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

[Fenrir VII]

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.

Just like the l-cancel existing means that an aerial always has to be used..

Obviously I'm saying that the example should remove the "weak hit" from the fsmash, not that the fsmash should be the only move used. There's never a reason a weak hit is needed, so remove it from the game.

 

[Chiroz]

Just like the l-cancel existing means that an aerial always has to be used..

Obviously I'm saying that the example should remove the "weak hit" from the fsmash, not that the fsmash should be the only move used. There's never a reason a weak hit is needed, so remove it from the game.

There is though, if there wasn't then no pro would ever not hit a tipper, see what I mean?

I also posted many reasons why you would purposely go for something that isn't a tipper yet you did not address that. This is where BIAS comes in, which is why I said it, you see what you want so you cannot be reasoned with. Look at a pro Marth, do you see him only hitting tippers? Does the only time he doesn't hit a tipper is solely because he missed it and not because he decided to use a different attack because the situation changed? No, you will never see a pro Marth going for a tipper on 100% of his attacks as the situation changes dynamically and he changes his decisions and then performs another attack to punish the opponent (one which cannot be tipped in the time allowed to punish).

 

[Fenrir VII]

Gah this got sidetracked, and i feel like we're discussing two different things, so I'll leave the marth discussion alone after this post.
Keep in mind my argument was on Marth's fsmash only, and the argument was that the entire blade should act as a tipper, per the "no reason not to = should be auto" logic.

This has nothing to do with aerials, where the tip does affect knock back angle, or spacing, because the whole blade would act as a tipper.
Also saying that the weak hit should be removed does not imply that every attack should then be fsmash.

 

[Chiroz]

Gah this got sidetracked, and i feel like we're discussing two different things, so I'll leave the marth discussion alone after this post.
Keep in mind my argument was on Marth's fsmash only, and the argument was that the entire blade should act as a tipper, per the "no reason not to = should be auto" logic.

This has nothing to do with aerials, where the tip does affect knock back angle, or spacing, because the whole blade would act as a tipper.
Also saying that the weak hit should be removed does not imply that every attack should then be fsmash.

We are indeed discussing different things but on the same topic, and that is because I am trying to explain to you that tippers do not go into the "no reason not to measn should be auto" as you think it should.

Basically in order for there never to be a reason not to Tip F-Smash then that would mean that you should never actually execute a Non-Tipped F-Smash, even if you don't have enough time to space yourself . It also implies that there is no difference in the risk between performing an F-Smash at close range or performing it at Tip range and that the risk involved in throwing out an F-Smash is the same always, without taking into account positioning, your opponents positioning or his current action or state. What this means is that a pro player would never perform a single F-Smash that was not tipped, or in the same way they would never not perform an F-Smash as soon as they were in range to do it.

This in fact leads to every single pro Marth player performing F-Smash as soon as they were in tip range, without taking into account his other options or his opponents actions or options. Yet, this is not the situation. In a match there a many, many more options than tipping that F-Smash. Your opponent could be shielding, you could dash into a grab, you could jump into an F-Air, you could dash dance and bait a move out of him. No actual player will automatically and mechanical perform a F-Smash as soon as he is in tip range, which is what L-Cancel truly is.

Tip F-Smash does create options for the player, there are times when you are at Tip Range where you would rather do another move and thus there are times when it is better not to Tip F-Smash.

You seem to confuse the fact that it is always better to Tip an F-Smsash with the fact that this is not always an option or that there might be other options that are not Tipping it.

There are many times where a Tipped F-Smash is also not possible due to the decisions that you just made and a regular F-Smash is performed, yet by "Never Not Do It" logic, that player is an idiot and should have just instead not done anything, as performing a Non-Tipped F-Smash is never okay.

So to make it simpler. If it is literally impossible to space yourself, that is a reason not to perform Tip F-Smash. If the opponent is shielding, that is a reason not to perform the Tip F-Smash. If you can grab him into a chain combo (Spacies) or have another even better combo that is a reason not to Tip F-Smash.

There are many reasons not to perform a Tip F-Smash, there are also many more options available every time you can perform a Tip F-Smash and you are choosing to perform the Tip F-Smash over the other options. L-Cancelling has no options, no risks and no choice, it is an "always do" action, there is not a situation where you don't want to do it.

It is very different.

 

[Vkrm]

Jesus, this thread is depressing. Seems as though people see cancelling as melees biggest flaw. It sucks that L canceling is so misunderstood. Just because its the optimal way to use an aerial doesn't mean it can't contribute to decision making.

 

[UberMadman]

Personally, I don't mind L-cancelling so much, as it didn't alter Melee's competitive scene TOO bad. Theoretically you could pit a great Melee who couldn't L-cancel against a great melee player who could L-cancel and it wouldn't make too much of a difference in the long run. Wavedashing, however, turned Melee's competitive scene into a Wavefest, where if you couldn't do it, you might as well not compete. As someone who's always been TERRIBLE at Wavedashing, I hated it, and as such drastically prefer Brawl's version of air dodging over Melee's. As long as Smash 4 doesn't have an element in it that really separates the casual from the hardcore like Wavedashing, I'm fine. Don't get me wrong, I loved Melee's faster pace, I just didn't like how that just learning how to play the game well wasn't enough to make the competitive scene.

 

[Aidebit]

Personally, I don't mind L-cancelling so much, as it didn't alter Melee's competitive scene TOO bad. Theoretically you could pit a great Melee who couldn't L-cancel against a great melee player who could L-cancel and it wouldn't make too much of a difference in the long run. Wavedashing, however, turned Melee's competitive scene into a Wavefest, where if you couldn't do it, you might as well not compete. As someone who's always been TERRIBLE at Wavedashing, I hated it, and as such drastically prefer Brawl's version of air dodging over Melee's. As long as Smash 4 doesn't have an element in it that really separates the casual from the hardcore like Wavedashing, I'm fine. Don't get me wrong, I loved Melee's faster pace, I just didn't like how that just learning how to play the game well wasn't enough to make the competitive scene.

It's the reverse for me. I don't see wavedashing as needed except if you're playing like Fox. And wavedashing is something that helps you become more mobile. I think that a great Melee player who doesn't L-Cancel would benefit only if he plays Marth or Sheik or someone like that. If that player played Fox or Falcon, he'd definitely lose to an equally skilled player. Wavedashing is just an alternative option to dashing, and while it helps you have an edge, it won't decide your victory at all.

 

[Ghostbone]

Jesus, this thread is depressing. Seems as though people see cancelling as melees biggest flaw. It sucks that L canceling is so misunderstood. Just because its the optimal way to use an aerial doesn't mean it can't contribute to decision making.

There's no decision with l-cancelling, your statement makes no sense.

 

[Fenrir VII]

There's no decision with l-cancelling, your statement makes no sense.

The fact that L-canceling exists changes which approach options you can use.
You can approach with risky options that would screw you if you missed an L-cancel, or you can go with safe options that do not, but may not be as effective.

That's a risk-reward system, and my main argument as to why the mechanic should have stayed, rather than being removed or made automatic. Admittedly, the better the player is, the lower risk there is in missing an L-cancel, but many matches with some of the top players in the nation have a miss here and there.

 

[smashmachine]

The fact that L-canceling exists changes which approach options you can use.
You can approach with risky options that would screw you if you missed an L-cancel, or you can go with safe options that do not, but may not be as effective.

That's a risk-reward system, and my main argument as to why the mechanic should have stayed, rather than being removed or made automatic. Admittedly, the better the player is, the lower risk there is in missing an L-cancel, but many matches with some of the top players in the nation have a miss here and there.

"if you don't L-cancel, you get punished" is not an example of risk-reward, hate to break it to you

 

[TreK]

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.

Yes it does, and yet you do not seem to have asked yourself why those other mechanics are not getting questioned.
It is the primary argument of a long, long list. The absence of any kind of decision making on its execution or absence of execution is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[nLiM8d]

@Thread

I suggest that the members here attempt to acknowledge the base message that Fenrir VII is founding his case on. He has reiterated his point of inference several times, yet all in opposition has argued everything but what's relevant to the conversation. Acknowledge what's being said first before passing judgement with your own opinions, all this "You're being biased" talk is giving me a headache,

You have a disagreement over something? Fine. Don't let that blind your interpretation of the main idea(s) being presented here.

 

[Vkrm]

There's no decision with l-cancelling, your statement makes no sense.

The defending player has options to screw the aggressor by doing something that alters the expected hitlag.

 

[smashbro29]

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?

1. Not shouldn't. Didn't have to. Big difference.

2. The very few things it accidentally did well can easily be redesigned.

3. Good for your large number of players, nearly everyone I talked to (not on the internet outside) didn't even know the mechanic existed I had to explain it and when I did they give me this classic "what do you mean?" look. Think about the average Nintendo fan now ask them what they think about L-canceling they'll probably tell you it makes no sense. Because no other game employs anything like it.

4. Ok, when you put it that way it seems like a bad argument except all of those things make sense to the players it's intuitive it's a neat little secret when you figure out the tip of a move can hit harder (note the lack of arbitrary "skill" here) obviously if you want to shoot from far away you run away and shoot. If you want to do a short jump you tap jump a little bit and use a button/c-stick it goes on and on but all that stuff makes sense in regular play where L-cancelling (something never picked up by anyother series in any genre) doesn't click with everyone as instantly as the other 99% of the basic moveset.

5. I think we all know nothing and are not tied down by your guesses.

 

[J1NG]

There's no decision with l-cancelling, your statement makes no sense.

Well...in my most humble opinion, I don't think L-Cancelling, on top of everything, should require decision making. That's too much for me to think about when you tack on timing, spacing, mindgames, etc.
Maybe L-Cancelling in Melee was a shallow skill barrier, but that's what it had as far as tech skill is concerned. I think L-Cancelling should be in Smash 4 but perhaps certain aerial attacks should be auto-L-Cancelled with zero landing lag, while there would also be an option to turn on manual L-Cancel that would allow you to L-Cancel all your aerials like in Melee but with some landing lag still.
Just an idea...
Also, I'm not sure if anyone already brought this up, and if you have, sorry about that.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The defending player has options to screw the aggressor by doing something that alters the expected hitlag.

I've said this a dozen times, but it glosses right over them. It introduces a small risk that has to be evaluated before you make the attack. If the canceling were automatic, there would be no presented opportunities (missed L-cancels). The mechanic has depth in terms of these implications.

 

[Fenrir VII]

"if you don't L-cancel, you get punished" is not an example of risk-reward, hate to break it to you

How is it not, by definition?
You perform an extra action that has a chance of missing (risk) to trade for better shield pressure, combo options, etc (Reward); as opposed to using other safer but less rewarding options that do not require L-cancel.

Yes it does, and yet you do not seem to have asked yourself why those other mechanics are not getting questioned.
It is the primary argument of a long, long list. The absence of any kind of decision making on its execution or absence of execution is only the tip of the iceberg.

I understand that, and that's precisely why I am trying to destroy this argument. The entire first post of this thread (which is stating why L-cancel shouldn't be in SSB4) and many other conversations like it is based around a faulty argument. I understand that there are more reasons that you have to want L-cancel redefined, so let's focus on those, and drop the useless "never not helpful = automatic" argument altogether. I think that will benefit the discussion as a whole.

1. Not shouldn't. Didn't have to. Big difference.

2. The very few things it accidentally did well can easily be redesigned.

3. Good for your large number of players, nearly everyone I talked to (not on the internet outside) didn't even know the mechanic existed I had to explain it and when I did they give me this classic "what do you mean?" look. Think about the average Nintendo fan now ask them what they think about L-canceling they'll probably tell you it makes no sense. Because no other game employs anything like it.

4. Ok, when you put it that way it seems like a bad argument except all of those things make sense to the players it's intuitive it's a neat little secret when you figure out the tip of a move can hit harder (note the lack of arbitrary "skill" here) obviously if you want to shoot from far away you run away and shoot. If you want to do a short jump you tap jump a little bit and use a button/c-stick it goes on and on but all that stuff makes sense in regular play where L-cancelling (something never picked up by anyother series in any genre) doesn't click with everyone as instantly as the other 99% of the basic moveset.

5. I think we all know nothing and are not tied down by your guesses.

1. No. "shouldn't" is the correct word. In my example, Float Canceling would be screwed up if you tried to L-cancel it. It would at the very least slow your actions, and at times cause Peach to shield.

2. "accidentally did well" ... implying that shield or attack contact was not supposed to change landing time?

3. Completely casual players who don't know about the tech are irrelevant in this discussion, because they never need it anyway. Anybody who actively tries to compete in Melee will find out about L-canceling, either at tournaments, or through messageboards. Why are you limiting a tech that will be used at a competitive level for players who will never play competitively? I am basing my discussion on tournament players, because those are really the only players deeply affected by this.
Also, the "no other game employs anything like it" statement is completely false. many competitive fighting games have various lag-cancel mechanics. Street Fighter has attack cancels into supers. Heck, even Halo 3 has a reload-cancel that allows you to shoot doubly fast. Don't try to pass this off as the only game with an active lag cancel that is activated with a button push or combination of buttons.

4. Still just goes back to the "never not good = auto" argument, regardless of "arbitrary skill".

5. Fair. That's an opinionated statement, based on the decisions made when designing Brawl.

The defending player has options to screw the aggressor by doing something that alters the expected hitlag.

I've said this a dozen times, but it glosses right over them. It introduces a small risk that has to be evaluated before you make the attack. If the canceling were automatic, there would be no presented opportunities (missed L-cancels). The mechanic has depth in terms of these implications.

This is a good point. The defender could actually change the impact time of attacks (by adjusting shield angle, etc) in an attempt to screw up the attacker's timing.

 

[Fenrir VII]

EDIT... double post.

 

[[Corn]]

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.

Quoting myself because relevant

 

[nLiM8d]

nearly everyone I talked to (not on the internet outside) didn't even know the mechanic existed I had to explain it and when I did they give me this classic "what do you mean?" look. Think about the average Nintendo fan now ask them what they think about L-canceling they'll probably tell you it makes no sense.

I know exactly what you're talking about, its hard to interpret and its not intuitive fo someone who isn't regularly involved in athletics; more specifically any situation where a person would need to make snap decisions involving their body.

Stay focused to ensure that your landing has minimal cool down. Gymnastics has a whole section dedicated to this sort of activity.

That's sort of what an L-cancel is, an extra forethought or condition to ensure that you've gracefully executed a technique (an aerial in this case). Less grace, less points, less opportunities for you, and more opportunities for your opponent.

The problem lies in the way that the mechanic was established: it relies too heavily on realism. The function bears consequences which only a select group are intuitive. All you gymnasts and martial artists, smile bright because you have the advantage in the world of Smash Bros.

I understand that there are more reasons that you have to want L-cancel redefined, so let's focus on those, and drop the useless "never not helpful = automatic" argument altogether. I think that will benefit the discussion as a whole.

Agreed

 

[Zekersaurus]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that characters just automatically recover from aerials as fast they logically could given the move they just attacked with.

 

[smashbro29]

I really just wanna end with this, honestly we could go all day we know what will be said so I'm gonna leave it at this: It's not conducive to either competition or casual play. In competition it just raises the barrier and in casual play... it does nothing.

The reason I feel confident in just letting it go is because I don't think it will be in Smash 4 and I really don't care what people think of it if it probably won't even make it into the game. If ti does though, still gonna play it so whatever.

 

[TKD]

I had this thought a long time ago as a competitive player. It does feel good to L-cancel but we don't really need it to have an input. Landing lag simply being half by default would've made for the same beautiful gameplay and probably less frustrated newbies.

I have to say, though, the first time a friend showed me an L-cancel, it felt like the most fun easter egg I've ever seen in any game. Canceling Link's dair was a pretty interesting and exciting deal.

 

[mimgrim]

1. No. "shouldn't" is the correct word. In my example, Float Canceling would be screwed up if you tried to L-cancel it. It would at the very least slow your actions, and at times cause Peach to shield.

This particular example is bad because when Float Canceling L-cancel becomes impossible to do. This is because Float Cancel gets rid of aerial landing lag and gives Peach her normal landing animation. This makes it literally impossible to L-cancel when doing a Float Cancel because there is nothing to L-cancel, which is why you shield instead. It's not that you shouldn't L-cancel when doing a FC, it's that you can't L-cancel.

Just a minor nitpick.

 

[Fenrir VII]

This particular example is bad because when Float Canceling L-cancel becomes impossible to do. This is because Float Cancel gets rid of aerial landing lag and gives Peach her normal landing animation. This makes it literally impossible to L-cancel when doing a Float Cancel because there is nothing to L-cancel, which is why you shield instead. It's not that you shouldn't L-cancel when doing a FC, it's that you can't L-cancel.

Just a minor nitpick.

Lol a minor nitpick over a year after I posted that. Kudos. : )

 

[mimgrim]

Lol a minor nitpick over a year after I posted that. Kudos. : )

That's what I get for not paying attention to the date. >_>

 

[Road Death Wheel]

I wana get punished so ill not l cancel HErp DErp.

 

[---]

Please don't bump threads.