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

[Mr.Showtime]

He's just arguing for the sake of arguing. I might not be as great back in the day as he was (Yes I can admit my faults, holy crap), but I do understand where he is coming from. He misses the advanced techniques that were discovered in a game full of glitches. Sorry, but with time, games improve. Glitches are fixed. These techniques were never meant to be in the first place. Guess what, new techniques are even being found in Brawl today, and probably will be continue to be discovered.

I think Darwin's Theory of Evolution perfectly explains what I'm trying to mean....try reading it sometime.

 

[Schwaumlaut]

I don't think that more inputs = more depth. Divekick is a deeper game than Gundam Wing: Endless Duel. In fact, I think Smash Bros. is appealing for much the same reason that Divekick is: by stripping away a bunch of the technical bull**** that most fighting games have, both make it easier to play against your opponent, rather than against the game.

You want an easy shibboleth to tell people obsessed with tournament rankings from casual players. I suggest that you already have one: whether or not they care about L-canceling.

Re: Duderino and powershielding, yes and no; it's not like every block in tournament is a powershield, but I think there's at least some punishment going toward people who didn't properly read their opponents, rather than all of it going toward technical bungling, as with L-canceling.

 

[Mr.C]

Except that muscle memory only means so much. As you said, mental prowess is important, but you're talking as if physical prowess is as demanding as any athelete's.

You are right that it takes more than mind games to win, but you're forgetting all the fundamentals such as spacing, footsies, zoning, etc., all of which require significant mental skill to be proficient at. ****, look at Tekken. That game isn't all that technical aside from dash canceling and iSW and iWS moves (and that can be taken care of with some practice), and fundamentals are absolutely important there to the point that you're likely to get killed if you have bad fundamentals. You can win without having to do iSW or anything else like that so long as you outplay the opponent in general.

The entire discussion stemmed from peoples argument about wanting to get rid of Lcanceling because it was something that must be done and not something you can choose to do. I was simply referring to the simple fact that the most efficient techniques regarding anything must be done because it's the most efficient path to take.

In Melee the most efficient way to survive when trying to get back onto the stage is sweet-spotting. This must be done because it's the most efficient form of recovering. Obviously, there will be certain situations where overshooting the edge will be the superior choice but then you enter a situation where overshooting the edge was the correct decision and must be done.

Similarly, Directional Influence must be done. So why not argue about the removal of DI? Falsely claiming things such as "But you have choices to choose from!". No you do not. They're false choices. You must always choose the right choice, if you want the best outcome. Whether you choose to DI right, left, or keep neutral it's a decision that must be made. 100%, completely identical to Lcanceling.

I think people forget they're playing an artificial game engine with set mechanics. Your decisions regarding mechanical superiority over certain situations are not chosen, they are already designed within the games core physics. You just choose the correct choice for the correct situation. If you want to aerial, you must Lcancel. If you want to survive, you must sweet-spot the edge. If you want to survive in a different situation, you must overshoot the edge. The fact that one happens more frequently is completely irrelevant. And to argue for ones removal makes zero sense.

 

[JOE!]

At this point I think the guy is just trolling... but:

You said it yourself right there: there are multiple ways you must recover or DI, but just 1 way to Lcancel. Seeing as there isn't an option to Lcanceling, why keep it?

 

[Schwaumlaut]

The difference is that the question of left, right, or neutral has a DIFFERENT answer every time. The question of whether to L-cancel does not. Even sweet-spotting or overshooting, you said it yourself, is a question with two right answers depending on the situation. There is NEVER a reason not to L-cancel.

 

[Mr.C]

The difference is that the question of left, right, or neutral has a DIFFERENT answer every time. The question of whether to L-cancel does not. Even sweet-spotting or overshooting, you said it yourself, is a question with two right answers depending on the situation. There is NEVER a reason not to L-cancel.

That's exactly what I just refuted. You do not have a different answer every time. You only have the correct answer. One situation (Lcanceling) just shows up more frequently.

If player 1's most efficient way to survive is DI'ing right. He must DI right.
If player 2's most efficient way to survive is DI'ing left. He must DI left.
If player 3's most efficient way to aerial is Lcanceling. He must Lcancel.

See the pattern? They're exactly the same. Artificial decisions mean nothing when only one is correct. To argue for the removal of something with faulty logic, makes no sense. Simply say: I don't really like Lcanceling.

At this point I think the guy is just trolling... but:

You said it yourself right there: there are multiple ways you must recover or DI, but just 1 way to Lcancel. Seeing as there isn't an option to Lcanceling, why keep it?

Wrong. There are multiple ways you must recovery but in the context of the situation there is only one CORRECT way to recover, which MUST be done. The mere fact that Lcanceling shows up more frequently doesn't change the fact they are exactly the same situation.

See above example.

 

[JOE!]

and in a situation where you have 2 or even more valid methods to recover?

Or when you get thrown and have even 2 options for optimal DI and the attacker has to guess?

 

[Mr.C]

and in a situation where you have 2 or even more valid methods to recover?

Or when you get thrown and have even 2 options for optimal DI and the attacker has to guess?

It's the same exact scenario. You're put in the position where you must choose the correct path. It doesn't matter what the correct path is, all that matters is you're forced to choose it. It's no different than Lcanceling. If someones argument for the removal of Lcanceling is "because you have to do it!" then that logic would apply to everything, in every game.

 

[Myst007_teh_newb]

I think that requiring more inputs to execute an action definitely adds in more dimensionality such that top tier competitive play is highly differentiated from middle tier competitive play. if L-cancelling in Melee were automatic, we would effectively lower the barrier of entry into top tier play. Perfect fast-as-possible standing shffl'd Fox nairs (Which is fairly difficult to pull off consistently for long periods of time without practicing it for a while) would effectively become trivial. In this case, something that differentiated top tier players (The kind of practiced tech skill that makes SilentWolf so amazing to watch) from typical competitive players is removed. In a similar vain, suppose it required additional inputs to perform a shffl'd aerial. This would further differentiate top tier play and make it take even more practice to perform at the absolute top level. It would make top tier games that much more impressive to watch-- not because of what we see on the screen necessarily, but because we know the technical prowess required to make such actions happen.

Suppose:
Game A has auto-L-cancelling
Game B has manual-L-cancelling
Game C requires more button inputs to L-cancel

Note that, independent of the number of button inputs needed to perform the move, in this situation THESE GAMES LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME if all commands are inputted properly.

This is all well and good, but that brings up the question as to what we define as a 'deep' game. Is a deep game a function of the inputs we send into the game? Because if so, then manual L-cancelling DOES make for a deeper game. OR is a deeper game a function of the outputs that we SEE on the screen? Then the addition of manual-L-cancelling contributes NO additional depth to a game if it were to do it automatically.

The addition of manual L-cancelling gives the game added technical depth (Which, I argue, depends on the controller inputs), but gives the game NO added strategical depth (Which, I argue, depends on the game outputs).

That's my view on the situation.

 

[Big-Cat]

You're oversimplifying things. A beats B beats C beats A - classic rock, paper, scissors. I have to make the guess that he does B so I will counter with A. But wait, what if he decides to do C instead? If my opponent is constantly using C, I know to just toss out B, especially if he's not changing his patterns.

In RPS, every option is equally valid. It's all about guessing and making reads.

 

[Shimesaba]

Removing L-cancelling is a stealth nerf to heavy chars and Captain Falcon.

It also feels damn good when you first get it down.

 

[Sedda]

Similarly, Directional Influence must be done. So why not argue about the removal of DI? Falsely claiming things such as "But you have choices to choose from!". No you do not. They're false choices. You must always choose the right choice, if you want the best outcome. Whether you choose to DI right, left, or keep neutral it's a decision that must be made. 100%, completely identical to Lcanceling.

It's like you just answered your own question. It's NOTHING like L cancelling. Yes, it's always a good idea to DI, but you have options that depend on the situation. L cancelling doesn't give you that.

Either you're trolling at this point, can't comprehend new ideas being given to you, or are just hurt that we're attacking a technique that you're used to being able to do and don't want to accept that it's a bad mechanic.

Maybe SHFFLing was big when you started. Maybe that was the division between good and bad players, but techskill only wins you games against casuals. In high level play, techskill is only a tool, but your mind is the one that controls the match.

 

[Mr.C]

@Myst007_teh_newb,

Exactly. I personally don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to having a game with clear-cut skill-gaps acquired through game mechanics that must be practiced. Getting tired of people wanting to play games competitively but aren't interested in actually practicing the game to get on a competitive level.

 

[Sedda]

@Myst007_teh_newb,

Exactly. I personally don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to having a game with clear-cut skill-gaps acquired through game mechanics that must be practiced. Getting tired of people wanting to play games competitively but aren't interested in actually practicing the game to get on a competitive level.

If you think this is what we're arguing about, then you've missed the point. In your own terms, you're the only one forcing people to go for easier gameplay choices because you must ALWAYS L cancel, instead of making the mechanic optional depending on the situation. Do I DI right or left? Should I L cancel or not? Should I sweetspot while recovering or recover high?

It has nothing to do with practicing, because an L cancelling mechanic that has different options requires more practice than an L cancelling mechanic that is always the same.

EDIT- also, there have been more technical players that aren't as good as SMART players. I don't play Melee much, but there's a Japanese SSB64 player who goes by Red, or Red Mario, and he's not very technical, but until very recently he was considered the best Japanese player, in a game where Z cancelling is even more crucial than Melee. I guess he must not really be good because he's not as technical as Isai, who has called Red the best Japanese player before...

 

[Schwaumlaut]

That's exactly what I just refuted. You do not have a different answer every time. You only have the correct answer. One situation (Lcanceling) just shows up more frequently.

If player 1's most efficient way to survive is DI'ing right. He must DI right.
If player 2's most efficient way to survive is DI'ing left. He must DI left.
If player 3's most efficient way to aerial is Lcanceling. He must Lcancel.

See the pattern? They're exactly the same. Artificial decisions mean nothing when only one is correct. To argue for the removal of something with faulty logic, makes no sense. Simply say: I don't really like Lcanceling.



Wrong. There are multiple ways you must recovery but in the context of the situation there is only one CORRECT way to recover, which MUST be done. The mere fact that Lcanceling shows up more frequently doesn't change the fact they are exactly the same situation.

See above example.

The answer to the question is "What is the most efficient way to survive?" isn't "DI correctly", it's "Don't get hit". Sure, it's true, but it's not often a useful way to think about specific situations.

Put another way: I don't buy your premise that an analogous question/answer is "What is the correct way to DI?"/"The correct way to DI". In some situations, sure, only one will let you live. In others, it's a choice between a path that leaves you closer to your opponent or further away, one that puts you on a high approach back or a low approach back. This is a much deeper question than "Do I want to be unable to do anything for twice as long when I land?"

You, however, don't think that obstacles irrelevant to the players' thinking are a problem, so I don't think there's much left to discuss.

 

[Mr.C]

If you think this is what we're arguing about, then you've missed the point. In your own terms, you're the only one forcing people to go for easier gameplay choices because you must ALWAYS L cancel, instead of making the mechanic optional depending on the situation. Do I DI right or left? Should I L cancel or not? Should I sweetspot while recovering or recover high?

It has nothing to do with practicing, because an L cancelling mechanic that has different options requires more practice than an L cancelling mechanic that is always the same.

EDIT- also, there have been more technical players that aren't as good as SMART players. I don't play Melee much, but there's a Japanese SSB64 player who goes by Red, or Red Mario, and he's not very technical, but until very recently he was considered the best Japanese player, in a game where Z cancelling is even more crucial than Melee. I guess he must not really be good because he's not as technical as Isai, who has called Red the best Japanese player before...

What are you even talking about? Tech skill and being smart are not exclusive. In a fighting games realm of efficiency you must be good at both the technical and mental aspect of the game. That's completely obvious... There's just absolutely no reason to remove game play mechanics that add dimensionality, a category Lcanceling falls under.

Do you even compete in actual tournaments or are you just a friendly neighborhood newbie trying to argue about what technical aspects are needed in a game when you don't even play competitively? Lol.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

You actually raise a good point, but without L canceling, the developers will always put a decent amount of lag on the aerials. I can't see them just reducing all the lag on every aerial to nearly nothing, the way it is with L canceling. In addition, personally to me, it is much more fun having to practice to EARN being able to do a combo, rather than having it be easy to pull off. I like the experience of practicing a tech and pulling it off, it is rewarding, and thus more fun than it being automatically given to me.

Also, there are a few mind games out there where you miss an L cancel on purpose. Miss one at the right spacing and an opponent might try to punish you, but if you know your recovery time you can punish them first and catch them off guard. I've done this before. It is an extra option.

THIS!

Combos were ridiculously scarce in Brawl. Most people just rack up damage little by little and then get a kill move off or a successful edgeguard. L-Cancelling (Melee ver.) allows you to cancel half the lag on your aerials IF you time it properly, which IS rewarding like EdreesesPieces said. Smash 4 already doesn't have wavedashing (it seems), so without L-Cancelling I see it being very hard to do combos again.

 

[Sedda]

What are you even talking about? Tech skill and being smart are not exclusive. In a fighting games realm of efficiency you must be good at both the technical and mental aspect of the game. That's completely obvious...

There's just absolutely no reason to remove game play mechanics that add dimensionality, a category Lcanceling falls under.

Do you even compete in actual tournaments or are you just a friendly neighborhood newbie trying to argue about what technical aspects are needed in a game when you don't even play competitively? Lol.

You just ignored the fact that, under your own ridiculous premise of what a competitive experience should be, you're the one who wants to make your game easier.

Laugh at me for being a "friendly neighborhood newbie," oh great master of MOONWALKING the technical-nonsense-flashy-move-that-doesn't-add-anything-to-the-metagame technique.

With this post you've just confirmed that you're a fool who thinks that only having a long resume in Smash makes his point right and who chooses to attack me as the "newbie." Other experienced players here are saying the same thing. Goodbye.

 

[JOE!]

It's the same exact scenario. You're put in the position where you must choose the correct path. It doesn't matter what the correct path is, all that matters is you're forced to choose it. It's no different than Lcanceling. If someones argument for the removal of Lcanceling is "because you have to do it!" then that logic would apply to everything, in every game.

Lets put it this way:

Yes, you have to recover. Yes, you have to DI. However, there are multiple ways to do those things with differing pros and cons, there are even pros to doing the "least efficient" method at times as you interact with the attacker in each case to throw them off. Say you had to DI Up to avoid the next hit, and the attacker knew this. You could try to DI Up and avoid the hit, but the attacker would predict this and get you with another move. If instead you DI right and get some % in exchange for resetting your position and throwing off the opponent for you to come back around, which one is better?

L-canceling doesn't lead to decisions like this: there is only a con to not doing it. So while you must DI and Recover to succeed, you have multiple ways of doing so that create depth, which is not the same as the binary nature of reducing your landing lag or not.

 

[Mr.C]

You just ignored the fact that, under your own ridiculous premise of what a competitive experience should be, you're the one who wants to make your game easier.

Laugh at me for being a "friendly neighborhood newbie," oh great master of MOONWALKING the technical-nonsense-flashy-move-that-doesn't-add-anything-to-the-metagame technique.

With this post you've just confirmed that you're a fool who thinks that only having a long resume in Smash makes his point right and who chooses to attack me as the "newbie." Other experienced players here are saying the same thing. Goodbye.

Calling someone a newbie isn't an attack. I didn't mean "newbie" as an insult. If someone is new, they're a newbie. But for a person who hasn't played Melee (or both games for that matter) at a competent level, trying to argue the merits of techniques in a game he has never played competitively, is just a little silly.

 

[Schwaumlaut]

There's just absolutely no reason to remove game play mechanics that add dimensionality, a category Lcanceling falls under.

This is precisely the point of contention. I don't think L-canceling adds any dimensions to the gameplay, it just adds a button input. Super Hexagon is not a deep game, and wouldn't be made deeper by a "you must press this before you can change direction" button. I contend that Super Smash Brothers, likewise, is not made deeper by a "you must press this if you want to use aerials" button. You've tried and failed to argue that L-canceling is similar to other mechanics like DI, and by reductio ad absurdum, L-canceling is worthwhile. Do you have a positive argument to L-canceling making things deeper (not just harder), or are you stuck simply asserting that "more buttons = deeper"?

For the record, I think L-canceling is fun, and makes me feel like a big, strong man when I can use it and my opponent can't, but I don't think that that necessarily makes the game better.

 

[StickandFluid]

Last I checked, no fighting game requires you to press a certain button or do some action every time you do something as trivial as jumping. Fighting games already have punishment tools, they're called reversals, combos, etc. If you need terrible game design like L-Canceling to serve as a punishment tool, then I don't know what to think. Name me one game that would benefit from a mechanic like L-Canceling.

L-Canceling does not add any more depth than memorizing the name of the characters on the roster. L-Canceling is saying "Do this, or die.". You're not given any other option.

Why does this topic keep coming up? And why do I keep getting myself into it.

I honestly just like the way it works thats just my opinion. this isn't some great quest to change fighting games I really enjoy having to use it
chill out

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

You just ignored the fact that, under your own ridiculous premise of what a competitive experience should be, you're the one who wants to make your game easier.

Laugh at me for being a "friendly neighborhood newbie," oh great master of MOONWALKING the technical-nonsense-flashy-move-that-doesn't-add-anything-to-the-metagame technique.

With this post you've just confirmed that you're a fool who thinks that only having a long resume in Smash makes his point right and who chooses to attack me as the "newbie." Other experienced players here are saying the same thing. Goodbye.

First and foremost, I feel like you're confusing being a newbie to that of someone being a "noob", which is sland for someone who is inexperienced, lacks knowledge etc., hence why you are taking it personally. You just joined this year, so in comparison you are a newbie; nothing to be ashamed of really.

Secondly, I feel that our opinions on what contributes to the metagame vary greatly. L-canceling is trivial yes, but its far from being pointless,and understanding the when where and hows of executing it properly vs. reflexively does in fact make it something that must be utilized properly. Doing an empty SHFFL (Short Hop Fast Fall L-Cancel) Aerial on A shield is timed differently than doing an empty one for spacing/zoning. If a player is unable to distinguish the timing between the two it could easily be a severe punishment or death depending on your opponents experience. Also as previously mentioned, knowing when not to cancel an aerial could lead to a whiffed punish. Knowing when to fast fallafter the apex of your jump could also affect your ability to cancel. There are several possible options other than hastening your attack speed and output.

The main gripe with canceling canceling is that its something that merely cuts lag, and by that logic it should be automatic, or landing lag on aerials should be removed all together. Removing landing lag is out of the question considering that it would have an odd effect on the animation quality of the game, and having it become something automatic, the problem with that is you are simultaneously closing a technical gap and limiting a potential option, and options add depth.

At one point I had an idea that if you could press L or R in the air any time after an aerial, you would receive the benefit of the reduced landing after the aerial. You would basically 'install' the cancel while you are airborne and it comes into effect when you come into the ground if needed.

 

[Sedda]

First and foremost, I feel like you're confusing being a newbie to that of someone being a "noob", which is sland for someone who is inexperienced, lacks knowledge etc., hence why you are taking it personally. You just joined this year, so in comparison you are a newbie; nothing to be ashamed of really.

Secondly, I feel that our opinions on what contributes to the metagame vary greatly. L-canceling is trivial yes, but its far from being pointless,and understanding the when where and hows of executing it properly vs. reflexively does in fact make it something that must be utilized properly. Doing an empty SHFFL (Short Hop Fast Fall L-Cancel) Aerial on A shield is timed differently than doing an empty one for spacing/zoning. If a player is unable to distinguish the timing between the two it could easily be a severe punishment or death depending on your opponents experience. Also as previously mentioned, knowing when not to cancel an aerial could lead to a whiffed punish. Knowing when to fast fallafter the apex of your jump could also affect your ability to cancel. There are several possible options other than hastening your attack speed and output.

The main gripe with canceling canceling is that its something that merely cuts lag, and by that logic it should be automatic, or landing lag on aerials should be removed all together. Removing landing lag is out of the question considering that it would have an odd effect on the animation quality of the game, and having it become something automatic, the problem with that is you are simultaneously closing a technical gap and limiting a potential option, and options add depth.

At one point I had an idea that if you could press L or R in the air any time after an aerial, you would receive the benefit of the reduced landing after the aerial. You would basically 'install' the cancel while you are airborne and it comes into effect when you come into the ground if needed.

I've just joined this year, but I've been watching Melee for two years now. I understand the mechanics. I'm not suggesting the removal of L cancelling, I'm saying that there's no point on NOT L cancelling currently.

You're saying that removing L cancelling would eliminate options, but it really wouldn't because everyone already does it all the time anyway. If there was a trade off and viable option if you choose not to L cancel depending on the situation, then yes, removing it would reduce options.

I don't know why everyone thinks that "timing" is what gives L cancelling depth. Double jumping also has timing depending on what you're doing with it, but the fact of the matter is that double jumping is not always the best option. That's not the case with L cancelling. L cancelling is always the best option, because there aren't ANY other options while landing after executing an aerial.

Also, he was trying to insult me by placing that sarcastic "lol" at the end, as if I'm not worthy of argument. I understand the mechanics, and he singles me out as the newbie to make it sound like my argument is flawed while other experienced players are backing me up.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

I'd like to think of L-Cancelling as the lesser of two evils between L-Cancelling and high landing lag values. No? It'd be better if they were just reduced across the board but I'd have an arbitrary input than nothing at all. At higher level play the difference between L-Cancelling and universally low landing lag values is very small.

 

[Vkrm]

Ideally I'd prefer manual L cancel with reasons not to cancel everytime. Like 64.

 

[Vkrm]

Re: Duderino and powershielding, yes and no; it's not like every block in tournament is a powershield, but I think there's at least some punishment going toward people who didn't properly read their opponents, rather than all of it going toward technical bungling, as with L-canceling.

Is every aerial L canceled?

 

[Schwaumlaut]

Is every aerial L canceled?

I didn't play as much Melee as Brawl, but I can't think of a situation where you wouldn't want to. L-canceling cuts your landing lag in half if you land during an aerial's animation, so Marth's Fair, for example, goes from 15 frames of helplessness to 7 frames. Even if it was a mindgame to bait someone into trying to punish a whiffed L-cancel, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be safer to bait by L-cancelling followed by mixing up your timing by just not attacking instantly. That doesn't necessarily work if Melee players are so conditioned to recognizing properly cancelled and flubbed landings that they can differentiate the first 5 or so frames of a non-canceled animation from a cancelled one, but is it really that common for an opponent to recognize and (try to) capitalize on flubbed L-cancel, and for this to happen so frequently that putting yourself in that position it would be an effective baiting tactic? Especially in a game with 0-death and 0-lots% combos?

I think the best argument for L-canceling is that removing it disproportionately hurts characters with longer landing lag (i.e. big characters + Captain Falcon), but that's an argument for better balancing of landing lag, not L-canceling.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Glad that it wasn't present in Brawl, and I hope that it won't return in SSB4.

I think that to be able to be "pro" at this game you should be more emphasized on learning to play your character right instead of learning universal techniques that just aren't fun to do. I'd rather sit down in training mode and learn to properly Z-air my opponent with Samus than I'd want to learn to time pressing the L button at the right moment.

In that sense I think Brawl did it right. Where Brawl didn't do it right was the balance, slow gameplay and too weak gravity, all which can be fixed without reintroducing wavedashing or L-cancelling.

 

[Vkrm]

@Wariofan1 Well I would say that perfecting your cancel is an aspect of mastering your character.

@schwhamlaut I'm more than familiar with how it works. Meant to point out that not everybody cancels 100% of the time. Tilting the shield or dodging the attack forces the attacker to time his input differently. It's kind of subtle, but there is some depth there.

 

[_wzrd]

as a pretty technical fox player - i don't give a **** if lcanceling is in, I just want dashdancing & combo's (which means more hitstun than it looks like it has), though it'd really make me happy if aerial attacks just had less lag anyway, from the looks of the sakurai video there seemed to be less lag on a lotta stuff but I can't rly tell.

I JUST WANT COMBOS & A FAST PACED FUN NEUTRAL GAMEEE

 

[Bones0]

This was a fairly recent topic in the Melee Discussion forums, and this was my post:

Not sure how that pic is fitting at all. The Home Run Bat is a ground attack and can't even be L-cancelled.

I think 1MachGO articulates the issue the best. You can view each L-cancel as an extraneous input that requires no decision making, or you can view it as an extension of the aerial input itself. Instead of L-cancelling, imagine if you had to hold the A button or C-stick until the last 7 frames upon landing. It would seem less like a separate input, and it would just be viewed instead as a part of attacking properly. That's basically how I view L-cancelling. I've said in the past that I wished it wasn't in Melee/P:M, but I'm not sure anymore because it's such a unique technical requirement. There isn't a single player that will ever be able to L-cancel consistently without focusing on it, so if anything I think it can just be viewed as a way of preventing approaches from becoming too complacent of an activity. You have to focus on your spacing, aerial timing, FF timing, and adding in an L-cancelling timing just introduces one more thing you need to be thinking about when you aerial.

I know it's also been said that L-cancelling isn't a decision because you always want to do it, but I think it should be noted that you are technically making a decision from several different L-cancel timings. There's a different timing based on whether your FHed or SHed, FFed or didn't, WLed off of a high or low plat, etc. Players are constantly choosing which timing to use based on their split second decision just a few frames earlier. It's a decision that can be made with really high consistency, but that doesn't necessarily mean the decision was pointless to make.

I think anyone truly curious about how the game would play without L-cancelling should just use the AR code that automatically L-cancels. If you're like me you'll probably input the L-cancels anyway because of years of habitual practice, but if you can force yourself to not worry about it, it really does seem to take away the effect of mentally committing to aerials and having to focus on your landing just as much as you had to focus on your attack.

I encourage people wanting different perspectives on the subject to give it a quick read through. LINK

 

[Schwaumlaut]

op is right in that its *always* better to lcancel. but the opponent has options to mess your lcancel timing up, and you can adapt to these attempts.

Just to cherry-pick part of that conversation, I find this idea a lot more compelling. I never played Melee at a level where this was a big concern; how common was/is this kind of play? I'm also interested in the people talking about using it to desync ICs, but not really enough to subscribe to their newsletter.

So, given that there is at least a shred of a metagame in there, the question now isn't "why should we believe that L-canceling adds more than zero depth?", to "Is whatever depth it adds worth it?" Put another way, I've changed my mind and now think it's more a matter of taste. I know I didn't particularly miss it in Brawl, though.

 

[1MachGO]

So, given that there is at least a shred of a metagame in there, the question now isn't "why should we believe that L-canceling adds more than zero depth?", to "Is whatever depth it adds worth it?" .

If L-Cancelling did not exsit in Melee, aerials would be significantly less useful and some characters, such as Ganondorf, would become even more disadvantaged than they alreay were.

Its easy to judge l-cancelling in a vaccum but it should be considered within its context.

 

[Mahie]

Half the people debating in this thread still believe that Lcancelling is fully mechanical. Please remember that there are many factors that you have to take into account, and that means sometimes you need to consciously Lcancel. Try playing as Ganon, or against the ICs. Or both of these at the same time.

Yes, in Melee, Lcancelling is always something you should be doing. However, it's also something that requires accurate Hit Confirming sometimes, a concept that I believe fights just right in any fighting game. Being able to Hit Confirm is one of the keys in not overextending and in being able to play safely.

Melee is not the only game where there are cancel mechanics, by the way. Have you guys ever tried to pull off a False Roman Cancel in Guilty Gear? Well, that **** is way harder than Lcancelling, that's for sure.

In my opinion, Lcancelling as a purely mechanical thing has to be removed from the game. However, all of the interactions that required precise hit confirming, such as pressuring a double shield, taking hitlag into account and so on, should require a NEW kind of technique.

Also, Powershielding is NOT always a good option. It's one of my signature moves in Melee, and I find myself regretting a powershield really often, as the extra knockback from PSing prevents you from being able to punish more often than not.

tl;dr : Lcancelling should be removed as a mechanic, and be automatic. But in the cases where your opponent could interfere with your Lcancelling in Melee, there should be a NEW technique that forces you to do something then and only then.
And powershielding is not what you guys think it is.

 

[JOE!]

@Mahie:

If you land an aerial and do not hit somebody: full lag

If you land an aerial while hitting somebody: 1/2 lag

If you land an aerial while hitting (shield): 3/4 lag

 

[Vkrm]

What the **** are you talking about? I need my frame advantage more then ever after hitting a shield.

 

[TropicalTaco]

L-cancelling should not return.

It's not tactical. It contributes nothing to the depth of the game. End of story.

 

[DefenseTech]

L-cancelling should not return.

It's not tactical. It contributes nothing to the depth of the game. End of story.

This.

 

[jerflip]

L-cancelling should not return.

It's not tactical. It contributes nothing to the depth of the game. End of story.

Sure it does. L-cancelling requires good timing and execution and gives the player a mechanic to master, hence "depth".