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

[nLiM8d]

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.

I suppose then that if you want to experience L-canceling, Continue to play Project M. If you're interested in seeing something else, look forward to Smash 4.

As a nod to 64, I'd love it if they released a demo that allowed you to play the characters revealed up to this point, even if it were only the ones that started in smash 64.

 

[[Corn]]

Yeah but it was replaced with nothing.

This, Brawl has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever.

 

[choknater]

Yeah but it was replaced with nothing.

there's no need to replace it with anything

it was already pretty erroneous

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

there's no need to replace it with anything

it was already pretty erroneous

Brawl would beg to differ.

 

[choknater]

haha what does that even mean?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

lol i'm saying the game would have been more enjoyable if they had reduced landing lag on moves or canceling.

 

[Aidebit]

He's saying that Brawl was slower than Melee because of the lag from aerial attacks.

 

[Sedda]

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.

The way I see it is that every competitive game offers a different flavor of the same thing. I play chess sometimes, and chess offers things that Smash doesn't in terms of strategy and viceversa. The foundation of every competitive game is the concept of mind vs mind, but the way they go about showcasing that is different. Doesn't mean that there has to be artificial difficulty added to a game. For example (as mentioned numerous times here), if we had an L cancelling mechanic that promoted thinking and positives to not doing it every once in a while, it would be better. People would still be impressed with shield pressure and all that, but it would be equally impressive to know when not to L cancel as well.

I'm trying to show that I'm not against technical prowess in competition. I just don't want it to be pointless.

 

[Tien2500]

This is generally my feelings on the matter. Less lag on A attacks would go a long way towards improving the games, and making certain characters (Squirtle, Falcon, Mario) a lot more viable. However, actually making people do the L cancel adds next to nothing in terms of strategy and just throws up an arbitrary technical barrier.

For an example of this sort of thing done right, see pushblocking in MvC. It adds a bit of technical skill to the mix, but it also adds an element of strategy. I have to know the lag on my opponents moves, my countering options, and decide whether I want to be close to my opponent when the move ends or whether I want them to be far away.

 

[smashbro29]

Oh, but it does have relevance. The thread is proposing that Smash 4 should not have L-canceling. In your perfect world, there would be neither L-canceling nor landing lag. So, my point with Brawl is that while casual players are celebrating the lowered technical barrier, much of the cast has descended into "completely unviable" instead of only "hard to play well". So, given the choice, would you rather have Smash 4 end up like Brawl? Or end up like Melee?

Talk about your loaded questions! I'd rather have it end up like Smash 4.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Talk about your loaded questions! I'd rather have it end up like Smash 4.

It was a question of priority. So yes, it was a loaded question. Also, talk about old post resurrection.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Talk about age discrimination.

 

[smashbro29]

It was a question of priority. So yes, it was a loaded question. Also, talk about old post resurrection.

I come back everytime there's new smash game hype. Like a drug.

 

[DefenseTech]

Holy resurrect batman

 

[PikaJew]

Why do people complain about landing lag using a move in the air?
Just use a different move that doesn't lag as much when you land.... or start that move earlier.

 

[Deleted member]

I like to think of L-canceling as money. It's very arbitrary (you can't buy something without money), there are very few situations where not having it would be useful (except for taxes ), and everybody needs to get it. Money is accepted as valuable because it takes work to earn and opens up a whole world of possibilities once it is obtained. I feel the same way about l-canceling. I earned the opportunities offered by the mechanic, and I would feel cheated if suddenly my money was made worthless.

 

[TreK]

I like to think of L-canceling as money. It's very arbitrary (you can't buy something without money), there are very few situations where not having it would be useful (except for taxes ), and everybody needs to get it. Money is accepted as valuable because it takes work to earn and opens up a whole world of possibilities once it is obtained. I feel the same way about l-canceling. I earned the opportunities offered by the mechanic, and I would feel cheated if suddenly my money was made worthless.

That's a good analogy, but it shows a very selfish attitude that I do not share.
I want newer players from this community to get to know what this 'world of possibilities' you're speaking about is. And removing unnecessary hurdles is a good thing in that regard.

To go back to your analogy, that'd be the equivalent of the Melee community being a club of very rich people that say to people who want to join them 'well step your **** up, we don't have poor people around here'.

 

[[Corn]]

I like to think of L-canceling as money. It's very arbitrary (you can't buy something without money), there are very few situations where not having it would be useful (except for taxes ), and everybody needs to get it. Money is accepted as valuable because it takes work to earn and opens up a whole world of possibilities once it is obtained. I feel the same way about l-canceling. I earned the opportunities offered by the mechanic, and I would feel cheated if suddenly my money was made worthless.

I can see the purpose of this, but it shows only one side of the baseline of opinion. Ill probably have to quote myself here.

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.

In my view, the baseline is not L canceling, which makes your analogy not make any sense to me lol.

My analogy would be in relations to yours, this.

"I like to think of L-canceling as 2 people at war against each other with no weapons and having exactly the same characteristics. Suddenly 2 guns appear in front of the two. Of course both people will pick up a gun because the other would be at an advantage if they didn't pick up a gun themselves, so logically they both pick up a gun and stay stalemated"

The question being, why didnt the gun change anything when it is clearly better then just fists? Why didnt the two just have guns in the first place?

 

[Deleted member]

I can see the purpose of this, but it shows only one side of the baseline of opinion. Ill probably have to quote myself here.



In my view, the baseline is not L canceling, which makes your analogy not make any sense to me lol.

My analogy would be in relations to yours, this.

"I like to think of L-canceling as 2 people at war against each other with no weapons and having exactly the same characteristics. Suddenly 2 guns appear in front of the two. Of course both people will pick up a gun because the other would be at an advantage if they didn't pick up a gun themselves, so logically they both pick up a gun and stay stalemated"

The question being, why didnt the gun change anything when it is clearly better then just fists? Why didnt the two just have guns in the first place?

Your analogy is very good, and, after looking at my own, I think there is a middle ground that most accurately describes the mechanic. l-canceling is not given to the fighters. It's offered as an alternative that requires a little elbow grease to master. I like to think of it as tokens for an arcade game in a jar at the top of a shelf. It takes a little work to get to the top of the shelf, but it's worth it in the end. Once both parties get the tokens they can really start to play the game.

On another note, I'm not sure that L-canceling is equal for all characters. Since some characters have different amounts of base landing lag on their aerials ( vs. ), L-canceling does a great job of giving slower characters a chance while minimizing the buffing effect on the characters that are already fast. Because it cuts landing lag in half, characters with large lag get the biggest benefit from the mechanic.

 

[Deleted member]

That's a good analogy, but it shows a very selfish attitude that I do not share.
I want newer players from this community to get to know what this 'world of possibilities' you're speaking about is. And removing unnecessary hurdles is a good thing in that regard.

To go back to your analogy, that'd be the equivalent of the Melee community being a club of very rich people that say to people who want to join them 'well step your **** up, we don't have poor people around here'.

If I came off as selfish I apologize. I was trying to say that the mechanic adds a little required work for everybody, which I believe is a good thing because it makes the players invested in the game. The players who felt that l-canceling was too hard probably would not have enjoyed playing competitively anyway, since many technical hurdles in Smash are more difficult than L-canceling. I'm a big believer in success through hard work, and I think the mechanic really helps me feel that because it's effects are so obvious.

 

[[Corn]]

Your analogy is very good, and, after looking at my own, I think there is a middle ground that most accurately describes the mechanic. l-canceling is not given to the fighters. It's offered as an alternative that requires a little elbow grease to master. I like to think of it as tokens for an arcade game in a jar at the top of a shelf. It takes a little work to get to the top of the shelf, but it's worth it in the end. Once both parties get the tokens they can really start to play the game.

On another note, I'm not sure that L-canceling is equal for all characters. Since some characters have different amounts of base landing lag on their aerials ( vs. ), L-canceling does a great job of giving slower characters a chance while minimizing the buffing effect on the characters that are already fast. Because it cuts landing lag in half, characters with large lag get the biggest benefit from the mechanic.

Well ya it isnt equal for all characters, but its equal for all players to use it.

Do'se MU's

 

[Dark_Crono]

Guys are there any weight differences or fast fall in smash 4? i didnt see any of that so why there would be a problem with l cancelling in the game? it would be a totally different game and about people saying thats its pointless... well its not since a lot of characters get more chances to win just because of it. Theres never an equal character theres always the stronger characters and without advance techniques it becomes in a really boring fighting game where you only see 2 or 3 different character just because theres nothing giving more flexibility to the game. You have to see the l cancel technique just as a step to that point since theres A LOT MORE to melee than just l cancelling.


sorry if i couldnt explain myself right my english is not that good.

 

[Evil-Guy]

While we are discussion this:
Why is double jump exist? It does no make sense

 

[Deleted member]

While we are discussion this:
Why is double jump exist? It does no make sense

It would be a lot harder to recover without it. It would also be way hard to finish combos. It doesn't make much sense, but it does serve a valuable purpose.

 

[Deleted member]

Well ya it isnt equal for all characters, but its equal for all players to use it.

Do'se MU's

I apologize for sounding ignorant, but was the last part shorthand or a typo?

 

[Kamiko]

If I came off as selfish I apologize. I was trying to say that the mechanic adds a little required work for everybody, which I believe is a good thing because it makes the players invested in the game. The players who felt that l-canceling was too hard probably would not have enjoyed playing competitively anyway, since many technical hurdles in Smash are more difficult than L-canceling. I'm a big believer in success through hard work, and I think the mechanic really helps me feel that because it's effects are so obvious.

The problem with this, is that a mechanic that doesn't offer choices doesn't allow combat skill to show through. I understand your desire to show your effort, but that work should be put into more universal things like positioning, reaction time, and decision making. These skills will carry over into other games as well as real-world situations, and generally won't be lost in the presence of strange game mechanics. These are the kinds of things that should determine victory in Smash.

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

Aside from the other really good arguments here, another thing I hated about L-cancelling was the fact it gradually destroyed controllers.
Controllers they don't make any more.

 

[mood4food77]

i've used the same gamecube controller since '06, still works great for any game i play

gamecube controllers can take a beating

 

[[Corn]]

I apologize for sounding ignorant, but was the last part shorthand or a typo?

Shorthand

Every character has matchups that vary, but mirrors are even.

i've used the same gamecube controller since '06, still works great for any game i play

gamecube controllers can take a beating

If you have an official gamecube on made of Nintendium of course it wont die, but use any non Nintendo one and it dies really fast lol.

 

[mood4food77]

forgot about those crappy 3rd party controllers

 

[mood4food77]

forgot about those crappy 3rd party controllers

 

[Fenrir VII]

I'm back. watch out. >.>

I hate this argument for several reasons:

1. There were times that you shouldn't L-cancel in Melee. Float canceling didn't need it, and it would cause you to shield at the end. So not very useful there. Also, any aerial + waveland arrangement obviously used a different timing than an L-cancel.

2. L-cancel just provided another input that could screw you up on a miss. This is one reason that IC's would dominate newer players... the timing was messed up. If it were made completely automatic, a player wouldn't have to adjust for shield contact timing, and shield pressure would be a bit easier to perform, making it much harder to get away. Now before the "lol get better" argument, while pro players were really consistent with it, you can still see misses in high-profile matches fairly often. It's a mistake that anybody can make, like spacing, recovery, etc.

3. A new player could learn how to L-cancel in a couple hours, and get fairly consistent with it in less than a week of average playtime. Why is that such a huge barrier to beginners? I actually know a rather large number of players who were incredibly skilled technically, but hadn't yet developed mindgames/prediction, so I don't see how the controller is holding people back.

4. The "there's never a reason not to do it" argument is a very dangerous one, when you consider every argument you could make with it. There's never a reason not to space Marth's F-smash at the tip. Should that be automatic somehow? There's never (really) a reason not to fast-fall Falco's SH laser, or edge-tech perfectly, or spam projectiles at a range, or land perfect wave-shines, etc. Should these be made automatic?
There's a lot to be said about how technical the controls can be, and the relative difficulty of them. IMO, there SHOULD be a learning-curve to getting better at this game, both technically, and in the mindgames. It should be dual-sided, and though you should L-cancel nearly always, I don't think that should be given automatically

5. I think we all know that landing lag is not going to go away, so IMO, either we get L-cancel, or we have to deal with lag again, so why oppose it?

 

[[Corn]]

I'm back. watch out. >.>

I hate this argument for several reasons:

1. There were times that you shouldn't L-cancel in Melee. Float canceling didn't need it, and it would cause you to shield at the end. So not very useful there. Also, any aerial + waveland arrangement obviously used a different timing than an L-cancel.

2. L-cancel just provided another input that could screw you up on a miss. This is one reason that IC's would dominate newer players... the timing was messed up. If it were made completely automatic, a player wouldn't have to adjust for shield contact timing, and shield pressure would be a bit easier to perform, making it much harder to get away. Now before the "lol get better" argument, while pro players were really consistent with it, you can still see misses in high-profile matches fairly often. It's a mistake that anybody can make, like spacing, recovery, etc.

3. A new player could learn how to L-cancel in a couple hours, and get fairly consistent with it in less than a week of average playtime. Why is that such a huge barrier to beginners? I actually know a rather large number of players who were incredibly skilled technically, but hadn't yet developed mindgames/prediction, so I don't see how the controller is holding people back.

4. The "there's never a reason not to do it" argument is a very dangerous one, when you consider every argument you could make with it. There's never a reason not to space Marth's F-smash at the tip. Should that be automatic somehow? There's never (really) a reason not to fast-fall Falco's SH laser, or edge-tech perfectly, or spam projectiles at a range, or land perfect wave-shines, etc. Should these be made automatic?
There's a lot to be said about how technical the controls can be, and the relative difficulty of them. IMO, there SHOULD be a learning-curve to getting better at this game, both technically, and in the mindgames. It should be dual-sided, and though you should L-cancel nearly always, I don't think that should be given automatically

5. I think we all know that landing lag is not going to go away, so IMO, either we get L-cancel, or we have to deal with lag again, so why oppose it?

Most of these have already been addressed.


1: That's one very specific example. And an waveland isnt canceling the lag of the air attack.

2: Read that first sentence. Thats exactly why this is brought up. L canceling adds no depth, that has already been discussed. Wavedashing is a great example of a tech with depth.

3: Its a small barrier, but the real issue we are talking about it is why does it exist in the first place? Why do we need a tech that adds nothing of depth.

4: You are comparing completely unrelated things that have large options not to do them. On a side note just because something is technical doesnt mean that its a good mechanic. No pride should be taken in unnecessary commands.

5: L canceling doesnt make the landing lag go away...That is an extremely simple minded thought. Cut lag on air attacks, introduce a new mechanic with risks/rewards, do something. I dont understand the "deal with lag again" part.

 

[TreK]

stuff

-Marth's tipper fsmash : spacing is directly dependent on decision making, which is not problematic.
-Edge teching : it is an additional input you have to perform in a disadvantageous situation, unlike L cancelling which happens during advantageous and neutral situations. Thus it is not a technical barrier, but a comeback mechanic. It is still a questionable mechanic, but not for the same reasons.
-Spam projectiles : that's actually quite a bad idea if you're not the player in the lead. It's also not an additional input.
-Falco's ff laser : yes, it is a bad technical hurdle. And it's funny that you mention it, because it's been handled the exact way we wish L cancelling would have been handled : by adding choice. In Brawl, Flaco can either slowfall dual lasers, or fastfall a single laser. It added choice to an otherwise brainless move, and it was a good change. That's what anti L cancel smashers want to happen.
-Waveshining : Unlike L cancelling, waveshining is impressive. No, I'm not even kidding about this point : feedback is an important thing in game design. And L cancelling has next to none. And waveshining has plenty. See, when technical barriers are done right, they're welcome. L cancelling was executed poorly.

Pretty much quoted previous posts to answer this, except for the falco laser part.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Quoting from the first post (because honestly I'm too lazy to go through more than 3 pages of this thread).

"______ is stupid and always has been. There is NEVER a reason not to do it. No advantage of not doing it so whatsoever. Therefore it should be automatic."

Spacing Marth's F-smash (and other moves), edge-teching, wave-shining, everything I listed, and countless other examples all fit in the blank on this quote. Frankly, whether the person doing the tech is on offense or defense, or how "impressive" the tech is is irrelevant. They are all techs that never have a reason NOT to do them, thus this quote applies to them.

The underlying implication of this original post (and most arguments that I've seen on this topic) is that if there is no reason not to do something, it should be automatic, which is a VERY wide argument that is only being used to target L-canceling, for whatever reason. This line of thinking as the primary argument against L-canceling is dangerous, because it applies to many of the core mechanics that make Smash Bros (among other fighting games) what it is.


My point with #2 was that L-canceling in itself IS a risk because you rely on it, and nearly every player misses it from time to time. The timing on the button press varied because of a number of things (time of shield hit, number of hits, etc etc), so while the tech itself is always of value. There is ALWAYS a risk that the player will miss it, which gives the attackee a chance to punish them. I believe this is a vital difference in the L-cancel and an automatic reduction of landing lag.

(completely opinionated statement) I don't greatly expect L-cancel to return in SSB4 (60-40 chance), but I definitely do not expect that if L-cancel does not return, we will get a new automatic lag-canceling tech. I just don't see that happening (/completely opinionated statement)

 

[[Corn]]

Quoting from the first post (because honestly I'm too lazy to go through more than 3 pages of this thread).

"______ is stupid and always has been. There is NEVER a reason not to do it. No advantage of not doing it so whatsoever. Therefore it should be automatic."

Spacing Marth's F-smash (and other moves), edge-teching, wave-shining, everything I listed, and countless other examples all fit in the blank on this quote. Frankly, whether the person doing the tech is on offense or defense, or how "impressive" the tech is is irrelevant. They are all techs that never have a reason NOT to do them, thus this quote applies to them.

The underlying implication of this original post (and most arguments that I've seen on this topic) is that if there is no reason not to do something, it should be automatic, which is a VERY wide argument that is only being used to target L-canceling, for whatever reason. This line of thinking as the primary argument against L-canceling is dangerous, because it applies to many of the core mechanics that make Smash Bros (among other fighting games) what it is.


My point with #2 was that L-canceling in itself IS a risk because you rely on it, and nearly every player misses it from time to time. The timing on the button press varied because of a number of things (time of shield hit, number of hits, etc etc), so while the tech itself is always of value. There is ALWAYS a risk that the player will miss it, which gives the attackee a chance to punish them. I believe this is a vital difference in the L-cancel and an automatic reduction of landing lag.

(completely opinionated statement) I don't greatly expect L-cancel to return in SSB4 (60-40 chance), but I definitely do not expect that if L-cancel does not return, we will get a new automatic lag-canceling tech. I just don't see that happening (/completely opinionated statement)

Again, your statement about the automatic things is incorrect. I suggest you understand the statement a bit more.

This sums it up very nicely as well

-Marth's tipper fsmash : spacing is directly dependent on decision making, which is not problematic.
-Edge teching : it is an additional input you have to perform in a disadvantageous situation, unlike L cancelling which happens during advantageous and neutral situations. Thus it is not a technical barrier, but a comeback mechanic. It is still a questionable mechanic, but not for the same reasons.
-Spam projectiles : that's actually quite a bad idea if you're not the player in the lead. It's also not an additional input.
-Falco's ff laser : yes, it is a bad technical hurdle. And it's funny that you mention it, because it's been handled the exact way we wish L cancelling would have been handled : by adding choice. In Brawl, Flaco can either slowfall dual lasers, or fastfall a single laser. It added choice to an otherwise brainless move, and it was a good change. That's what anti L cancel smashers want to happen.
-Waveshining : Unlike L cancelling, waveshining is impressive. No, I'm not even kidding about this point : feedback is an important thing in game design. And L cancelling has next to none. And waveshining has plenty. See, when technical barriers are done right, they're welcome. L cancelling was executed poorly.

Pretty much quoted previous posts to answer this, except for the falco laser part.

L canceling in itself is not a risk, missing an L cancel puts you in the exact same scenario in which you were if you didn't even attempt it in the first place. The factor you are thinking of here is the opponent capitalizing on you not doing a beneficial command. That makes the scenario to you a Neutral/Advantage situation and to your opponent a Advantage/Neutral situation.

Brawl actually had an autocancel of sorts, but it wasnt coded/executed correctly and some air moves had no ending lag whilst others has tons.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Again, your statement about the automatic things is incorrect. I suggest you understand the statement a bit more.

purely reading the quote, any of those options fill in the same way. "There is NEVER a reason not to do it. No advantage of not doing it so whatsoever. Therefore it should be automatic." is an incredibly blanket statement, and applies to everything I said. How is that incorrect?

Zelda's lightning kick has a fairly difficult spacing that prohibits beginners from being able to reliably hit it. There's no reason to hit the weak kick, instead of the hard kick, so every fair or bair should hit sweetspot every time automatically.

Edge-teching requires an extra button push and a difficult timing that prohibits beginners from being able to avoid death. There's no reason to NOT edge-tech, so it should be automatic.

Yes this breaks the game.. that's my point.

Look I'm not saying that these tactics are identical to L-canceling. I realize they're not. I'm saying that the blanket statement "No reason not to do it = should be automatic" applies to many more things than L-canceling in very negative ways, but is still the primary argument against it. And I think that's short-sighted.

L canceling in itself is not a risk, missing an L cancel puts you in the exact same scenario in which you were if you didn't even attempt it in the first place. The factor you are thinking of here is the opponent capitalizing on you not doing a beneficial command. That makes the scenario to you a Neutral/Advantage situation and to your opponent a Advantage/Neutral situation.

Brawl actually had an autocancel of sorts, but it wasnt coded/executed correctly and some air moves had no ending lag whilst others has tons.

If you didn't/couldn't L-cancel, you wouldn't use the same moves to approach on shield, for example. Therefore, there is a greater inherent risk to missing an L-cancel than not trying to L-cancel at all.

Let's say Brawl had L-canceling, as well as its regular ending lags, for example. Ike could zone fairly well with fair, but if the opponent were close or shielding, fair was very risky. The only real "safe" aerial option was nair.
Had L-cancel been included in that game, fair would have been a decent option in that case, but if you missed the cancel, you were punished. in contrast, Nair would still be safe even without the cancel.

There are examples similar to this in Melee, but Ike's lag makes it more obvious. What I'm saying is that relying on L-cancel realistically makes you play much riskier than you would if you couldn't. If no L-cancel existed, Falco's Dair-shine shield trap wouldn't exist, so it wouldn't be widely used in competition.

 

[Chiroz]

Let's say Brawl had L-canceling, as well as its regular ending lags, for example. Ike could zone fairly well with fair, but if the opponent were close or shielding, fair was very risky. The only real "safe" aerial option was nair.
Had L-cancel been included in that game, fair would have been a decent option in that case, but if you missed the cancel, you were punished. in contrast, Nair would still be safe even without the cancel.

There are examples similar to this in Melee, but Ike's lag makes it more obvious. What I'm saying is that relying on L-cancel realistically makes you play much riskier than you would if you couldn't. If no L-cancel existed, Falco's Dair-shine shield trap wouldn't exist, so it wouldn't be widely used in competition.

I won't discuss about everything else you've said because I don't have the time right now but I will say this, you are extremely biased and don't are using extremes that do not actually fit completely as counter examples just because the fit the very exact definition of what is being said.

Anyways, as of this argument. If L-Cancel was in the game, no Ike ever would not use F-Air if possible, so no, it isn't adding another choice it is just taking the choice of N-Air out of the question. If L-Cancel was automatic, the same exact thing would happen. The fact is you will still have the same risk every time you try to perform the F-Air which is failing the L-Cancel, there isn't a risk around the L-Cancel the L-Cancel itself is the risk, which is what people see wrong.

On the other hand, spacing has a lot of risks around itself. Moving to a different position creates many more risks and in order to space correctly you need to take a greater number of risks, you cannot just miss running (well except for tripping) but running creates a risk, so does jumping, so does approaching. In these scenarios the opponent also has a huge interaction, he can also space himself, counter you or do many other things to mess your spacing, yet with L-Cancel, the opponent has no interaction with you. Sure, can shield you or spot dodge and that means there's a different timing on the L-Cancel, but at the end of the day, the actual act of L-Cancelling correctly is all up to you, your opponent has no say in it. That is the different between getting a tipper or not getting it and L-Cancelling. One is purely mechanical, the other has many many different options and interactions.

You could fake going for a tipper and then drop into a grab, read your opponent and go for any other attack. Going for a tipper isn't always the optimal thing, you don't always do it. Sure if you already decided for an attack then you want to get a tipper, but what if your opponent moved slightly backwards and now its better to just go ahead and perform another attack to punish him into a combo. Tippers have a dynamic element to it, more than just different timings.

Don't compare 2 things that have nothing in common.

 

[Fenrir VII]

I won't discuss about everything else you've said because I don't have the time right now but I will say this, you are extremely biased and don't are using extremes that do not actually fit completely as counter examples just because the fit the very exact definition of what is being said.

Bias =/= using ridiculous examples to poke holes in a blanket statement.
I have no problem that some people think that l-canceling should be reworked. My problem is that the "no reason not to use = should be automatic" is always the first argument given, and the "exact definition" (because come on, we are on a text based website) applies to other very real examples that are important to the normal gameplay.

Keep in mind that I'm not actively arguing for l-canceling here (i probably will later) I'm trying to get the board as a whole to move past this statement to other arguments that actually mean something.

Anyways, as of this argument. If L-Cancel was in the game, no Ike ever would not use F-Air if possible, so no, it isn't adding another choice it is just taking the choice of N-Air out of the question. If L-Cancel was automatic, the same exact thing would happen. The fact is you will still have the same risk every time you try to perform the F-Air which is failing the L-Cancel, there isn't a risk around the L-Cancel the L-Cancel itself is the risk, which is what people see wrong.

Just false, nair is a great lasting zoner for rolls, dodges, etc, and bair would always have it's uses, but this is kind of a ridiculous sidetrack.

On the other hand, spacing has a lot of risks around itself. Moving to a different position creates many more risks and in order to space correctly you need to take a greater number of risks, you cannot just miss running (well except for tripping) but running creates a risk, so does jumping, so does approaching. In these scenarios the opponent also has a huge interaction, he can also space himself, counter you or do many other things to mess your spacing, yet with L-Cancel, the opponent has no interaction with you. Sure, can shield you or spot dodge and that means there's a different timing on the L-Cancel, but at the end of the day, the actual act of L-Cancelling correctly is all up to you, your opponent has no say in it. That is the different between getting a tipper or not getting it and L-Cancelling. One is purely mechanical, the other has many many different options and interactions.

You could fake going for a tipper and then drop into a grab, read your opponent and go for any other attack. Going for a tipper isn't always the optimal thing, you don't always do it. Sure if you already decided for an attack then you want to get a tipper, but what if your opponent moved slightly backwards and now its better to just go ahead and perform another attack to punish him into a combo. Tippers have a dynamic element to it, more than just different timings.

Don't compare 2 things that have nothing in common.

I'm aware of spacing risks, etc. I'm saying spacing the tipper is never not needed, so the whole sword should be a "tipper", right?

Nothing in common, but still apply to the same argument that never not needed = should be auto.

 

[Chiroz]

I'm aware of spacing risks, etc. I'm saying spacing the tipper is never not needed, so the whole sword should be a "tipper", right?

Nothing in common, but still apply to the same argument that never not needed = should be auto.

It doesn't though.

In order for there never to be a need not to tipper then in every single match of every single Marth player he should ALWAYS throw out an attack as soon as he is in tipper range of that attack, he should never, ever do anything else apart from that. So as soon as you walk into the range of a tipped F-Smash pro players should do the F-Smash without thinking of what the opponent is currently doing, even if he is already shielding or anything.

Basically in order to compare the need not to tipper then throwing out an attack as soon as you are in it's tip range should be automatic without any though. This also applies to all attacks, so you shouldn't be able to choose between F-Smash or F-Air or N-Air or B-Air, you should always do the attack that comes into tipper range first, as soon as you are at tip range, without thinking about it.

That is a good comparison to what L-Cancel is, yet even in that state there is much more going on as there is much more dynamism between you and the opponent.