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

[Aidebit]

Because that's only possible in a bubble, the best viability we have is usage and tier placing

Oh, thanks then, I just thought that popularity could have some skewed results.

 

[Big-Cat]

My question is whether or not there is a way to augment the current state of this action in a way that adds different outcomes per character. Is there a way to include depth?

For some reason Pokemon moves came to mind, High jump kick in particular. The move will inflict damage on the user if it misses the target.

No doubt some moves are more effective than others in the damage that it yields or the time that it takes to recover.; it makes sense to me to have some benefit in being conscious of these attributes. I think perhaps I might be dense in recognizing how the subject leads to artificial skill barriers, there must be some sort of progression in respect to how mechanics relate to efficiency in one's play style.

It's a bit complicated if you haven't played fighting games for some time, but I'll try to explain things.

True depth is about having options and being able to explore possibilities. Let's look at move canceling. In Marvel, you can do cancels like L > M > H > S. This particular string is not the best option in any given situation. Therefore, the options of ending that string early to cancel into a special should be explored in order to do things like corner carry (edge carry for Smash), higher damage potential, resets, etc. Alternatively, you may not want to cancel into a special, but end the string early for a variety of reasons. Here, move canceling had depth and encourages exploring your opportunities. Execution should not define how strong or weak something should be. Rather, things like startup, hitstun, recovery, etc. are the true factors. Also, high level execution isn't even necessary to win. From what I've seen, Daigo does not have a very technical playstyle. Rather, he generally wins due to his excellent fundamentals with things like a strong fireball game, footsies, distorting the opponent's rhythm, and reads.

Higher level execution should be able to combine basic execution with application in a way similar to playing the piano. You have all these notes to press which are simplistic in of themselves, but combining them into a wonderful rhythm can be tricky.

L-Canceling actively discourages exploration. 99% of the time, you are better off pressing L as you land from an aerial. You're given a linear path of development instead of the branches you should be provided.


A lot of you guys have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

[[Corn]]

My question is whether or not there is a way to augment the current state of this action in a way that adds different outcomes per character. Is there a way to include depth?

For some reason Pokemon moves came to mind, High jump kick in particular. The move will inflict damage on the user if it misses the target.

No doubt some moves are more effective than others in the damage that it yields or the time that it takes to recover.; it makes sense to me to have some benefit in being conscious of these attributes. I think perhaps I might be dense in recognizing how the subject leads to artificial skill barriers, there must be some sort of progression in respect to how mechanics relate to efficiency in one's play style.



I can certainly do my best, again once I think I have a grasp on something, often times I'm way off.

So what I'm hearing in this discussion is that the action of L-canceling is an artificial skill, if everybody's doing it then its only conditional to gameplay.

What I'm trying to understand is why an included mechanic would be an artificial resource. If every character jumps, does that make the action conditional? Its a poor way of looking at things because this conversation is in the interest of how certain aspects of gameplay actually contribute to depth alongside competitive play.

My concern is whether something like L-canceling can actually contribute to that depth. If utilized properly, can it make a difference mechanically? Sakurai mentioned briefly in his developer direct that every character has systems, what could that mean exactly? I trust that most of you here have a general idea, that certain moves have specific properties and characteristics.

Please help me along, I don't know how confusing this is outside of my own perspective.

I can see what you are getting at, but I believe you have a misunderstanding of how and what depth is as well as a misunderstanding of what the "autocancel" side is trying to say.


"What I'm trying to understand is why an included mechanic would be an artificial resource. If every character jumps, does that make the action conditional? Its a poor way of looking at things because this conversation is in the interest of how certain aspects of gameplay actually contribute to depth alongside competitive play."

Depth involves options and variable usage of different moves that lead to different strategies and playstyles unique to the player or character. Pressing L every time you land because if you do not you get punished/more punished isnt depth. Its something extremely basic that every single character in the game has to use in order to be effective at all against someone else who does it. Options add depth, you dont have any with L canceling, you simply have to. It isnt comparable to jumping at all. Wavedashing is depth done right. It gives you a multitude of options with every character while on the ground and even when landing.

"My concern is whether something like L-canceling can actually contribute to that depth. If utilized properly, can it make a difference mechanically? Sakurai mentioned briefly in his developer direct that every character has systems, what could that mean exactly? I trust that most of you here have a general idea, that certain moves have specific properties and characteristics."

I believe you mean execution and game knowledge here? By systems I believe he means playstyles, which is entirely possible. Making L canceling in melee auto currently would change nothing at all in terms of depth or usage but would lower the skill floor whilst not effecting the ceiling. Hgher Execution isnt a nessisary addition to a game to make it more competitive or have more depth, this tends to more of a pride thing in the community then anything else, especially if said execution is required to even consider becoming better.

Summing what I mean up:
-L canceling adds no depth, only serves to increase the skill floor of the game. Making it auto or whatever wouldnt harm the comp community at all, and the casual community would have less barriers to overcome. The only reason to leave it in currently is to keep either pride or divide the community in terms of execution.

-Higher execution doesnt increase the competitive nature of a game unless its situational/optional/can be used in multiple ways.

 

[DefenseTech]

L-Canceling actively discourages exploration. 99% of the time, you are better off pressing L as you land from an aerial. You're given a linear path of development instead of the branches you should be provided.

This.

 

[[Corn]]

This.

What he said

 

[nLiM8d]

A lot of you guys have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Please enlighten me

I believe you have a misunderstanding of how and what depth is

How so? That's a very vague assertion

 

[[Corn]]

Please enlighten me



How so? That's a very vague assertion

Depth is completely unrelated to execution. This is what people tend to confuse.

 

[Sedda]

@ seda

The scene is not excluding you, you want to compete you have to practice, that argument doesn't hold water since the Brawl scene doesn't come close to the melee scene.

Practicing is fine. For example, the air dodge mechanic of the game allows for wavedashing and all of its applications, which is fine because that gives you options, but can still take practice.

As some others here have said, removing L cancelling for either a mechanic that allows for different situations or just reducing landing lag automatically all together won't change the fact that the top players will still be top players, because they're smart. Bad players will still suffer from bad spacing, no matchup knowledge, lack of experience under pressue, etc... All of these happen to me in smash 64, not because I can't Z cancel, because that's the easy part. I get destroyed for lack of experience. Z cancel if just a technical barrier that doesn't allow for user creativity in regards to whether you should use it or not, because the answer is always "yes, use it all the time because you'll never be at a disadvantage for not using it."

 

[Big-Cat]

Please enlighten me

I already did. I was referring to how people define depth by technical skill when it actually has to do with options. Access to those options is not depth.

To go back to the piano analogy, think of it like this. The muscle memory you gain from learning to play a song will only apply to that particular song. You cannot play the Minuet of Forest like you can the Bolero of Fire. You have to be aware that you don't always play B# after F. This means there are reasons why you should and shouldn't follow F with B#. Likewise, you don't always play quarter notes following an eighth note. Playing the piano has a truckload of depth as I've demonstrated with these two examples. L-Canceling requires you to always play F > B# almost always. Baiting out perfect shield attempts is like following up an eighth note with a half note or a whole note instead of a quarter note.

 

[nLiM8d]

Depth is completely unrelated to execution

I disagree, if only for the sake that your definition of depth simply has to do with what players do. When I interpret a concept like the included elements in the game, I'm not concerned for what contributes to the metagame alone, I'm considering the idea behind it mechanically. Each implemented function must be programmed, which is why I've always been skeptical over the advent of L-Canceling.

According to my source, this is information that was shared from the developers as something to increase player awareness over options. I believe that options create depth for the sake of exploration and random outcomes. This linear path that contributes to the skill floor, its only there for those who choose to entertain it, meaning that L-canceling is only a utility for those who are interested in making use of it.

Less is more in situations like these, I think the developer that work with Sakurai realize this and the essence of this particular franchise embodies that philosophy.

To go back to the piano analogy, think of it like this

Again, this analogy only applies to those who are familiar with playing the piano. There are several forms of music and many of them share a similar structure.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

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

 

[Vkrm]

Well difficulty does have a place in the options chosen by a player during an engagement wouldn't you agree? Like the instant guard thing in GGX, and im sure jwong had no reason expect daigo to parry his super cause of the sheer difficulty involved. I'm not saying l canceling in melee does particularly well, Im just curious on your opinion kuma. You're pretty much my link to other fighting games.

 

[[Corn]]

I disagree, if only for the sake that your definition of depth simply has to do with what players do. When I interpret a concept like the included elements in the game, I'm not concerned for what contributes to the metagame alone, I'm considering the idea behind it mechanically. Each implemented function must be programmed, which is why I've always been skeptical over the advent of L-Canceling.

According to my source, this is information that was shared from the developers as something to increase player awareness over options. I believe that options create depth for the sake of exploration and random outcomes. This linear path that contributes to the skill floor, its only there for those who choose to entertain it, meaning that L-canceling is only a utility for those who are interested in making use of it.

Less is more in situations like these, I think the developer that work with Sakurai realize this and the essence of this particular franchise embodies that philosophy.

I am completely lost at what you said here.

What I got was, that if it was included it should stay?

You contradict yourself here with depth as well:

"I believe that options create depth for the sake of exploration and random outcomes. This linear path that contributes to the skill floor, its only there for those who choose to entertain it, meaning that L-canceling is only a utility for those who are interested in making use of it."

L canceling brings 2 options, use it and learn something that is required in every situation to even hope to get better, or not use it and fail. That isnt adding depth, thats removing it by adding a linear path to getting better with a single tactic.

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

This has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever.

We are discussing why we shouldnt just cut the ending lag of air attacks in half rather then pressing L at the precise time for the same effect.

 

[nLiM8d]

You lost me on clarifying my contradiction.

I have a hard time recognizing your interpretation of failure, is it to say that not making use of L-canceling will make you a less adept player?


I don't disagree that L-Canceling, in its current form, is linear.
Isn't this what we are discussing? What can be done about L-canceling in general? That's my stake in it anyway.

 

[Big-Cat]

Again, this analogy only applies to those who are familiar with playing the piano. There are several forms of music and many of them share a similar structure.

The examples I gave can easily be applied to just about any instrument. And please, please, stop talking in such vague words. I like you, but your vocabulary here is needlessly complicated and full of fluff. Just get to the point.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

This has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever.

We are discussing why we shouldnt just cut the ending lag of air attacks in half rather then pressing L at the precise time for the same effect.

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?

 

[nLiM8d]

I'd like to be able to share what I mean with you, but I feel that I ought to be terse because you're not indicating that my words have any worth. Sorry if you can't interpret where I'm coming from, but that's no fault of mine.

 

[[Corn]]

You lost me on clarifying my contradiction.

I have a hard time recognizing your interpretation of failure. I don't disagree that L-Canceling, in its current form, is linear.
Isn't this what we are discussing? What can be done about L-canceling in general? That's my stake in it anyway.

This entire conversation is about why L canceling needs a to be a command when just having Air attacks have minimal lag accomplishes the exact same thing and doesnt detract from anything other then a technical standpoint.


Noone here is saying, "Hey, we love laggy air attacks that we cant follow up on, screw having l canceling"

We are saying is, "Hey, we have this ability to half the lag on air attacks with a button press which is essential to play, why dont we just half the ending lag on air attacks in general and eliminate this execution barrier if the gameplay is unnefffected and the skill floor is lowered?"

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?

This is what I am talking about. Completely misunderstands what this thread is about.

 

[nLiM8d]

I appreciate the clarification, but I figured that point was already established early on. My apologies if we're not supposed to discuss anything beyond that point.

What I'm hearing consistently is whether it should be off or on, I wanted to know if it could be augmented beyond its current state.

 

[[Corn]]

I appreciate the clarification, but I figured that point was already established early on. My apologies if we're not supposed to discuss anything beyond that point.

So then you agree with the points brought up then? As previously mentioned being very vague in responses and not discussing what you agree or disagree with isnt the best way to further anything.

 

[Sedda]

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

No, but not because I didn't have to press an extra button. It was because of the landing lag, which could be reduced automatically. Also, removing L cancelling doesn't just mean that it's going to be like Brawl. That's not what we're arguing here. I want either no landing lag or an L cancel mechanic that doesn't force you to do it all the time. That discourages smart play. Seriously, even nubs like me can L/Z cancel easily, but it's an extra button that is not necessary.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

This is what I am talking about. Completely misunderstands what this thread is about.

I framed the question that way on purpose. I want to know what your stance is. Stop dodging the question. Just answer it. I know what the thread is about. Stop saying I don't.

No, but not because I didn't have to press an extra button. It was because of the landing lag, which could be reduced automatically. Also, removing L cancelling doesn't just mean that it's going to be like Brawl. That's not what we're arguing here. I want either no landing lag or an L cancel mechanic that doesn't force you to do it all the time. That discourages smart play. Seriously, even nubs like me can L/Z cancel easily, but it's an extra button that is not necessary.

That's fine. Your answer is valid. I never SAID that was what you guys were arguing. I was specifically asking about the scenario where simply having reduced lag wasn't an option.

 

[nLiM8d]

not discussing what you agree or disagree with isnt the best way to further anything.

I don't think that establishing my position on the matter is completely necessary, I actually find that to be a very low level form of discussion.

Nonetheless, how would you go about what I had to say differently? You didn't cite specific places that I confused you so the best I could do was play it safe.

Anyhow, if this has to be in and it has to be a button press, could there be situations where doing so actually makes you think? For example, Marth's neutral aerial has a lot of range and executes fairly quickly. If there were some risk to this setup, to say that having such an effective move has some drawback due to an increase of landing frames, would being aware that there was an option to do something about that detriment (if poorly executed) still prove to be a linear function?

I want either no landing lag

@Seda

Really? What would that look like exactly? Like Bowser's Back Aerial in Brawl+?

 

[[Corn]]

I framed the question that way on purpose. I want to know what your stance is. Stop dodging the question. Just answer it. I know what the thread is about. Stop saying I don't.

Um...

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?

-This thread is suggesting that we keep the effects of L canceling with removing the input required
-L canceling halves the ending lag, doesnt fully remove it
-Gameplay would be exactly the same, characters would play exactly the same


"So, given the choice, would you rather have Smash 4 end up like Brawl? Or end up like Melee?"

You have a question based off multiple incorrect details that doesnt even involve the mechanic that is being discussed here. Brawl removed the input for L cancels AS WELL AS ITS EFFECTS whilst Melee has L canceling and its effects yet has an execution barrier for a basic aspect of play.

If you are asking If I like having reduced ending lag on air attacks, I would answer yes.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Um...




-This thread is suggesting that we keep the effects of L canceling with removing the input required
-L canceling halves the ending lag, doesnt fully remove it
-Gameplay would be exactly the same, characters would play exactly the same


"So, given the choice, would you rather have Smash 4 end up like Brawl? Or end up like Melee?"

You have a question based off multiple incorrect details that doesnt even involve the mechanic that is being discussed here. Brawl removed the input for L cancels AS WELL AS ITS EFFECTS whilst Melee has L canceling and its effects yet has an execution barrier for a basic aspect of play.

If you are asking If I like having reduced ending lag on air attacks, I would answer yes.

I said that. I specifically said I was aware that you want to remove L-canceling AND the lag problem itself. But if removing the lag alone were not a choice, which is the lesser of two evils? I asked a NEW question. I wasn't representing the thread itself.

 

[Sukai]

This calls for context.
Melee had l-cancelling it allowed for faster recovery of air attacks. The requirement is there, but absolutely no strategic medium. It's always mandatory.
1 frame links are different, because except in very particular cases, they are rare, few and far between, therefore acceptable. If there are too many of them, I guarantee you that 90% of anyone who had to deal with them didn't mind making it easier, because if it's your only option, why does it have to be so hard? Second, such a huge exe barrier creates a skill gap, and often times an ego with it, both are detrimental to any community. What some people here unfortunately do not and cannot grasp is that fighting games are not about how hard it is, it's about the competition. If you would rather have pointlessly hard mechanics that makes you feel good before proper competition that could make you feel better for beating the odds, then you're an elitist, plain and simple. I'm in favor of high tech mechanics, like karas, parrying, option selects, 1 frame links, fuzzy mix ups and the like. I'm also in favor of execution barriers like frcs, roman/rapid cancels, focus cancels. These add individuality and depth to each game that has it, some are execution candies that sets the middle level from the high, some are hurdles that you need to learn to play the game, but the optional ones have strategic leverage (when to do it and when not to do it) and the mandatory ones are in proper moderation.

Seriously, every air move must be l cancelled.
What if every move must be frc'd in guilty gear?
What if every combo involved a 1 frame link?

Obviously there are different nuances like meter costs, but the super/tension meter is what adds moderation and depth.

Am I saying smash bros needs a super gauge? No, just examples, there are other ways to constitute strategy.

The problem with l cancelling is this. It takes the worst of both. It's a mandatory execution barrier with no strategic leverage.
If it's going to come back, add strategic leverage to it or make it easier. If it's not coming back, either naturally reduce landing recovery in lieu of l cancelling, or just have no landing recovery for air moves at all, you know, like every other respected 2d fighter.

I don't know about others, but I would like more competition because the game is more accessible over artificial difficulty that makes me feel like I'm a part of the master race.
If it's about pride, you get more props and accolades when you win a 64-128 man bracket than say, a 16-32 man side tourney.

Just my two cents.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Let me put it a different way. Which is a bigger problem: the input or the lag?

 

[CRASHiC]

Who cares if other games have 1 frame links? Why is it every time a complaint is filed against Smash fighting games are always brought up as a comparision to justify whatever flaws smash might have?

I mean I know you guys wish you were playing Super Turbo but you aren't so get over it.

 

[TreK]

Let me put it a different way. Which is a bigger problem: the input or the lag?

Both. Do not make it look like there aren't solutions that fix both.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Both. Do not make it look like there aren't solutions that fix both.

So, you think they are EQUALLY problematic?

 

[[Corn]]

I said that. I specifically said I was aware that you want to remove L-canceling AND the lag problem itself. But if removing the lag alone were not a choice, which is the lesser of two evils? I asked a NEW question. I wasn't representing the thread itself.

I assumed you got that from Sedda adressing it.


In response to you asking if people liked Brawls direction:

No, but not because I didn't have to press an extra button. It was because of the landing lag, which could be reduced automatically. Also, removing L cancelling doesn't just mean that it's going to be like Brawl. That's not what we're arguing here. I want either no landing lag or an L cancel mechanic that doesn't force you to do it all the time. That discourages smart play. Seriously, even nubs like me can L/Z cancel easily, but it's an extra button that is not necessary.

Brawl cut no corners, it did it black and white. Noone here liked the full ending lag, halving it with L cancels was great, execpt that is a basic game mechanic needed.

Asking if you would rather have less lag with an air attack with a button input rather then just having full lag is like asking if you would rather have a gold coin the size of a quarter, or an actual quarter. Its simply idiotic and the question answers itself.

But that isnt the point.

 

[nLiM8d]

why does it have to be so hard? Second, such a huge exe barrier creates a skill gap, and often times an ego with it, both are detrimental to any community. What some people here unfortunately do not and cannot grasp is that fighting games are not about how hard it is, it's about the competition. If you would rather have pointlessly hard mechanics that makes you feel good before proper competition that could make you feel better for beating the odds, then you're an elitist, plain and simple. I'm in favor of high tech mechanics, like karas, parrying, option selects, 1 frame links, fuzzy mix ups and the like. I'm also in favor of execution barriers like frcs, roman/rapid cancels, focus cancels. These add individuality and depth to each game that has it, some are execution candies that sets the middle level from the high, some are hurdles that you need to learn to play the game, but the optional ones have strategic leverage (when to do it and when not to do it) and the mandatory ones are in proper moderation.

This addresses all my concerns.

KumaOso, notice how this person introduces a concept and includes specifics in a way that seem relateable, even while I don't completely understand them. Its a matter of conveyance, Kuma, your approach is excellent for people that are familiar with in-depth mechanics, but to the layman its a barrage of aimless attributes. I'm not denying your prowess in that respect, I feel that you are very well versed and incredibly knowledgeable.

When you execute a move, its a button press that executes an attack that is unique to a specific character. If L-cancels needs to be in this, why not have those (Z/L) button presses specific to a characters moves?

My mind goes directly to Bowser's new drop kick. That's an outlandish move for a character so heavy, which is why its perfect for Bowser. Certainly there's some risk to pulling something like that off.

Less Landing Lag if you fastfall?

If anything there should be more, then again I never paid attention in physics class either.

 

[ThatGuyYouMightKnow]

Less Landing Lag if you fastfall?

...nah. That sounds lame.

 

[[Corn]]

Less Landing Lag if you fastfall?

...nah. That sounds lame.

What? Less landing lag in general is what is being discussed


I have no idea how people would be against simply having the character's have the same effect as L canceling in melee but without the input. Every single tactic in the game would remain the same and every character would play exactly the same. Its been proven to be a mechanic that adds no more depth to the game then knowing where the buttons on your controller are, its that much of a necessity at this point.

The only point brought up against removing the input whilst keeping the effects is that it reduces the skill floor....which isnt bad because the skill ceiling remains the same.


This is the OP for people who just seem to read the title:

L-cancelling 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. In fact I've heard top Melee players say this.

What does this mean? It means it's nothing but false, artificial difficulty. There's nothing impressive at all about learning artificial barriers.

For instance. Say Smash 4 requires you to do a shoryuken motion before you can jump, for every jump ever. You still have to press the jump button but now you need the shoryuken motion every single time as well.
Does this suddenly make Smash 4 suddenly more hardcore and competitive than Melee/Brawl? Of course not. The idea is absurd.

I'm all for advanced tech and lots of it...when there's actual depth to it and gives you MORE options, not "learn this completely asinine tech skill to do somethng so basic and there's absolutely no reason to ever not to do it".

This is why I would have liked to have seen Wavedashing in Smash 4, now that is a legitimate tech that adds true depth since it gives you more OPTIONS (Key word).

Not once does he say he wants to remove the lag canceling properties, only remove the input required and make them automatic as to remove a pointless execution barrier. He understands the concept of depth nicely as well.

 

[nLiM8d]

So essentially fast falling becomes the new L-Cancel- right the analog stick isn't a button press.

 

[ThatGuyYouMightKnow]

Yes, but I was giving that (L canceling on fastfall) as an idea. And in the long run, it doesn't seem appropriate. I'm not against auto L canceling (Brawl+).

 

[Big-Cat]

1 frame links are different, because except in very particular cases, they are rare, few and far between, therefore acceptable..

There are other reasons as to why 1 frame links exist as well. If you increase the link space by even just a frame, that can open up other opportunities that can easily make the character overpowered.

 

[nLiM8d]

I hated it in Brawl+, there was hardly any indicator that putting pressure on your opponent was safe. Maybe that was just a hitstun issue with the hack, but often times I was afraid to connect strings because of how much I had to read into it. That's just me though, perhaps I'm not playing the game right.

 

[Sedda]

Brawl cut no corners, it did it black and white. Noone here liked the full ending lag, halving it with L cancels was great, execpt that is a basic game mechanic needed.

Asking if you would rather have less lag with an air attack with a button input rather then just having full lag is like asking if you would rather have a gold coin the size of a quarter, or an actual quarter. Its simply idiotic and the question answers itself.

But that isnt the point.

Um, I don't like the ending lag at all, but he was implying that no L cancelling means that it's going to be exactly like Brawl, and that's why I said it. L cancelling is stupid, and no landing lag would be much better.

 

[[Corn]]

Um, I don't like the ending lag at all, but he was implying that no L cancelling means that it's going to be exactly like Brawl, and that's why I said it. L cancelling is stupid, and no landing lag would be much better.

I quoted you because you answered him better then I could.

I agree with you completely about ending lag and removing the input. You understood exactly why having the input is stupid.

Not trying to mean any harm here.