to punish that person who can't get the timing down is just an artificial barrier that is in no way needed or beneficial to the overall health of the community.

I believe that L-canceling is artificial in the sense that doing so is an accomplished skill that becomes automatic to the player which isn't necessarily a good thing. Anything beyond that understanding I need clarification over because, the way I currently understand it, this aspect of 'skill' is something that only competitive players can recognize.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

What, technical skill isnt the biggest thing that raises a skill ceiling at all. Stuff like wavedashing which brings so many options and isnt used 24/7 does and that has a much higher skill barrier then l canceling. Choices, playstyle varieties, and endless stratagies are what raise a skill ceiling.

If the devs for some reason were going to let us pick between L canceling and wavedashing being in smash4, I would drop L canceling in a heartbeat as I'm sure everyone who understands wavedashing would. Simply being allowed to waveland in place on a platform opens a whole world to a player's potential extent of combos and techchasing, let alone all the other uses of directional airdodges.

What I'm trying to say about L-canceling is that it raises the amount of skill involved in the game. Consider Fox/Falco's SHFFL aerial>shine>jc>repeat routine. It's hard enough to keep up even while practicing, but much harder when you have to adjust the L-cancel's timing for every round of it depending on whether your aerial will whiff, hit solid, or hit shield. That's why people are always impressed when someone demonstrates an appropriate level of command over it, even if only for a few seconds. If you didn't have to worry about how you need to time the L cancel after every aerial, it would be quite a bit easier, more common and less respectable.

Smash, being a fighting game, puts quite a bit of emphasis on technical skill. If they emphasized it a lot more, that would certainly be bad as no one would be interested enough to invest that much more time in it. But if they emphasized it a lot less, it would be bland and out of place as a fighting game -- we'd be better off playing a more strategy-oriented game, where tech skill is not meant to be a big factor. So it all comes down to where you want to draw the line of how much tech skill is involved. Personally I think L-canceling isn't over the line, but having it left out wouldn't ruin smash4 for me. It'd be a minor disappointment but the game could still be great.

 

[Sedda]

If the devs for some reason were going to let us pick between L canceling and wavedashing being in smash4, I would drop L canceling in a heartbeat as I'm sure everyone who understands wavedashing would. Simply being allowed to waveland in place on a platform opens a whole world to a player's potential extent of combos and techchasing, let alone all the other uses of directional airdodges.

What I'm trying to say about L-canceling is that it raises the amount of skill involved in the game. Consider Fox/Falco's SHFFL aerial>shine>jc>repeat routine. It's hard enough to keep up even while practicing, but much harder when you have to adjust the L-cancel's timing for every round of it depending on whether your aerial will whiff, hit solid, or hit shield. That's why people are always impressed when someone demonstrates an appropriate level of command over it, even if only for a few seconds. If you didn't have to worry about how you need to time the L cancel after every aerial, it would be quite a bit easier, more common and less respectable.

Smash, being a fighting game, puts quite a bit of emphasis on technical skill. If they emphasized it a lot more, that would certainly be bad as no one would be interested enough to invest that much more time in it. But if they emphasized it a lot less, it would be bland and out of place as a fighting game -- we'd be better off playing a more strategy-oriented game, where tech skill is not meant to be a big factor. So it all comes down to where you want to draw the line of how much tech skill is involved. Personally I think L-canceling isn't over the line, but having it left out wouldn't ruin smash4 for me. It'd be a minor disappointment but the game could still be great.

I know what you're saying. Some people simply like to press more buttons. They like to be more technical, and I can understand that, but mind rules over body in any competitive activity.

I really don't think that we should take crowd reactions as a consideration when we're thinking about the merits of a mechanic. If we did that, then Smash just becomes another sport. You can like football or basketball and all of that, but the truth is that a lot of the decisions that happen nowadays with players and broadcasting has to do with reactions. People already go to Smash tournaments to hang out with friends anyway, and it's a nice friendly-competitive environment to be in. I just don't think that being impressed is a good enough positive for a mechanic.

As I've said before, I have nothing against an L cancel mechanic that gives you the opportunity to consider different scenarios where you shouldn't L cancel. In that case, everybody wins: I get an L cancelling mechanic that isn't worthless, you get even more people impressed because it's no longer down to a button press, but quick thinking as well. What we have now is simply a barrier, and I really believe that it does no good to the metagame.

 

[Chiroz]

I believe that L-canceling is artificial in the sense that doing so is an accomplished skill that becomes automatic to the player which isn't necessarily a good thing. Anything beyond that understanding I need clarification over because, the way I currently understand it, this aspect of 'skill' is something that only competitive players can recognize.

Yes, that is the "artificial" part, the fact that its automatic and you don't have to analyze what you are doing. The "Barrier" part is talking about other people who cannot get the timing down to an automatic level and miss L-Cancels on a regular basis, thus creating a barrier for them unallowing them to play on an equal footing as the people who don't miss the L-Cancels.

I believe that you are thinking offensively when I'm leaning more towards the defensive attributes of things. Once you make a misstep, you've now switched from offensive options to defensive.

I am not talking about offensively or defensively, what I am saying is that having a tech forced upon us just because failing it is detrimental is not a good concept or a design.

By "full control" I mean that every single ability or tech should be about giving you options and being difficult to implement in your gameplay, not to actually perform. There shouldn't be techs that are just there for the purpose of separating the players into those who can and those who can't. Having a tech which is hard to execute adds many new options yet is not completely necessary (like wavedash) is fine, having techs which have a steep learning curve is okay, but I believe having techs which are just there to make it harder for someone new to the game is (in my opinion) just wrong.

 

[nLiM8d]

Thanks Cloudmax

A tech without any downsides or decision-making in it is not a tech anymore, it is just a forced input.

I wonder if we can unanimously agree that L-canceling is not an advanced technique. We've got the pride thing handled on that note.

By "full control" I mean that every single ability or tech should be about giving you options and being difficult to implement in your gameplay, not to actually perform.

You've got me thinking. Its just that these things that add difficulty to gameplay are often a challenge to perform, especially at high levels. So what does this mean? The answer:

Having a tech which is hard to execute adds many new options yet is not completely necessary (like wavedash) is fine

There has been an edit here. So you're saying that Wavedashing adds new options? or Tech-ing does? My reading comprehension skills lately...

I am not talking about offensively or defensively

Stops me from opening my big mouth. The thing here is that while I can understand the thinking behind the implementation, its not necessarily something I respect. Why? Sometimes realism isn't the best thing for video games. Which is why I can acknowledge why you believe L-cancels aren't a good design choice.

people who cannot get the timing down to an automatic level and miss L-Cancels on a regular basis, thus creating a barrier for them unallowing them to play on an equal footing as the people who don't miss the L-Cancels

Alas, the skill floor...Still waiting on footage outlining that scenario.

 

[EpixAura]

The existence of L-cancelling IS pretty pointless when no one misses it anyway, so I could understand making it automatic, but it adds an incredible amount depth at low levels of play (trying to get used to L-cancelling is one of my favorite Smash memories). Not only that, it's important to have advanced techniques just so the game can be more than fighting opponents over and over to get better, even if the advanced technique becomes nothing but simple muscle memory later on.

I know its kind of weird to say this, but I actually like having to take time away from just playing against various people to practice tech skill. Even though something like L-cancelling doesn't exactly count as hardcore techskill, for the me of oh-so-long-ago, it was, and learning it was pretty fun, especially since I knew how fun it would be to surprise my rivals with an advanced technique they didn't know about, so I could enjoy getting a few easy wins before I told them about it. It didn't really work out like that, but it certainly made the following matches easier for a while. Besides, having to take time out to learn L-cancelling was a pretty good way of getting in the habit of practicing things like waveshining and shield pressure.

Also, every advanced technique I incorporate, no matter how instinctive and unnecessary it may be, adds to my ego. I don't care if that last statement sounds like a Melee purist, it really is how I feel.

I know the inclusion of it is still mostly pointless, but I'd still be sad to see Smash 4 without it (even though I know it will be.)

 

[CloneHat]

The biggest argument for L-cancelling adding to competitive play is that they intentionally took it out of Brawl

 

[Chiroz]

You've got me thinking. Its just that these things that add difficulty to gameplay are often a challenge to perform, especially at high levels. So what does this mean? The answer:

There has been an edit here. So you're saying that Wavedashing adds new options? or Tech-ing does? My reading comprehension skills lately...

By tech I meant technique. What I meant to say was that having a technique that you can perform and whose difficulty lies in the actual integration and not its execution is what I believe is good design, but as you said, I also hold respect for other people's opinions and I now my opinion isn't the one and only opinion. Fortunately for me though it is the popular opinion. (That in no way invalidates other opinions, it just means mine is shared amongst more people).

Stops me from opening my big mouth. The thing here is that while I can understand the thinking behind the implementation, its not necessarily something I respect. Why? Sometimes realism isn't the best thing for video games. Which is why I can acknowledge why you believe L-cancels aren't a good design choice.

My view on design is that players should be able to do perform the actions they want to perform. The difficulty of these actions should come from when and how to actually use them and from your opponent countering your moves. What I mean is that the move itself should have simple execution but very complex uses (Air Dodging into the ground to create wavedashing is one of the examples I can think of present on this game). This is my view on what good design is and in no way reflects any view from Sakurai or any authoritative figure though.

Alas, the skill floor...Still waiting on footage outlining that scenario.

I don't quite understand what this means.

All I was saying is that I believe the actual way you play, your reads and your overall game knowledge and how intelligently you play should give you more of an advantage than being able to respond with an automatic button press as soon as you can tell if your attack whiffed or hit. No offense to those who like L-Cancelling so much, I don't think its a bad technique, I just think that it isn't as great for this game.

 

[Sedda]

The biggest argument for L-cancelling adding to competitive play is that they intentionally took it out of Brawl

No. They took L cancelling out of Brawl AND kept the landing lag.

 

[[Corn]]

Thanks Cloudmax


I wonder if we can unanimously agree that L-canceling is not an advanced technique. We've got the pride thing handled on that note.



You've got me thinking. Its just that these things that add difficulty to gameplay are often a challenge to perform, especially at high levels. So what does this mean? The answer:



There has been an edit here. So you're saying that Wavedashing adds new options? or Tech-ing does? My reading comprehension skills lately...



Stops me from opening my big mouth. The thing here is that while I can understand the thinking behind the implementation, its not necessarily something I respect. Why? Sometimes realism isn't the best thing for video games. Which is why I can acknowledge why you believe L-cancels aren't a good design choice.



Alas, the skill floor...Still waiting on footage outlining that scenario.

1: I would agree that L canceling it is not an advanced technique

2: Wavedashing is a perfect example of a tech. It has decisions to be made that actually matter to the gameplay when used, do you wavedash forwards/backwards, do you attack whilst doing it, do you not do it at all and try something else? You arent punished for not doing it at every single moment you try to move. It has rewards and downsides with a moderately difficult execution. I would consider teching as more of a guard increase/pushblock/combo breaker, something that most fighting games have as well to allow for reaction time or such to escape pressure. Tech chasing is also a completely other story, as an entire stratagy is based around predicting what your opponent will do afterwords and force them to waste the tech.

3:The skill floor? How easy a game is to pick up and play. Being able to immeadiatly find basic combos and have faster gameplay just from not having a small technical barrier is nearly the definition of lowering the skill floor.

No. They took L cancelling out of Brawl AND kept the landing lag.

Why dont people understand this?

 

[Sukai]

L cancelling is not an advanced technique, anything that you must learn to play the game competitively should never be regarded as an advanced tech.

It's in the same breath as blocking, and there's obviously a huge difference in skill requirements, this is one of the problems with l cancelling.

 

[nLiM8d]

I'd like to make one thing clear: when it comes to L-canceling I can take it or leave it.

Personally, my only stock in the performed action is how it specifically adds to the (list) mechanics of a particular game. Simply put: I like what it did for Project M in increasing my awareness that certain functions available to me. Nevertheless, my thirst for new concepts and ideas that present themselves as mechanical features in NEW games allows me to cast L-cancels aside (whether I find it good or bad).

With that said, here's something I'd like people to consider: Aerials are intrinsically options.
If I were to classify L-canceling, it would be filed as a subcategory underneath Aerial attacks.
It may not be something you haven't heard already or perhaps you've even established that of your own accord, as it stands if you were to consider this as an argument you'd have to follow along the lines that I don't consider L-canceling as a class of its own, only an extension.

If I were to ask anyone here to load up a copy of 64/Melee, with all "your reads and your overall game knowledge " and ask that the conditional aspect of your gaming experience today was to avoid all aerial based moves, save for recovery specials, how much would say the game would change? Just don't jump, easy enough right?

The first thing that comes to my mind is that you'd be playing similarly to how most new players approach the game. In my experience, each new player does just fine until they've been knocked off the edge. Their ability to interpret 'gravity' is swept away as swiftly as their patience for the game up until that point.

What results from aerials at high level play? You might say juggling, directional influence, things of that nature. In the situations that you use an aerial attack, you take from one of two mindsets: recovery or pressure. Pressure comes from reading certain opportunities in a way that promotes follow through. Recovery, well that's bit harder to define because its so...

What I'd like to introduce to the conversation is that there's nothing inherently necessary about aerials...outside of the competitive community. That's not to say that when you play casually, everyone casts off their competitive conscience and avoids advanced techniques altogether. What I'm trying to get at here, in an unusual way, is that their is a certain risk associated with taking to the skies. It might be easy to overlook that consequence because its become so natural to you.

You overlook that by deciding using that one button to jump, that it was a decision out of several equally viable options. It was a maneuvering decision in the same way that rolls and spot dodges are decisions that belong to the same category. Run directly into your opponent, that's a risk, regardless of how intimidating it might seem. Since it is an option, its an aspect of game design that, ideally, has its benefits and its drawbacks

SO, all this is just a long winded approach to mention that in classifying aerials as an option, the consequence in execution includes landing lag as a risk. Ergo, L-canceling as an extension of the option, is an aspect that is associated with that risk.

It is NOT the best thing to come down the pike, I'm saying that its an attribute that addresses a complicated, at best faulty set up. The only thing you can do is hope for ingenuity in newer systems.

 

[[Corn]]

ISO, all this is just a long winded approach to mention that in classifying aerials as an option, the consequence in execution includes landing lag as a risk. Ergo, L-canceling as an extension of the option, is an aspect that is associated with that risk.
It is NOT the best thing to come down the pike, I'm saying that its an attribute that addresses a complicated, at best faulty set up. The only thing you can do is hope for ingenuity in newer systems.

I would like to say that using the term extension is acceptable to an air attack as not trying to L canceling isnt an option. Looking at the risk isnt correct though, as if you miss the cancel nothing additionally negative would happen from the original scenario.

 

[nLiM8d]

Looking at the risk isnt correct though, as if you miss the cancel nothing additionally negative would happen from the original scenario.

L canceling brings 2 options, use it and learn something that is required in every situation to even hope to get better, or not use it and fail.

I think may be misinterpreting you. Please clarify.

using the term extension in regards to air attacks is as acceptable as saying not trying to L cancel isnt an option

Is this what you meant to say? I apologize, your wording is somewhat confusing to follow.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Well, I have nothing more to offer, but I enjoyed this discussion with you, sedda and corn. I admit it broadened my perspective; I would mind less if l-canceling stayed out, as long as they balanced aerial lag correctly. I still would prefer l-canceling, and I agree with epix: having to learn l-canceling made learning how to combo so much more fun and rewarding. And it remains a challenge even if you're a pro, as I pointed out; you still have to stay alert and react to wether your attack will be sheilded, dodged, or connected.

A couple more things to address:
Sedda's mind over body point. I know what you mean, but if you're playing smash, you obviously favor a certain balance of the two. Otherwise, why wouldn't you just play chess or MTG, or any game that solely focuses on the former? L-canceling delays a new player's ability to jump into the mental aspects of smash, but ultimately it doesn't hamper them significantly when the player is finally technically proficient. And I never meant that crowd reactions are a central point and you know it. That people are impressed by space animals' shield pressure is just a byproduct of the fact that it's difficult, which is the point.

And finally, I'm glad to see everyone here recognizes the difference in importance with wavedashing, which is almost infinitely more gamechanging.

 

[[Corn]]

I think may be misinterpreting you. Please clarify.

Looking at the risk isnt correct though, as if you miss the cancel nothing additionally negative would happen from the original scenario.

Im looking at it as a glass half full kinda guy.

You miss the L cancel and the same scenario would happened if you didn't even attempt to cancel in the first place.
You get the L cancel and you recieve less lag and many options.

So in my eyes its a Neutral/Win risk mechanic, which is one of the reasons why I dont think it is a positive mechanic as at the very worst everything is the same if you didnt cancel at all.

 

[nLiM8d]

Im looking at it as a glass half full kinda guy. So in my eyes its a Neutral/Win risk mechanic

I follow you, but in the instance that you didn't 'win' or accomplish the L-cancel, now you're dealing with the full amount of lag associated with your executed aerial and all the punishment that comes with it. Which, if I'm not mistaken was the aspect of failure that you were referring to earlier.

I believe that you are thinking offensively when I'm leaning more towards the defensive attributes of things. Once you make a misstep, you've now switched from offensive options to defensive.

Would this way of thinking make me a half glass empty kind of person? XD

 

[`dazrin]

This whole argument is really dumb lol. Sorry to say, but it's been brought up in PM discussions in the past and there is just no end to the argument. both sides have fair points to them. In the end, PM has L-Cancelling because it aims to be a spiritual successor to Melee.

However, In regards to a completely new game like smash4, Sakurai intends to make the game somewhere in between Melee and Brawl. Sakurai knows that if you make a game too "hardcore," a technical barrier is created and it discourages the more casual audience from *moving to the next level* of play. On the flip side of the coin, Sakurai also knows now that if you make a game too "casual," it limits the options players have to utilize and essentially "forces" players to play the game a certain way, which makes the game eventually become stale. Shigeru Miyamoto directly addresses this topic and says,

"You know, obviously video games are designed for the player to play the way the designer has intended them to," he said. "But a good game—... is a game that gives you enough freedom that the player can create their own way of playing and can find ways of playing that the developers didn't envision. ..." (taken from http://kotaku.com/shigeru-miyamotos-next-great-game-as-far-as-hes-conc-513862764)

If a game forces the player to play a certain way, and gives little to no room for depth and growth, it becomes inherently stale after awhile and players become bored. It lessens the replay-value of the game. Melee has amazing amounts of depth, which is why so many players still play it to this day, and it's why the game is still growing and advancing even after all these years.

Sakurai is now aware of what happens to smash when you go too extreme in each of the two design directions, so he wants something in the middle; something that casual players will easily be able to pick up and play, while at the same time giving depth and freedom to the players who choose to "take their game to the next level". In order to accomplish this, I'm sure sakurai will keep manual L-Canceling out of the game, and instead just significantly lower the landing lag of aerials naturally, so there is no need for such a mechanic and it pleases both casual and competitive audiences. No inherent technical barrier that walls casual players away, but still the freedom for competitive players to play the game at high speeds with various methods of strategy.

Obviously it's way too early to judge how smash4 will turn out with the footage we have now (as things are very subject to change) but if you examine footage closely, aerials have VERY LITTLE landing lag at the moment, and natural landing lag is almost non-existent, which really speeds up gameplay. Again, it's way too early to say, but we know Sakurai is aware of these aspects as a game designer and he's heading in a good direction.

 

[[Corn]]

I follow you, but in the instance that you didn't 'win' or accomplish the L-cancel, now you're dealing with the full amount of lag associated with your executed aerial and all the punishment that comes with it. Which, if I'm not mistaken was the aspect of failure that you were referring to earlier.



Would this way of thinking make me a half glass empty kind of person? XD

The statement about failing was actually using the mechanic as it is now in competitive melee, cause you would fail in the competitive scene without it. Not because the mechanic has any negative effects that arent influenced by the opponent on the user because they dont use it.

I would have no idea about the water thing, regardless it just depends on what you consider the baseline of judgement. From my understanding I consider the baseline for viewing it to be not using L canceling, as it is easier to see benefits and such come. Neatral/Win situation.

I would guess that others baselines are always L canceling. So that would mean that you would always see the benefits lost and such go. Neutral/Lose situation.

I suppose this is why explaining this concept is hard lol.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

L-canceling is just a sequential mechanic, it requires that you jump and do an attack before you can even use it. The way I see it is if you can press a button to jump, and another to do an aerial, I don't believe pressing another button is gonna kill you.

 

[Chiroz]

L-canceling is just a sequential mechanic, it requires that you jump and do an attack before you can even use it. The way I see it is if you can press a button to jump, and another to do an aerial, I don't believe pressing another button is gonna kill you.

It wouldn't, but how is that a good argument to bring it back?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

It wouldn't, but how is that a good argument to bring it back?

Not saying it is. Just saying how I feel about it. Whether they bring or back or not isn't gonna make me lose sleep. It's something you do or don't do. I don't think it's that big a deal to argue about.

 

[choknater]

from a designer's perspective it really would make no sense at all to bring back l-canceling

it was out of brawl alread

 

[TheCatPhysician]

who cares owned brawl was admittidly for casual

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

from a designer's perspective it really would make no sense at all to bring back l-canceling

it was out of brawl alread

Yeah but it was replaced with nothing.