Let's talk about L-Canceling.

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

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.

Because SF is easily recognizable by just about everyone.

Okay, another question. Links are a way to balance the game by limiting what combos are possible. With that in mind why would you need linking to prevent a combo from being possible? Why not go with a less technical solution?

 

[Vkrm]

They could of made all the normal comands in sf buffer. No amount of buffer could make an impossible combo possible. Links are only in the game to help the more polished player **** sloppy ones imo.

 

[El Duderino]

Usually it doesn't, usually it works

Don't really care when and if it works, I still find it in poor taste.

people dedicate entire replies to a side comment and completely ignore the main point of the post

Been there before when I expressed my distaste for meter based super moves in fighting games, it's hard, I know. The best you can do is state your case and avoid complaining about the situation.

You chose to respond to it, and you chose to not respond to anything else I was saying.

I responded to it because it in no way represented what I was thinking, or the discussion up to that point in time. We were discussing technical skill required in 3D fighting games at the same time before that was brushed aside.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Don't really care when and if it works, I still find it in poor taste.

This got ******** immediately so I'll just end it by saying I disagree but respect your opinion.

I still don't like L-Cancelling.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Buffering does in fact have disadvantages, anybody who played brawl and buffered a roy downair will tell you. I'll freely admit that i haven't gotten deep enough into SF4 to know if there are any negative implications that not having buffering would have (cause my arcade stick broke, qq).

So lets assume for a second that you're right VKRM, that lack of buffering gives no depth in SF4. How is that a positive thing? Sounds like something that people should be pointing out as a weakness in SF4, not something other games should emulate.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Buffering does in fact have disadvantages, anybody who played brawl and buffered a roy downair will tell you.

Somehow I don't think many people have.

 

[El Duderino]

This got ******** immediately so I'll just end it by saying I disagree but respect your opinion.

I'm ready to end this to and agree to disagree. Lets try to give the combo debate more of a chance before making assumptions and keeping the reactions tempered.

 

[Big-Cat]

Because SF is easily recognizable by just about everyone.

Okay, another question. Links are a way to balance the game by limiting what combos are possible. With that in mind why would you need linking to prevent a combo from being possible? Why not go with a less technical solution?

You got anything in mind that doesn't compromise options for the player?

A buffer wouldn't inherently be a bad thing, but it has proven to be a problem at times to the point where you ironically have to be more precise with inputs just to prevent accidents from happening. Case in point, Brawl's 10 frame buffer was excessively generous. IIRC, BlazBlue has only a 5 frame buffer while it's predecessor, Guilty Gear, has only a 2 or 3 frame buffer.

 

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

You got anything in mind that doesn't compromise options for the player?

A buffer wouldn't inherently be a bad thing, but it has proven to be a problem at times to the point where you ironically have to be more precise with inputs just to prevent accidents from happening. Case in point, Brawl's 10 frame buffer was excessively generous. IIRC, BlazBlue has only a 5 frame buffer while it's predecessor, Guilty Gear, has only a 2 or 3 frame buffer.

Well, linking itself isn't a problem. If you wanted to remove the technical skill requirement from it you could simply increase the window where you can input your next attack. It still requires timing and still limits combos but is much easier to perform.

I'm only comparing linking and L-cancelling because they both seem needlessly technical.(1 frame links? Seriously?) I think that some players need a technical barrier to further set them apart from the lesser skilled. Despite the fact that there are so many skills involved in playing fighting games than just dexterity.

I still love L-cancelling though. It's satisfying to be able to be consistent with it.

 

[DMG]

Excessive buffer is bad and can lead to a lot of ridiculous "phantom" inputs to cover up what should have been mistakes, or inputting attacks ahead of time and hoping you guessed right. Buffering makes it easier to play the game "perfect", because you won't need frame perfect timing to successfully make inputs that have a 1-2 frame window. Keeping it small is good: honestly I'd probably stick with anything ranging from 0-2 frames of consistent buffer.


L cancelling... eh. I personally don't think there's a need for it. The game would be the same whether you had an input for L cancelling, or whether the lag reduction was naturally applied. The only difference is that a few people that fell short on the technical end would be evened out. Which doesn't mean they will strategically or fundamentally be as good as the other guy. Like, automatic L cancelling won't somehow flop the tables and mean my little brother will now suddenly beat me. If the one advantage I DID have was L cancelling, or that the only reason I was winning was due to superior execution at it, that's kind of a dumb reason to be winning lol. And I don't think that's the case. There's a difference between no L cancelling, and L cancelling as far as punishes and combos and overall gameplay goes, that's true. But the difference between automatic L cancels and trigger L cancels isn't drastic or would flip the game on its head. In fact, having it automatically done might let people focus more on the fundamentals of spacing or looking deeper at where combos will take you since the technical aspect isn't as forebearing.

 

[Big-Cat]

Again, 1 frame links tend to be there for a reason. If you were to provide one additional frame of hitstun, that could give access to linking an attack that has high damage or combo potential. This is made especially apparent in games where your combo links are predominantly juggles.

 

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

Again, 1 frame links tend to be there for a reason. If you were to provide one additional frame of hitstun, that could give access to linking an attack that has high damage or combo potential. This is made especially apparent in games where your combo links are predominantly juggles.

Ah ok. See I was under the impression that linking was a mechanic outside of hitstun. I wasn't aware that hitstun directly affected how many frames you have to input the next move.

 

[Big-Cat]

Ah ok. See I was under the impression that linking was a mechanic outside of hitstun. I wasn't aware that hitstun directly affected how many frames you have to input the next move.

You might want to do some research next time you make an argument. Of course, I've been guilty of the same thing before.

But yes, that's how linking works. If an attack has a +4 frame advantage on hit, I can followup with an attack that's four frames of startup or less following the attack's recovery.

 

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

You might want to do some research next time you make an argument. Of course, I've been guilty of the same thing before.

But yes, that's how linking works. If an attack has a +4 frame advantage on hit, I can followup with an attack that's four frames of startup or less following the attack's recovery.

I've done a lot of reading on SF and a few other fighting games but I've never seen it explicitly pointed out that you can only link moves that have startup equal to or less than the frame advantage of the previous move you hit with.

 

[Big-Cat]

I admit, the information can be overwhelming and downright confusing at times due to how it's worded.

Thing is though, linking is slightly different in approach when it comes to juggles. The timing between move A and move B can depend on hitbox size, gravity scaling (if applicable), knockback, and the recovery of A and the startup of B. For me, I find them easier to do as you can eye the timing. When it comes to them being precise, they are generally referred to as just frame links, meaning you must press the buttons at a specific frame (not as bad as it may sound).

 

[DrinkingFood]

That's nice, honey.

Guess that goes to show that nobody is surprised when you don't understand logic.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'm going to keep insulting you until you say that my insults are good points.

If you actually have something to say beyond "hurr ur stuped" then say it. Or don't, because we're done talking about this.

 

[DrinkingFood]

You are trying really hard to troll but

Spoiler

you're not supposed to get trolled while doing it

 

[adumbrodeus]

Somehow I don't think many people have.

It's not hard, get hit while attempting to downsmash, get forced off the edge, suddenly you're fast-falling a down-air to your death because of the combination of super low hitstun and the enormous buffer.

Well, linking itself isn't a problem. If you wanted to remove the technical skill requirement from it you could simply increase the window where you can input your next attack. It still requires timing and still limits combos but is much easier to perform.

I'm only comparing linking and L-cancelling because they both seem needlessly technical.(1 frame links? Seriously?) I think that some players need a technical barrier to further set them apart from the lesser skilled. Despite the fact that there are so many skills involved in playing fighting games than just dexterity.

I still love L-cancelling though. It's satisfying to be able to be consistent with it.

Again, why is that a good thing?

Adding needless technical requirements is only a way to appeal to competitive players without actually making the game have any more depth, it's about as blatant pandering as you can get, and the most obvious example was "just-frames" in soul calibur, they added it explicitly to help draw in a competitive scene. Ironically this type of pandering only draws in established competitive gamers in the genre and ironically makes it more difficult to establish a long term competitive scene.

Tech skill that doesn't add to the depth of the game changes nothing and provides the game with a disadvantage.

 

[SSBM_or_GTFO]

Again, why is that a good thing?

Adding needless technical requirements is only a way to appeal to competitive players without actually making the game have any more depth, it's about as blatant pandering as you can get, and the most obvious example was "just-frames" in soul calibur, they added it explicitly to help draw in a competitive scene. Ironically this type of pandering only draws in established competitive gamers in the genre and ironically makes it more difficult to establish a long term competitive scene.

Tech skill that doesn't add to the depth of the game changes nothing and provides the game with a disadvantage.

I acknowledged that L-cancelling is needlessly technical. I don't believe there is a good solution to replace it. You can simply halve all landing lag but to me that would just feel lazy. The only problem people have with it is that it adds nothing to the game besides being a technical requirement. If there was a legitimate reason to not L-cancel I don't think people would object to including L-cancelling in the next Smash.

I love L-cancelling and I want to see it return. Something about it just feels right but maybe that's because I'm used to it.

 

[Big-Cat]

It wouldn't be lazy so much as it just being efficient. Most of the cancelings in other fighting games generally have reasons why you would or wouldn't do them.

And I would object to the return of L-Canceling.

 

[Zekersaurus]

Just sayin. I don't consider L-Canceling or wavedashing much of a barrier. I discovered wavedashing by accident and learned to L-Cancel seconds after being told how. I was pretty good at doing both after only a few days.

Honestly though. I think L-Canceling is kinda dumb. I only used it because it benefited me in a game where L-Canceling was possible. Honestly I think we should drop L-Canceling and substitute "getting up as fast as you can after you just did an aerial attack". I think the landing lag should be entirely dependent on what type of character you're using (fast or slow), what did of type of move the character used. For Example, Ganondorf using a dair should reset fast than Bowser using a bair because Ganon lands on his feet and Bowser lands on his butt. Fox, fast though he is just take the longest to recover if he uses his uair because he lands upside down.

I also, think landing lag should be reduces slightly, if the attacker his the defender's shield.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I acknowledged that L-cancelling is needlessly technical. I don't believe there is a good solution to replace it. You can simply halve all landing lag but to me that would just feel lazy. The only problem people have with it is that it adds nothing to the game besides being a technical requirement. If there was a legitimate reason to not L-cancel I don't think people would object to including L-cancelling in the next Smash.

I love L-cancelling and I want to see it return. Something about it just feels right but maybe that's because I'm used to it.

Just make landing lag low enough to combo and balance around it, that's what most fighting games have.

Here's the thing if you try to add depth to mechanics added to increase execution requirements it comes off as forced 90% of the time. The objective should be to decrease execution requirements whenever possible with execution being a necessary trade off for depth, treating it as an advantage only hurts the competitive scene. So the question shouldn't be "how can we make l-canceling have depth" it should be "how can we achieve the depth l-canceling brings without increasing the execution barriers". The answer is easy.


The reason it feels right is you've been doing it so long, when I play brawl I do constantly "l-cancel" out of habit for exactly that reason, and this causes issues at times. The thing is, just because it's comfortable for me doesn't mean we should handicap the game's ability to gain a competitive scene.

 

[Vkrm]

Taking away the chance of potentially mistiming a cancel would muck up all kinds of things and make offense vs defensive lopsided imo. There's that and that l canceling happens to feel really good because of how intuitive the comands for SHFFL'ing are. Smash 4 doesn't need L cancel per say, buy they planned on making air moves AC, I'd ask why stop there. Why not just shift smash towards having a more dynamic ground game with all aerials move keeping their endlag intact? At that point it wouldn't really feel like smash to me so they might as well give me something new.

 

[Zekersaurus]

I think Smashes ground game deserves more attention.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Brawl gave plenty of attention to the ground game with its shields being one of the strongest tools in the series by far and adding high landing lag on top of already miniscule shield stun.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Brawl gave plenty of attention to the ground game with its shields being one of the strongest tools in the series by far and adding high landing lag on top of already miniscule shield stun.

Oh my god Brawl's shield is not strong. In fact, it depletes twice as fast as Melee's and only has relatively 5 more HP.

Seriously, stop saying this, it isn't true. People throw enough unediucated bull**** around about Brawl, we don't need any more lies from '08. Look at 64 and then tell me Brawl shields 2strong.

 

[Kink-Link5]

"2 frames of shield stun is so weak guys; we should have those super strong smash64 shields and their 40 frames of stun"

 

[Biz_R_0]

World class word twisting. Where did I say that I wanted 64 shields? Nowhere.

 

[Kink-Link5]

look at 64 and then tell me Brawl shields 2strong.

You mean the ones that get you killed for using them right

 

[Biz_R_0]

Because throws were even more broken, yes.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Everything is broken, why play any game ever

 

[Biz_R_0]

If building strawmen was an Olympic sport, you'd be on a cereal box by now.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Olympic sports are as broken as off-topic posts.

Brawl shields too weak guys

 

[Biz_R_0]

Weaker than Melee's, depending on your definition of "weak".

 

[sGale]

Well, I'm not that knowledgeable about smash, but even I can tell brawl has a stronger shield game. In melee, the shield stun is much greater than in brawl, and this results in better shield pressure and worse OoS options. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Biz_R_0]

Yes but it's extremely exaggerated, like most differences in the games.

 

[Ziodyne]

Well, I'm not that knowledgeable about smash, but even I can tell brawl has a stronger shield game. In melee, the shield stun is much greater than in brawl, and this results in better shield pressure and worse OoS options. Correct me if I'm wrong

Good observation! Honestly not bad for someone who's supposedly not knowledgeable =]

 

[Ove]

Yes but it's extremely exaggerated, like most differences in the games.

Please, the shield is powerful. Also, how large is the frame window for Power Shield? It's so easy to Power Shield in Brawl, whereas in Melee you need to practise a lot.

Is there any shield pressure in Brawl at all? I don't think I have seen a shield breaker in any Brawl 1 vs 1 match I have ever seen. In fact, I have only managed to break a shield in 4 player FFA with items (I think that the person whose shield broke could have avoided that from happen, to be honest.)

I miss the shield breaker combos from SSB64...

 

[Biz_R_0]

Brawl's shield deteriorates at twice the rate of Melee's and only has 5 more relative HP. Nothing you've listed has anything to do with the shield, Brawl just has lower hitstun in general. Also, powershielding in Melee and Brawl is exactly the same it's actually easier in Melee. I'm willing to bet that you don't know anything about Brawl aside from the arguments against it you've picked up from haters, as your post illustrates that mindset.