King Koopa's New Digs 3.0 Edition

[Jacob29]

Is there really no way to delete a post?

 

[MurderClauz]

nair can combo in certain situations its one of the fastest moves he has. mewtwo? idk but didn't kirk just win with bowser in the most recent tourney? personally i don't really care what they do with the character i just enjoy watching matches as i wont be attending any tourneys anytime soon. So when they nerf a character its not goin to be based on what people think of him its about how the best player can abuse his moves.

 

[deadjames]

nair can combo in certain situations its one of the fastest moves he has. mewtwo? idk but didn't kirk just win with bowser in the most recent tourney? personally i don't really care what they do with the character i just enjoy watching matches as i wont be attending any tourneys anytime soon. So when they nerf a character its not goin to be based on what people think of him its about how the best player can abuse his moves.

The only recent 3.0 tourney in the Midwest (Kirk is a Midwest player if I'm not mistaken) I'm aware of is ROMO in which Strong Bad took first place with DK. Also if you watch the GF of TBH3, Kirk didn't win by abusing Bowser's moves, he won thanks to Pikachad playing the MU completely wrong, any competent Mario player who's familiar with the MU should have no problem beating Bowser.

Edit: That's not to say that I think Pikachad is incompetent, he's clearly an amazing player since he took second in tourney that both M2K and Hbox entered, he was just obviously not familiar with the Bowser MU.

 

[Overswarm]

Nair combos mostly from falling; you can rising nair combo very well when hitting them onto platforms. Try a fast fall nair into a tech chase. Falling nair d-smash is a good noob combo near the edge.

Nair is situational, but it should be.

 

[Jacob29]

Yea fast startup but that doesn't make it a combo move

 

[Frost | Odds]

Nair tends to combo mostly when you hit with it and then immediately land and L-cancel. It's not too hard to get a pair of jabs into fair or something off of a well-placed nair.

So when is M2 Bair being nerfed?

When more people realize how OP m2 is, heh.

as has been stated, even if it is only slightly, artificial barriers are by nature bad game design.

That's what games are: tech barriers. In order to defend this idea, you need to draw some arbitrary line regarding what's an 'artificial' tech barrier and what's not.

You're begging the question, anyway. I enjoy technically challenging games, as well as technically challenging characters. I'm certainly not alone in that regard.

Edit: spidermad what you doin' in Bowser forums
your diddy is insane, you don' need no dragonturtledog

 

[deadjames]

That's what games are: tech barriers.

That could not be further from what a game is. Even with Smash the mental aspect of the game is far more important than the technical aspect, here's an example I just watched Pinkfresh dominate tons of players at S@X, and he can't even WD.

 

[Overswarm]

That's what games are: tech barriers. In order to defend this idea, you need to draw some arbitrary line regarding what's an 'artificial' tech barrier and what's not.

An artificial barrier would be changing existing physics or gameplay mechanics to alter the properties, but not the result, of a technique.

Fox's shine can be escaped with a jump by default. Making it to where he couldn't up+b or wavedash out of shield, but could jump, would be altering existing physics.

Changing Diddy's hurtbox of his dash attack so he doesn't trip when dash attacking over a banana when the game tells you "if you hit a banana you will trip" would be an artificial tech barrier as well.

"When you hold down, you don't grab the ledge" is a truth. If they altered mewtwo's float so that he auto grabbed the ledge when he floated down towards it without letting go, that would be altering existing physics.

"When you up B with Bowser and get near a ledge, you grab it" was a truth. Now sometimes it is true and sometimes it isn't. You can roll all the way to the edge and hit up+b and immediately grab the edge no slower than before. A few steps away and you have to do it a bit slower because you need to slow down. A few more steps away and you can grab it at the same speed as before the change because you naturally slow down.

This is clearly an artificial barrier.

 

[MurderClauz]

The only recent 3.0 tourney in the Midwest (Kirk is a Midwest player if I'm not mistaken) I'm aware of is ROMO in which Strong Bad took first place with DK. Also if you watch the GF of TBH3, Kirk didn't win by abusing Bowser's moves, he won thanks to Pikachad playing the MU completely wrong, any competent Mario player who's familiar with the MU should have no problem beating Bowser.

didn't he also beat hungry box and like a bunch of other people as well like oracle and whatnot.. either way i'm sure pm team was there taking note of the situation.
Where the hell is kirk and gimpy on this matter i've been waitn all day.

 

[deadjames]

didn't he also beat hungry box and like a bunch of other people as well like oracle and whatnot.. either way i'm sure pm team was there taking note of the situation.
Where the hell is kirk and gimpy on this matter i've been waitn all day.

Yeah he did beat Hbox, who also played the MU wrong as Mario then proceeded to switch to Jiggs who is one of Bowser's easiest MUs.

 

[Frost | Odds]

Even with Smash the mental aspect of the game is far more important than the technical aspect

Saying that doesn't make it true, sorry. Video games with no technical aspect = board games. The instant a game is translated into real time, it takes on a host of technical barriers.

Wavedashing is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not?
L-cancelling is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not?
SHFFLing is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not?
B-turnarounds are a tech barrier. Artificial, or not?

What about..
Ledge sweetspotting during recovery?
Spacing?
Dash dancing?
Projectile aiming?
Float cancelling?

These are all things that could be made much easier, thus removing 'artificial' tech barriers. Yet, they're not- most smashers would never hear of it (except maybe L-cancelling). Why?

here's an example I just watched Pinkfresh dominate tons of players at S@X, and he can't even WD.

Then apparently his opponents' spacing was garbage, or they couldn't WD either. Tech failure on their part. This doesn't help your argument at all.

An artificial barrier would be changing existing physics or gameplay mechanics to alter the properties, but not the result, of a technique.

So, like having short hops with super short frame windows that make it difficult for some of the playerbase to consistently execute them?

"When you up B with Bowser and get near a ledge, you grab it" was a truth. Now sometimes it is true and sometimes it isn't.

Only if you suck at the technique, or overextend.

You can roll all the way to the edge and hit up+b and immediately grab the edge no slower than before. A few steps away and you have to do it a bit slower because you need to slow down. A few more steps away and you can grab it at the same speed as before the change because you naturally slow down.

Of course. Knowing this stuff is no different than knowing your spacing from Marth's tipper. Get it slightly wrong, and you might die. If your opponent knows it too, he can take advantage: if you're at a spacing where you need to grab the ledge more slowly, he can take advantage by chasing you towards it, and punishing you instead of shielding the inevitable ledge attack as he otherwise would.

This is clearly an artificial barrier.

I don't know what to tell you. It might indeed turn out that this is an unreasonable balance change, that's no reason to pretend as though you're being somehow personally victimized by the PMBR just because there's a minor tech skill component that allows you to mitigate the nerf.

 

[deadjames]

Saying that doesn't make it true, sorry.

You do realize this one statement invalidates your entire argument right? If you honestly think video games are all about tech skill you've obviously never played RPGs, sims, startegy games, point and click adventures or puzzle games. Furthermore none of the things you listed as tech barriers are artificial other than L-cancelling (but that argument has already been proven to be a dead end) they all serve to add to the mental aspect of the game because there are situations when they may or may not be the correct option, those situations already existed with Bowser's fortress hog, the fact that it is now harder to execute, but still a prevalent option is what makes the barrier artificial.

 

[Frost | Odds]

You do realize this one statement invalidates your entire argument right?

Sure, feel free to totally ignore the rest of the post, and then claim victory. Bravo.

If you honestly think video games are all about tech skill you've obviously never played RPGs, sims, point and click adventures

Apparently you missed the part immediately following, where I noted that I was specifically addressing real time situations.

startegy games

I was the #2 worldwide player of Supreme Commander 1 and 2. Those were notoriously un-technical RTSes, comparatively speaking, but there was still a huge technical component. In fact, I got to the top mostly on my technical skill, and math.

Even turn based games like Chess and Go have many, many patterns which simply need to be memorized because the next move is very simply either 'correct' or 'incorrect'. In chess tournaments, should it just always be assumed that the correct move will be made, thus removing this awful artificial tech barrier?

puzzle games

You're right, of course. No true puzzle game requires technical skill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SE6Iwd4Vgo

Furthermore none of the things you listed as tech barriers are artificial other than L-cancelling (but that argument has already been proven to be a dead end) they all serve to add to the mental aspect of the game because there are situations when they may or may not be the correct option

Holy ****. Really, now?

You mean, exactly like fortresshogging was just changed to be?

those situations already existed with Bowser's fortress hog

Hardly. It was almost never wrong to fortress and just hurl yourself at the ledge.

 

[Overswarm]

Odds, I think you're confusing our disdain with lack of tech skill. It's not that we can't get around the changes, it's that we shouldn't have to. Fox's tech is way easier in PM than it was in Melee's; if someone decided that was a bad thing and then deliberately made it harder simply to do so, you wouldn't actually think that's a good thing, right?

 

[Jacob29]

Yeah he did beat Hbox, who also played the MU wrong as Mario then proceeded to switch to Jiggs who is one of Bowser's easiest MUs.

really it is? but like half of jigg's moves set up for rests.

sure you just say "ah but f-smash her once you wake up!" well sometimes you cant.

Pretty much every time I get rested it's either at like 50% where it insta-kills bowser but slowly so you dont reach jiggs in time or f-smash will take too long to hit with so i just u-smash.

edit: just watched hbox vs kirk and hbox really didn't go for a single rest pretty much...

dunno why.. maybe it was the green hill zone so bowser would respawn quickly...

hmm now that I think about it I dont play jiggs that often, nor in tournament format and I think I usually end up against her on FoD and Dreamland which will make sense why I can't FSmash her..

 

[Overswarm]

I played Abu and deliberately jumped into rests after damaging him so I could just respawn and f-smash him. Once I took a stock off of him and got 40% on him it was game.

 

[Jacob29]

I imagine it's fairly stage reliant... I really don't see what you can do if it's on a really wide stage where rest will kill you, but not give you enough time to F-Smash him.

 

[Ace55]

Wavedashing is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not? Wavedashing is just combining jump with directional airdodge. There is basically no other way to achieve this effect.
L-cancelling is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not? Iffy but it at least has some form of player interaction
SHFFLing is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not? Combination of techniques... and no
B-turnarounds are a tech barrier. Artificial, or not? No, it gives another option which doesn't outclass non b-reversal in any way

What about..
Ledge sweetspotting during recovery? You mean like brawl auto-ledge snap? For the most part this completely obsoletes the need to sweetspot thus severely hinders melee style edgegaurding.
Spacing? Fundemental of the game... Putting your char in the right place is not something you can dumb down (like literally, how would you do this). You might as well call pressing a button + direction a techskill barrier.
Dash dancing? Extra options out of dash while not outclassing or obsoleting running.
Projectile aiming? No, if I want to cut of an specific option of an opponent I pretty much have to aim it myself. You can't change this without losing options.
Float cancelling? How is not pressing an extra button yet getting a near lagless landing a technical barrier?

You are comparing something very basic (Bowser upBing to the ledge) with a combination of moves like wavedashing or shuffling, it doesn't work.

 

[Frost | Odds]

Sorry for bringing the drama llama to town. I mean no offense by any of this. I apologize if I come across as condescending; it just seems kinda silly to me that there's this much angst over what seems like a relatively minor, but good change.

Anyway:

You are comparing something very basic (Bowser upBing to the ledge) with a combination of moves like wavedashing or shuffling, it doesn't work.

Your distinction here is completely arbitrary. Let's take them individually.

Wavedashing is just combining jump with directional airdodge. There is basically no other way to achieve this effect.

But there's no reason that there *couldn't* be a single button input for this.

L-cancelling? Iffy but it at least has some form of player interaction

No moreso than fortresshogging.

SHFFLing? Combination of techniques... and no

Great!

B-turnarounds are a tech barrier. Artificial, or not? No, it gives another option which doesn't outclass non b-reversal in any way

Agreed.

Ledge sweetspotting during recovery? You mean like brawl auto-ledge snap? For the most part this completely obsoletes the need to sweetspot thus severely hinders melee style edgegaurding.

I meant melee style aiming for the ledge. Can you think of any reason that we might prefer that (more difficult) technique as compared to Brawl's magnet hands?

Spacing? Fundemental of the game... Putting your char in the right place is not something you can dumb down (like literally, how would you do this). You might as well call pressing a button + direction a techskill barrier.

That's exactly what you lot are doing, actually, with your insistence that pressing a button + a direction is not only a techskill barrier, but some sort of moral offense.

Dash dancing? Extra options out of dash while not outclassing or obsoleting running.

Agreed again!

Projectile aiming? No, if I want to cut of an specific option of an opponent I pretty much have to aim it myself. You can't change this without losing options.

Still agreed!

Float cancelling? How is not pressing an extra button yet getting a near lagless landing a technical barrier?

Yup.

Most of these things are much more difficult than the new up-b to ledge, and some of them are considerably more arbitrary (L-cancelling, imo), yet they're not railed against.

Odds, I think you're confusing our disdain with lack of tech skill. It's not that we can't get around the changes, it's that we shouldn't have to.

Just like we shouldn't have to memorize opening patterns in Chess or Go, right?

Fox's tech is way easier in PM than it was in Melee's; if someone decided that was a bad thing and then deliberately made it harder simply to do so, you wouldn't actually think that's a good thing, right?

Of course not. A big part of the reason I like PM is that the technical difficulty curve across characters is relatively smoothed out. I think melee Fox requires too much technical skill, to the point of it being at the expense of fun, but PM 2.6b Bowser just erred too far in the other direction, in my opinion. Having a single option for nearly every scenario was incredibly silly. Now you can sort of approximate it if you have balls of steel, but Bowser's decision making process quite rightly got leveled out, so that choosing the right option is much more interesting now.

Part of the reason I hold this opinion is that I don't think Bowser is nearly as bad as most seem to perceive him. Yes, he's a noob destroyer, but he's not *just* a noob destroyer. He has a lot of very strong matchups with a relatively low tech barrier, making him an extremely strong pocket counterpick. Hell, if your reads are strong, he even makes a viable main. His technically easy, passive playstyle lends itself very well to read-heavy players who like to download the manual on their opponents, and mentally exhaust them. While the other player is bouncing all over the place, spamming projectiles, sweating on his controller, trying to find an opening, you can just crouch, powershield, and play dtilt/fair footsies while getting a read on your opponent. Having a very basic, reliable gameplan like this has a lot of strength in a tournament setting, which isn't really accounted for if you're only considering a character's strength in friendlies.

DJ Nintendo does this with Melee Bowser and has a ton of success against incredibly strong players. Hell, Overswarm, I watched a couple of your tournament videos, and while your play is what I'd consider slightly technically sloppy, your reads and composure are top notch. I think Melee Jigglypuff plays to the same strengths. PM Bowser is far stronger than either.

So, because I'm of the opinion that Bowser was actually a very strong character, and considering that he received a couple buffs in the patch; I'm totally okay with some minor nerfs in a few areas: and the up-b change was a pretty appropriate one.

 

[Overswarm]

Of course not. A big part of the reason I like PM is that the technical difficulty curve across characters is relatively smoothed out. I think melee Fox requires too much technical skill, to the point of it being at the expense of fun, but PM 2.6b Bowser just erred too far in the other direction, in my opinion.

You've really gotta get past this mentality. Technical difficulty, in any sense, is a bad thing. It should not be. The reason Fox is technically difficult is because you have to put a bunch of inputs into your controller in a short amount of time and slight changes in this input can drastically change the outcome. It isn't because people don't know that they SHOULD nair shine wavedash nair shine wavedash upsmash, it's that their fingers can't do it.

That's a bad aspect of design, a stumbling block. It prevents people from playing Fox that would otherwise want to.

There will always be certain technical limitations because they're a result of having more options. That said, making Bowser's up+b potentially kill him doesn't increase his options in any way. It just adds a technical barrier to people playing Bowser who haven't practiced it.

Yes, he's a noob destroyer, but he's not *just* a noob destroyer. He has a lot of very strong matchups with a relatively low tech barrier, making him an extremely strong pocket counterpick.

I've been playing in smash tournaments for a decade and have won or placed highly in several events with Bowser.

Bowser is bad. I play him because I like to f-smash people and am going to be switching mains due to a combination of "he's bad" and "new changes are a bad sign".

He is, at best, a ganon in Melee. The whole "getting reads" thing isn't something you can rely on against top players very often. You've gotta save those reads for that last stock or last game so they don't switch it up on you when it is worth more.

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

Im kinda curious, but don't really want to get into a ridiculous argument.

How would each of you answer the question: If you could have PM where the second you thought of the action you wanted, your character performed it without error. Would you have PM that way?

I don't think adding a level of skill to something is bad, as long as there is logic behind it. Should an F-shash require a quarter circle input + B, jump canceled into A? That would be silly. Should some techniques possibly require additional inputs within them? Probibally.

Bowser's fortress hog was as about thought=input as exists in this game. It was really easy. Its now just slightly harder. Is it a big deal? Probibally not. Was the change necessary (had good rationale behind it?) ehh, jury is still out for me.

 

[Overswarm]

I have a better "thinking cap" scenario for you sciophobia:

What do you think about the people that call the c-stick the noob stick because it's too easy to throw out smashes with

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

It gives you more options at a competitive level (moving one direction, aerial any direction). At a basic level it enables scrubs who can't event hit the control stick and A at the same time to perform something which is technical easy for anyone normal, but for complete noobs like my GF, it allows her to actually play the game semi effectively with a character like marth. What do i think of the people that call it a noobstick? I think they are referring to the helpfulness it provides for noobins, but are ignoring the increased options that come with a c-stick. Do I care? not really.

BTW Overswarm, you're the reason I play bowser. I watched tons of your bowser back in the day. So don't take any of this as hostility.

 

[Frost | Odds]

You've really gotta get past this mentality. Technical difficulty, in any sense, is a bad thing. It should not be. The reason Fox is technically difficult is because you have to put a bunch of inputs into your controller in a short amount of time and slight changes in this input can drastically change the outcome. It isn't because people don't know that they SHOULD nair shine wavedash nair shine wavedash upsmash, it's that their fingers can't do it.

That's a bad aspect of design, a stumbling block. It prevents people from playing Fox that would otherwise want to.

Sure, but I think this is still a fundamentally different activity from gauging your distance from the ledge for a fortresshog.

Whatever, not a big deal. If they revert the nerf, I benefit, I suppose.

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

Ok. I've reread some posts and I'm curious if you (OS) wanted to answer:

How would each of you answer the question: If you could have PM where the second you thought of the action you wanted, your character performed it without error. Would you have PM exist that way?

In addition to:

Would you be in favour of PMBR changing falco's side taunt to pillar?

 

[Overswarm]

Changing Falco's side taunt to "pillar" is nonsensical because "pillar" isn't an attack, it's a form of shield pressure that requires specific placement and timing based on the opponent's shield placement and when the dair comes out.


If I could make ANY game be controlled perfectly my thoughts I'd be all for it. That'd be amazing.

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

ok. True. Both ideas were about the same train of thought.
Thats an interesting stance. I think the existence of a thought-game would be interesting. But I wouldn't want smash to be that game.

So technical difficulty in any form is bad? or just arbitrary technical difficulty?

My stupid question was trying to address this issue:
Like, would street fighter be a better game if they had a button for each conceivable attack and pattern of movement, so that no input errors were ever made. You would prefer a game in which both competitor's had these ideal controllers? because SF has "structured" combos, so theres no "requires specific placement and timing" aspect of the game. And thus once landed, you believe its poor design if you don't combo to the fullest extent?

I've never really heard the argument that zero technical difficulty is the ideal case. I agree that arbitrary technical difficulty is pointless. I also think that zero technical difficulty in a game results in the lack of an additional factor in which the competitors must deal with and influence their opponent about.

 

[Frost | Odds]

If I could make ANY game be controlled perfectly my thoughts I'd be all for it. That'd be amazing.

Not sure I agree for all games, but for many: hell yes. Starcraft with a neural interface would be a whole new ballgame.

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

Not sure I agree for all games, but for many: hell yes. Starcraft with a neural interface would be a whole new ballgame.

Really? Huh. that was one of my examples I was considering going into. That would be an interesting game to watch due to the pure strategical elements of it. I would like to see it played to see how different the game would be, but I wouldn't want the game permanently changed to be thought controlled.

I spend a lot of time on the teamliquid.net forums.

There is something that many people appreciate about "macro" players and how they're able to outproduce opponents due to technical skill and speed/management of economy. Many forumers there in a poll there said they'd prefer to out macro their opponents than out micro their opponents. That strongly indicates to me that technical skill (for some people) is important. I don't think you can take the stance that this is inherently "wrong." It is just a different style of game. I believe at melee/PM's core that the game is technically demanding and thus some level of non-arbitrary technical skill is a good thing. Was bowser's change in this category? Eeeeeeerrrrhhhhh. I unno.

 

[Frost | Odds]

Proper macro is far more about game knowledge, good habits, and so forth than it is about the ability to rapidly hit buttons. The button hitting is an important component, but relatively trivial compared to always remembering the proper timings for everything, being able to compensate for harass, maintaining consistent perfect saturation on all your bases, and so forth.

 

[xXSciophobiaXx]

So this is a similar question for you. Should hatcheries be auto injected by queens? should workers automatically mine from the close patches first? Should mules be automatically dropped? (I am excluding reasons like Transfusion or Scanning that are necessary). Zerg has to chose between drones and units, but for terran and protoss should workers be auto built unless you're deciding to cut workers for a timing?
I feel its within these little technical details that a game really flourishes. They provide aspects to exploit your opponent through. Anyway. I better start studying for my last final now.

 

[Anther]

How would each of you answer the question: If you could have PM where the second you thought of the action you wanted, your character performed it without error. Would you have PM exist that way?

I think the ultimate strive is for a game to ultimately allow people to play without technical barriers being in the way. Thought = input is what most modern well designed games want. People want to get into what they found interesting about the game which is usually employing strategy and tactics, while typically the technical aspect is a bonus if the game is sufficiently complicated by its design. A shorthop button makes sense on a normal controller. A short hop laser button not so much.

You can't just have waveshine buttons because what if you want to hold the reflector? It gets to the point that you need 200 buttons on the controller. If the human mind could accept that as intuitive I'm sure it would exist. It's easier to do the complicated input for complicated interactions than manage the buttons.

The only reason I like the nerf is because it makes 'fortress hog from middle of the stage' less viable.. which is an acceptable vision. I think the way it was done wasn't the best in terms of design after the more intuitive method was "created".

 

[Anther]

Double post because I wanted to reply to the starcraft posts!

So this is a similar question for you. Should hatcheries be auto injected by queens? should workers automatically mine from the close patches first? Should mules be automatically dropped? (I am excluding reasons like Transfusion or Scanning that are necessary). Zerg has to chose between drones and units, but for terran and protoss should workers be auto built unless you're deciding to cut workers for a timing?
I feel its within these little technical details that a game really flourishes. They provide aspects to exploit your opponent through. Anyway. I better start studying for my last final now.

It's all so complicated! I think each "auto" changes the focus and makes adjustments to the skill floor and ceiling of the game, but the game's beautiful as is in its own way due to the fact that each of those things in starcraft are almost always at a cost to something else you could've done (which is what I think starcraft II aimed for). They took out little things like having to manually assign workers to patches since it was never to the player's benefit to not send a worker.

Queens that are auto injecting cannot place tumors, someone producing units constantly cannot expo or build more production buildings. Everything is at a cost of something else, and the game's dynamic enough that auto buttons would lose you control of tiny things.


I think the macro micro game of starcraft is too complicated to make everything into a set of toggles. It's possible but I think the game ends up being just as hard at the top level where energy timings and stuff become important. At least early game.

 

[Ace55]

Your distinction here is completely arbitrary.

Let's take wavedashing: it's basically just an option out of jump. Instead of airdodging diagonally down you could aerial, b-move, double jump, etc. Now look at Bowser's up-B: your options are move left or right. It's not a complex move.

L-cancelling is a tech barrier. Artificial, or not?

Iffy but it at least has some form of player interaction

No moreso than fortresshogging.

How so? Nothing has changed in regards to player interaction and Boozer's upB, if they beat you to the ledge you die, same as old versions. But now you can also die without them having anything to do with it.

How would each of you answer the question: If you could have PM where the second you thought of the action you wanted, your character performed it without error. Would you have PM exist that way?

Yes, that would be awesome. Execution is boring, how you use your options is what makes player vs player games interesting.


Basically the tl:dr of my entire standpoint is: If something becomes harder in order to open up more options I'm cool with that. If it's made harder just so it can be harder, I strongly oppose that design choice.

 

[\Apples]

I've said this before so many times, L-canceling is not an arbitrary tech barrier. It's a mechanic that demands the player pay close attention to their own character as well as their opponent's. The timing for L-canceling is different when when you connect than it is when you don't, coupled with freeze frames on hit, it makes L-canceling even more important for more powerful moves. It's a mechanic that challenges reaction time and focus.

TL;DR: L-canceling says "KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME"

 

[deadjames]

I've said this before so many times, L-canceling is not an arbitrary tech barrier. It's a mechanic that demands the player pay close attention to their own character as well as their opponent's. The timing for L-canceling is different when when you connect than it is when you don't, coupled with freeze frames on hit, it makes L-canceling even more important for more powerful moves. It's a mechanic that challenges reaction time and focus.

TL;DR: L-canceling says "KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME"

L-cancelling as a gameplay mechanic has no depth because there is no advantage in not doing it regardless of the situation.

 

[\Apples]

L-cancelling as a gameplay mechanic has no depth because there is no advantage in not doing it regardless of the situation.

Is there not a fail window? If the fail window is present, the mechanic is excellent. Otherwise, it needs a fail window. I've never mashed L for L-cancels or techs in all my years playing Smash because I just assumed.

Also, I'm pretty sure in Melee, the L button press also triggers the fail window for teching. M2K takes advantage of this often actually as Sheik. Causes people to miss techs with ftilt in place of L-canceling. Vidjo used to do that **** to me all the time too, so don't even tell me there is no disadvantage, I've lost entire stocks because of that sneaky little trick.

 

[deadjames]

Is there not a fail window? If the fail window is present, the mechanic is excellent. Otherwise, it needs a fail window. I've never mashed L for L-cancels or techs in all my years playing Smash because I just assumed.

Also, I'm pretty sure in Melee, the L button press also triggers the fail window for teching. M2K takes advantage of this often actually as Sheik. Causes people to miss techs with ftilt in place of L-canceling. Vidjo used to do that **** to me all the time too, so don't even tell me there is no disadvantage, I've lost entire stocks because of that sneaky little trick.

Actually there isn't a fail window for L-cancelling as far as I know, the rest of your post is completely irrelevant because teching is another mechanic altogether, furthermore I'd prefer not to continue this argument because as I stated before the whole L-cancelling argument is a dead end, it's a thing and it's not going away, so despite it being a poor design choice imo I've learned to live with it because it's one of very few problems I have with Melee/P:M.

 

[Ace55]

Is there not a fail window? If the fail window is present, the mechanic is excellent. Otherwise, it needs a fail window. I've never mashed L for L-cancels or techs in all my years playing Smash because I just assumed.

Also, I'm pretty sure in Melee, the L button press also triggers the fail window for teching. M2K takes advantage of this often actually as Sheik. Causes people to miss techs with ftilt in place of L-canceling. Vidjo used to do that **** to me all the time too, so don't even tell me there is no disadvantage, I've lost entire stocks because of that sneaky little trick.

Yeah you can mash to L-cancel. It's how Kage never misses L-cancels on Brinstar. It's probably not a great idea for most characters though.

Also in melee you can l-cancel with light press so you don't mess up your tech-window (not sure about PM but I assume it's the same).

 

[MurderClauz]

Any good player of any "video game" is a technical player. They know how the game functions in almost every way. When someone says a game shouldn't be about skill its like saying (sry if i sound like a ****)professional football players should be required to play flag football so even little kids can play. Completely ******** statement right there. Having skill in any technical aspect of any game makes the game fun to watch whether it be a board game, ssb, or a basketball game. Its the fact that the players are able to do something impressive that makes you want to watch or try to accomplish something along those lines. Saying the mentality of having learning curves and barriers is the wrong way of thinking; is just plain ridiculous when it comes to competitive... well anything. And whats the point of playing any game if u cant be competitive and test your skill vs someone else.
I really don't wanna sound like a **** but i mean cmon with some of these posts lol _Odds said everything perfectly i don't even understand how one would disagree with him.

IMO anyone who thinks tech skill and barriers separating pro/casual/noob players are bad hasent ever been on a professional level in anything. It adds an aspect to the game u just can get by playing tic tac toe.