Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[Smooth Criminal]

Usually doesn't, Bizarro. Comments like that usually incite those kinds of conflicts.

And, oh noes, people disagree with you. =/ You actually sparked some pretty good discussion this time. Why just take it for what it is?

Smooth Criminal

 

[El Duderino]

@Duderino 3D fighters, for some reason, usually don't feel the need to be based entirely around tech skill.

That's an interesting observation because all the games I mentioned can be incredibly technical and skill based. They just lean less on the 'dial a combo' approach that can be a bit out of hand in other games.

And the "inb4" was to preemptively call people out on their bull**** so it doesn't become one of those discussions. Usually works.

No... no it does not. It's the straw man defense.

 

[Biz_R_0]

It really does. Every time I actively decide not to do an "inb4" just to see what would happen, people do exactly what I think they would have. Like, 100% of the time.

Also, it's not that people disagree with me, it's that it doesn't end there; the thread has to turn into just that. I'm not gonna list every example but it happens way too often (and not just here) and I'd rather not be part of another Bizarro vs. the World thread.

 

[El Duderino]

It really does. Every time I actively decide not to do an "inb4" just to see what would happen, people do exactly what I think they would have. Like, 100% of the time.

Well aren't you Miss Cleo. The problem is reading the future through your crystal ball doesn't belong in debates.

 

[Biz_R_0]

You're not getting it. I do that so that people don't do what I said they were going to do. And it usually works, so I will keep using my "crystal ball" until that **** stops working.

 

[Big-Cat]

How about I make a thread on combos to keep the topics separate?

 

[Biz_R_0]

Fine, although it'll still probably end up Biz vs. the World if I post in there.

 

[El Duderino]

You're not getting it. I do that so that people don't do what I said they were going to do. And it usually works, so I will keep using my "crystal ball" until that **** stops working.

Oh I get it, I just don't think you understand how much of a cop out it is.

And yes lets get back on topic.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Then explain to me how much of a cop out it is. Please, as clearly I'm just stupid and need your guidance, using such a cop-out technique despite knowing for a fact that it works.

 

[El Duderino]

Then explain to me how much of a cop out it is. Please, as clearly I'm just stupid and need your guidance, using such a cop-out technique despite knowing for a fact that it works.

You made a claim people are naturally going to disagree with, then preemptively tried to pin some posters as being rash for no reason other than disagreeing with you. That doesn't address the argument, it evades it and now just look where we are at.

I respect your opinion on the original argument and even in some ways agree with parts of it, but "inb4" does no good for discussion, it just temporarily derails it.

 

[Biz_R_0]

But it does address it. That's the entire point, addressing stuff before it happens so it doesn't happen. If that was the only thing posted, you might have a point about it not addressing the thing I'm replying to, but it never is. Thing is, that's really just another side comment that others choose to derail the thread over (like the combo thing).

 

[El Duderino]

But it does address it. That's the entire point, addressing stuff before it happens so it doesn't happen.

There's nothing to address if it hasn't happened. When people feel backed into a corner sometimes the straw man comes out to play and it's just as toxic to rational debate.

 

[Biz_R_0]

It's not a straw man, it's a prediction of what they're going to do. That's not even remotely a straw man, I really don't think you understand what a straw man is and just want to scream "fallacy" to win.

 

[DrinkingFood]

inb4 bizarro keeps arguing and using **** logic

 

[Biz_R_0]

Dude stop using a straw man.

Oh, and don't actually explain why my logic is ****. Just put an insult in the format you don't like so that I can't argue against it without sounding like a hypocrite. That way, you win the argument and can put on your smug face and marvel at your superiority.

inb4 you say that him using "inb4" solely to insult me is literally exactly the same as what I've been doing.

 

[El Duderino]

It's not a straw man, it's a prediction of what they're going to do.

The prediction is your strawman. It is a fabrication of the direction other poster's argument would take.

 

[Biz_R_0]

So I can falsely represent what someone hasn't done yet, but at the same time it is impossible to address what someone hasn't done yet? How can I straw man something without addressing it?

 

[Vkrm]

Don't argue about how to argue, argue about l canceling.

 

[El Duderino]

So I can falsely represent what someone hasn't done yet

Only if you claim to know the future.

but at the same time it is impossible to address what someone hasn't done yet?

I've got a better idea, why worry about it when it never happened? No one was giving you BS over your stance before you got all preemptively judgmental.

 

[Biz_R_0]

You're not even attempting to answer the question. Here's what you did, step-by-step:

1. cut the post in half

2. poke fun at contextless first half

3. place blame with nothing directly related to the specific thing you're replying to, but put it after a quote of the second half of the post to make it look like a direct reply

4. never answer the question

Here's how to do it correctly:

1. answer the question

If you're not going to actually reply, then just don't reply.

 

[Big-Cat]

So yeah, how about that needless execution barrier?

 

[Biz_R_0]

I don't like it, not one bit.

 

[Vkrm]

So yeah, how about that needless execution barrier?

No such thing.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

If the only answer to the question "what does this add to the game" is "a tech requirement" then the mechanic is bad imo.

 

[Vkrm]

Lcanceling adds more than just a tech requirement.

-it gives the defensive player a few ways to dupe the opponent since timing it properly is based on hit lag.

-helps balance the spacies. If all their moves auto canceled they would walk all over the other characters.

-and the complex inputs feel really good to pull off.

 

[El Duderino]

1. answer the question.

I did, but I'll make it clear for you. Anyone can falsely represent what the future brings, preemptively act assuming it will, and poorly interpret (make up) all sorts of things to make their case. It's why some people build bomb shelters and go skitzo. It's just a little crazy, that's all.


But back on topic, Vkrm, I think you're going to have to give an example of a defensive player duping someone into a missed L-cancel. I don't think there is enough time to make a cognitive decision to do it intentionally and not just as a result of something else planned. I'll keep an open mind though, I just need to see it.

 

[Vkrm]

Hit lag changes the timing. Hitting someone's shield and hitting them directly both have different timings, its subtle, but there isn't a way to time a cancel and have it cover all three timings. Hit, shield, and whiff. I can normally feel when it should be timed but normally I miss it when they don't do what I expected.

 

[El Duderino]

I understand hit lag can effect the timing, I'm just not sure about the idea that as a defensive player you can use it as a strategy. Think it falls more on the offensive player's ability to respond to the differences than the defensive player ability to trip them up.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I have very few reasons to approve of the inclusion of L-canceling into the game over other mechanics similar to it.

The best reason why I enjoy having the mechanic is it does add an extra layer of skill to the game. Playing smash for me is an enjoyment of seeing myself becoming better at this game. Its an enjoyment to see one's self improve after putting in a lot of practice. The significance of having L-canceling in the first place is such a device to monitor how well I have been improving. If I can be rather consistent with this mechanic, it feels like I am getting better. Why? L-canceling provides a benefit to your overall game play. If however, this mechanic was replaced by something more automatic such as merely reducing all landing lag, then the game lost a level of satisfaction in my progression at getting better at the game.

In short, L-canceling provides a challenge to me during play and without a challenge and the journey of practice to over come that challenge, the game is not much fun in the long run. This is my primary reason for wanting L-canceling to say included.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I did, anyone can falsely represent what the future brings, preemptively act assuming it will, and use it as a means to falsely interpret all sorts of things. It's why some people build bomb shelters. It's just a little crazy, that's all.

First off, stop assuming I'm always going to be wrong. Second, If I did as you say I was, I would've stated something and then argued against it as if they said it. What I'm really doing is saying "I know where you're going with this and it's bad/wrong". Also, what am I "falsely" interpreting beyond that? Because I haven't, unless you just have a feeling that I would do that. Kinda like exactly what you're telling me not to.

 

[nessokman]

lol

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I cannot even see the image you posted. Did you copy something off google images?

 

[Biz_R_0]

It's completely unrelated to anything.

 

[El Duderino]

What I'm really doing is saying "I know where you're going with this and it's bad/wrong".

And all I'm saying is nothing said should have lead you to believe that. You might have had good intentions but as Smooth Criminal pointed out, it is the kind of comment that starts conflicts. When you accuse people of thinking about something they haven't done it is asking for trouble, not preventing it.

Also, what am I "falsely" interpreting beyond that?

Nothing more, just posters' openness to debate the combo argument.

 

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

To those saying that L-cancelling is a needless technical barrier I got to ask one thing. Is linking in SF4 a needless technical barrier? What does linking really add to the game besides a higher skill ceiling?

That said, I'm in favor of L-cancelling.

If you miss a tech by pressing L to early there is a 40 frame window where you cannot tech. When you L-cancel you begin this 40 frame window. This means that if you L-cancel you can actually miss a tech if you're hit shortly afterward. So to those saying there is no disadvantage to L-cancelling, there IS a disadvantage however small it may be.

L-cancel timing during shield pressure has a lot of variables to make it harder to successfully L-cancel. Stuff like differences between hard and light shield hitlag, position on the stage, and the opponent can even tilt their shield towards you to make you hit the shield earlier than you may have anticipated. So L-cancelling does give the defender ways to try to mess the attacker up. At top level play you don't see a lot of missed L-cancels so this isn't a big argument for L-cancelling.

I'm going to go back and add to my first question. If linking is a needless technical barrier then why can't smash have L-cancelling?

 

[Biz_R_0]

And all I'm saying is nothing said should have lead you to believe that. You might have had good intentions but as Smooth Criminal pointed out, it is the kind of comment that start conflicts. When you accuse people of thinking about something they haven't done, it's asking for trouble, not preventing it.

Usually it doesn't, usually it works (like I said, every time I don't do it whatever I predicted happened), but once again people dedicate entire replies to a side comment and completely ignore the main point of the post (is it that hard to just not post if you can't say anything on topic?). You chose to respond to it, and you chose to not respond to anything else I was saying. This is on you, stop trying to pin something you blew out of proportion on me.

Nothing more, that is enough.

No, you said I implied all sorts of things, and you are going to list them. Or you could just stop, because you stopped trying to make a point a page ago and now you just want to place blame on me as if that makes you right.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The question is, what does l-canceling add to the game versus having it manual?

Yes, I know there is a level of adjusting shield bubbles in order to mess up the opponent's l-canceling, but frankly that's within the realm of human reaction time, it's just a matter of increasing your tech skill further.

So what're we left with, the same game, just take years more to reach a point where you can play the real game. Then you have people who would otherwise join the competitive community not being interested because their initial impressions of the game are nothing like it actually is. It's not a lack of dedication, that's the point where the game is supposed to sell itself and it absolutely fails at doing so.


High tech skill requirements doesn't make the game better or worse, but often tech skill requirements (and burden of knowledge) have to be accepted to add depth. That said, it's a disadvantage for the game, so why would you want to increase tech skill unless it's necessary to add depth?

It's pointless. Melee was an amazing game (and yes, far better then brawl) but l-canceling was a terrible mechanic and shouldn't be in subsequent smash games, all it did was hurt melee's competitive scene. Future games should just have low landing lag.

 

[DrinkingFood]

inb4 bizarro keeps arguing and using **** logic

Dude stop using a straw man.

called it

Spoiler

am i good or am i good

 

[Big-Cat]

To those saying that L-cancelling is a needless technical barrier I got to ask one thing. Is linking in SF4 a needless technical barrier? What does linking really add to the game besides a higher skill ceiling?

You might as well ask if linking in ANY fighting game is a needless technical barrier (and why do people ALWAYS use SF?). No, it's not needless, most of the time. Most links exist either as an unintentional byproduct of hitstun or they're there to prevent from there being too many combo options available which could lead to damage potential being too high. They're not so much technical barriers as they are balancing forces.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'm taking a joke seriously to further my point, while completely ignoring the actual rebuttal for the sake of my argument. I am so smart

That's nice, honey.