Vectoring: The replacement to Directional Influence in Smash 4

[Conda]

But yeah, in response to VI actually having less influence than DI at low %s, that's probably the case, either less or equal, because there are still true combos at lower %s. The people who say otherwise are pretty incorrect. It depends on the character you're against too, I suppose.

It's interesting, because low % game feels a bit like melee, where high % game feels a bit like SSB64 - where you can inflict high knockback, but blast ranges are wide and hitstun is long enough that players get sent far off the stage without being able to doublejump back to the stage quickly after knockback.

 

[kupo15]

No I just wanted to hear what someone like you, who is more informed than I, had to say about vectoring replacing di.
Do you by chance have a link to strongbads vid?

Yea it seems like Vectoring is completely replacing DI....well it acts like DI but does so in a different way which fundamentally makes it different from DI. Basically VI allows you to die and not die being sent completely vertically by the same move at the same % depending on if you VI up or not as an example

Here is the SB vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aArzZUr0_z4

 

[Conda]

If it influences direction, I don't understand why we can't continue to call it Directional Influence. Air dodging in Melee and Brawl are vastly different, but still called the same thing because in both games you are dodging in the air. I don't think it will confuse newer players to the series/competitive scene based on that line of logic.

Vectoring doesn't really sound intuitive even if you're a Smash veteran. It sounds like I'm back in one of my math classes

Agreed. I feel we'll still call it DI, and only use the word 'vector' when we need to describe how its different to melee/brawl/P:M DI.

 

[Praxis]

I'd argue that most Smash 4 recoveries are better than their Brawl counterparts. Not only distance-wise, but also other factors, for example characters like Zelda and DDD can now grab the ledge much easier than before.(Not to mention the whole "cannot be edgehogged"-part)
Even pre-patch PM gives Brawl a run for its money

Agree on Brawl's offstage game being fun though.

@ Praxis fairly sure there's meteor canceling in Brawl, only it works differently(you need to jump after half of the hitstun is done, otherwise you have to wait until all of it is done, which usually results in death). Hell, the only reason some people still make a deal out of saying "brawl has no true spikes" is because you could meteor cancel all of them(except luigi's taunt)

Huh, I googled and you're right. I never had to deal with it because I would always (as Peach) immediately attempt to up-B if I got spiked near the ledge (since you can attack out of hitstun on frame 25, it's the fastest option).

At least, I think I did. Maybe I was accidentally meteor cancelling trying to jump.

 

[zz_halim]

So if DI is replaced by VI or whatever you wanna call it, is it impossible to change the trajectory you get hit and you can only influence the knockback? :o

 

[Espy Rose]

Huh, I googled and you're right. I never had to deal with it because I would always (as Peach) immediately attempt to up-B if I got spiked near the ledge (since you can attack out of hitstun on frame 25, it's the fastest option).

At least, I think I did. Maybe I was accidentally meteor cancelling trying to jump.

Wait, you didn't know?!
I didn't respond to you earlier because I thought you were joking.

 

[Chiroz]

Huh, I googled and you're right. I never had to deal with it because I would always (as Peach) immediately attempt to up-B if I got spiked near the ledge (since you can attack out of hitstun on frame 25, it's the fastest option).

At least, I think I did. Maybe I was accidentally meteor cancelling trying to jump.

If you can up-b out of a spike, you are meteor cancelling. You can't up-b out of spikes in Smash 4 until after all of the hitstun is over.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

So are we assuming that low % combos are still relevant and possible, and that VI will really start playing a part once you reach the threshold for when combos are possible?

 

[TTTTTsd]

That's basically the gist of it, yes.

Really the implications for this are mainly based on ridiculous survival %s so we'll have to edgeguard offstage more.

 

[kupo15]

So if DI is replaced by VI or whatever you wanna call it, is it impossible to change the trajectory you get hit and you can only influence the knockback? :o

No you can still change your trajectory but you are doing that by add or subtracting x and y components of speed instead of distributing them

By holding right in VI you are adding x units of kb to the right which will make your trajectory more right, but it also will increase your x speed. The main point here is that your Y speed is unaffected so you will still move the same Y distance upwards

By holding right in DI you are altering your angle so while your x speed is getting bigger your Y speed is getting smaller because you are taking away from y to add to x. The total speed in the new direction however always stays the same in DI whereas in VI its stronger or weaker

 

[Chiroz]

That's basically the gist of it, yes.

Really the implications for this are mainly based on ridiculous survival %s so we'll have to edgeguard offstage more.

This depends on whether or not VI is stronger than DI.

DI was able to cut either vertical or horizontal distance even though it kept maximum distance the same. VI is able to cut maximum distance. But if VI doesn't cut as much maximum distance as DI could cut vertical or horizontal distance then people might just be living shorter (And we wouldn't know because DI doesn't exist in the game).

 

[Black Mantis]

No, combos will still exist. It's just now there's a defensive option to avoid them.

And it's not like anyone will be able to perfectly VI everything. Even today the best Melee players still screw up their DI.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Gawain]

So are we assuming that low % combos are still relevant and possible, and that VI will really start playing a part once you reach the threshold for when combos are possible?

We're not assuming, they do work. At low percents, the new DI seems to have even LESS effect on combos than the old one did. It's only at higher percents that it actually changes anything. Furthermore, it doesn't really increase the longevity of games as people are often doing this without even thinking about it.

 

[kupo15]

BestTeaMaker said: ↑
No, combos will still exist. It's just now there's a defensive option to avoid them.

And it's not like anyone will be able to perfectly VI everything. Even today the best Melee players still screw up their DI.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have to disagree with this statement. The reason why DI is harder than VI is because DI only works if you are inputting a move perpendicular (to varying degrees) to the move's launch angle so if you held up and away to get out of combos for a move that already sends up and away you are not DIing anything. Also if you use a move with a slightly different angle lets say 30 deg instead of 60 deg, the same up and away DI will be less effective because you didn't adjust for the new angle of the move

VI doesn't take angles into account at all for it to work in some capacity. If you hold up and away for any move that remotely sends up and away you will always VI further away than normal making bad VI much harder to mindgame

 

[Praxis]

If you can up-b out of a spike, you are meteor cancelling. You can't up-b out of spikes in Smash 4 until after all of the hitstun is over.

I mean, in Brawl, you can attack out of hitstun always. That's why I would up-B.

 

[Black Mantis]

BestTeaMaker said: ↑
No, combos will still exist. It's just now there's a defensive option to avoid them.

And it's not like anyone will be able to perfectly VI everything. Even today the best Melee players still screw up their DI.


I have to disagree with this statement. The reason why DI is harder than VI is because DI only works if you are inputting a move perpendicular (to varying degrees) to the move's launch angle so if you held up and away to get out of combos for a move that already sends up and away you are not DIing anything. Also if you use a move with a slightly different angle lets say 30 deg instead of 60 deg, the same up and away DI will be less effective because you didn't adjust for the new angle of the move

VI doesn't take angles into account at all for it to work in some capacity. If you hold up and away for any move that remotely sends up and away you will always VI further away than normal making bad VI much harder to mindgame

Either way you can still escape hits (melee, brawl, smash 4). It won't be that much harder to mindgame.

 

[Deleted member]

Did everyone miss the part where he said it scales with knockback? It's likely that this has no effect on low knockback and/or low % combos at all. It's also likely that it makes mid-range combos deeper because there are a large number of positions your opponent can end up within the given space you've already guaranteed him to be at by getting the hit confirm. At high range all it does is make things easier to survive, which given the already normal match times and stock durations, and the fact that everyone is staling all of their kill moves right now, only adds a sense of skill while being more intuitive than DI was. Match times will continue to find a balance point as the meta evolves.

I don't view this mechanic negatively at all yet. We need more data.

I think it could affect low % combos drastically. Depending on how much the knockback scales, you could effectively push the control stick away from the enemy to add more knockback so you go farther and escape low % combos, basically acting like SDI at low percents. I'm saying this entirely from theory though and have no idea how much velocity it adds or how fast the velocity is applied.

 

[kupo15]

Either way you can still escape hits (melee, brawl, smash 4). It won't be that much harder to mindgame.

True but I don't think you are understanding the fundamental difference between the two

Take Falcons down throw Knee in melee. If you don't DI the dthrow its easy to follow up with a knee afterwards. If you DI the dthrow correctly yes you can avoid the knee but falcon can adjust and followup with a uair instead still continuing the combo. You escaped a worse punishment with good DI but didn't really escape getting hit.

Take the same combo using VI instead. With good VI not only are you escaping the knee because of the lower angle which naturally moves you away more, but on top of that you are increasing your kb as if you had more % on you. So with VI you will be able to escape both the knee followup and the uair followup as well because you are being sent further away than you should be able to

In short, DI still keeps you in that same combo bubble allowing a different, less punishing combo whereas VI allows you to escape that combo bubble you should still be in

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

TL;DR Strong Bad wants to rename DI because it works differently, types lots of words to justify his college degree, people call it DI anyway

 

[B0NK]

pretty much

 

[t!MmY]

Discuss.

First and foremost, thank you for your work on this and for providing a clear and well-written post on the matter. This information is very helpful early in the public's hands.

On the matter of the naming: the name for Directional Influence should not be changed simply because the mechanics are somewhat different. I could see if it was an entirely new mechanic that was being discussed, but not simply because the designers decided to modify DI's execution.

For those who think this is an entirely different mechanic, I will let the definition speak for itself.

"Directional influence, abbreviated DI, is the control the receiver of an attack has over his or her trajectory."
- SmashWiki

"Pressing a direction while getting hit to change the trajectory of one's flight."
- StrategyWiki

"Directional Influence is when you aim for the direction you want to go when being launched."
- Smashpedia

"Directional Influence (DI): Will alter your trajectory to help you survive better."
- AlphaZealot via Smashboards

 

[Chiroz]

First and foremost, thank you for your work on this and for providing a clear and well-written post on the matter. This information is very helpful early in the public's hands.

On the matter of the naming: the name for Directional Influence should not be changed simply because the mechanics are somewhat different. I could see if it was an entirely new mechanic that was being discussed, but not simply because the designers decided to modify DI's execution.

For those who think this is an entirely different mechanic, I will let the definition speak for itself.

"Directional influence, abbreviated DI, is the control the receiver of an attack has over his or her trajectory."
- SmashWiki

"Pressing a direction while getting hit to change the trajectory of one's flight."
- StrategyWiki

"Directional Influence is when you aim for the direction you want to go when being launched."
- Smashpedia

"Directional Influence (DI): Will alter your trajectory to help you survive better."
- AlphaZealot via Smashboards

This is all good, but technically this technique has control over trajectory AND distance. That's the exact definition of Vector, Distance + Direction. Those definitions are incomplete.

I don't care what the technique ends up being called, but to a new player who is learning the ropes reading "Vector Influence" will give him much more information and comprehension about the technique than reading "Directional Influence". If a person doesn't know what a Vector is, a quick 3 second google search will answer Direction + Distance and they will know its "Direction + Distance Influence".

If they read DI, they will only be be aware of direction and won't immediately realize you can also alter distance. Also if they read Melee's description of the technique first they will be confused. Separating both techniques helps a new player understand it without getting confused with differences between previous iterations.

You want proof that not separating the techniques creates confusion? Just read most of this thread and how people can't grasp the simple fact that holding the control stick against the knockback direction reduces distance. It's been 20 pages and some people still don't grasp that JUST because they are still comparing it to how DI acts in their minds.

Sure DI and VI are rather similar in execution and they both serve the exact same purpose, but separating them makes each of them easier to understand to a new player.

 

[kupo15]

I think I'm going to have to make a short and simple kupo video explaining this like I used to when I was in the PMBR for people to understand

 

[Chiroz]

I think I'm going to have to make a short and simple kupo video explaining this like I used to when I was in the PMBR for people to understand

The problem with your logic is you believe VI moves you further away from the "combo bubble" than DI would without any kind of numbers on VI. As I explained in an earlier post, even though VI cuts/add maximum distance, that doesn't mean it cuts/add more distance in your desired direction.

Example: You could very well cut 20% of your max direction in X with VI (we don't know the exact number yet), but with DI you could have transferred almost close to 30% of your X direction into Y direction. If your desired direction is to avoid the horizontal blast zone, DI would have helped more.

If on the other hand you are getting comboed and your desired DI out of a combo is to DI away and upwards and assuming VI only cuts 12% of your max distance (random number since we still don't know how much it is), then VI up and right will add 24% more distance, while DIing in that direction would have transferred up to 30% distance in that direction, again allowing you to escape the combo easier than VI.

 

[Roko Jono]

Everyone here's been arguing semantics D:

Unless Melee and Brawl D.I. is in this game along with V.I., I'm gonna keep calling it D.I.

In specifics you can call it Melee/Brawl D.I. and smash4 D.I.

 

[wannabe33]

I'm surprised at how dismissive users in this thread have been of critical voices. Skepticism regarding Smash 4's competitive viability is healthy -- it generates a balanced dialogue and lets us approach the question from two different perspectives. Decrying critics as "scrubs," "casuals," and "QQers" isn't productive.

Rather than get into arguments over semantics or the vectoring mechanic itself, I'd like to explore the implications of the mechanic. (There are bits and pieces of this earlier in the thread, but nothing comprehensive.) In short, vectoring allows the victim of a hit to adjust not only angle, but distance. The recipient of a hit can move closer to the stage than he would otherwise or further out from the stage than he would otherwise. For emphasis: this is a radical departure from how DI operates in previous Smash games, where only the angle of knockback could be adjusted. What does this mechanical change accomplish?

1. It's more intuitive.
2. It makes combo escapes easier.
3. It makes follow-ups more difficult.
4. It improves survivability.

Tackling these one at a time:

[1] Fairly straightforward. You hold the control stick in the direction you want to go. Want to survive? Hold towards the stage. Want to move away from opponent players? Hold away from opponent players. This is what many casual fans think DI means anyway, and it's much more intuitive than perpendicular angle adjustment as seen in previous games.

[2] Again, fairly straightforward. Not only can you angle away from hits, you can now distance yourself from hits through vectoring. Moving away from plus angling away from combos is better than simply angling away from combos.

[3] I've seen a lot of posts here arguing that follow-ups will be unaffected by vectoring, and this is simply false. A handful of follow-up possibilities will evaporate entirely if added vector distance is enough to put the defensive player out of range. For all other follow-up possibilities, consider the following: angle plus distance adjustments give hit recipients more escape options than angle adjustments alone -- and more defensive options means more possibilities the offensive player has to consider. In other words, the offensive player has to guess better than he did in previous games. To be clear: yes, of course follow-ups and mindgames will exist in Smash 4's meta. The relevant takeaway, however, is that these follow-ups will need to account for more defensive options and it will thus be more difficult to read and execute.

[4] Angle plus distance. You hold towards the stage and you live longer. Self-explanatory.

On paper, how does this impact competitive play? We can throw out intuition -- competitive players will understand the game's mechanics regardless of how intuitive or unintuitive they are, so this is irrelevant. What remains relevant are the other three: easier combo escapes, more difficult follow-ups, and greater survivability. These translate into less meaningful rewards for good offensive play, a greater emphasis on defense, and longer matches.

---------

More testing needs to be done, sure, but testing won't change the fact that vectoring as a mechanic fundamentally makes Smash 4 a slower experience. Maybe even slower than Brawl! What testing will demonstrate is how impactful perfect vectoring is at various percents, and there's hope that a significant number of low- and mid-percent combos will still be possible. We're in week one of the Smash 4 meta and there's plenty to discover, but in a vacuum, vectoring doesn't bode well -- it could mark the return of a defense-oriented neutral that rewards camping and discourages aggressive play. That's not super fun to watch for a lot of spectators. Those who insist this is the death of Smash 4 are fools, but those pretending this doesn't have the potential to radically alter how the game is played are equally foolish.

Thanks for reading this overly long post. If you feel I've gotten something wrong or that I'm an idiot, please let me know.

EDIT: As Raykz points out in a later post, we can't yet be sure whether VI is actually better than DI for survival. (Check out his analysis on page 21.) The other points in this post stand.

 

[kupo15]

The problem with your logic is you believe VI moves you further away from the "combo bubble" than DI would without any kind of numbers on VI.

Take the following situation where you can not die at 100% being sent straight up by a move without VI because the move isn't strong enough or your % isn't high enough.

The shear fact that if instead you VI up in that same exact situation causes you to die proves that VI moves you further away than you are supposed to (compared to DI) and out of the combo bubble faster which is the point.

 

[Chiroz]

I'm surprised at how dismissive users in this thread have been of critical voices. Skepticism regarding Smash 4's competitive viability is healthy -- it generates a balanced dialogue and lets us approach the question from two different perspectives. Decrying critics as "scrubs," "casuals," and "QQers" isn't productive.

Rather than get into arguments over semantics or the vectoring mechanic itself, I'd like to explore the implications of the mechanic. (There are bits and pieces of this earlier in the thread, but nothing comprehensive.) In short, vectoring allows the victim of a hit to adjust not only angle, but distance. The recipient of a hit can move closer to the stage than he would otherwise or further out from the stage than he would otherwise. For emphasis: this is a radical departure from how DI operates in previous Smash games, where only the angle of knockback could be adjusted. What does this mechanical change accomplish?

1. It's more intuitive.
2. It makes combo escapes easier.
3. It makes follow-ups more difficult.
4. It improves survivability.

Tackling these one at a time:

[1] Fairly straightforward. You hold the control stick in the direction you want to go. Want to survive? Hold towards the stage. Want to move away from opponent players? Hold away from opponent players. This is what many casual fans think DI means anyway, and it's much more intuitive than perpendicular angle adjustment as seen in previous games.

[2] Again, fairly straightforward. Not only can you angle away from hits, you can now distance yourself from hits through vectoring. Moving away from plus angling away from combos is better than simply angling away from combos.

[3] I've seen a lot of posts here arguing that follow-ups will be unaffected by vectoring, and this is simply false. A handful of follow-up possibilities will evaporate entirely if added vector distance is enough to put the defensive player out of range. For all other follow-up possibilities, consider the following: angle plus distance adjustments give hit recipients more escape options than angle adjustments alone -- and more defensive options means more possibilities the offensive player has to consider. In other words, the offensive player has to guess better than he did in previous games. To be clear: yes, of course follow-ups and mindgames will exist in Smash 4's meta. The relevant takeaway, however, is that these follow-ups will need to account for more defensive options and it will thus be more difficult to read and execute.

[4] Angle plus distance. You hold towards the stage and you live longer. Self-explanatory.

On paper, how does this impact competitive play? We can throw out intuition -- competitive players will understand the game's mechanics regardless of how intuitive or unintuitive they are, so this is irrelevant. What remains relevant are the other three: easier combo escapes, more difficult follow-ups, and greater survivability. These translate into less meaningful rewards for good offensive play, a greater emphasis on defense, and longer matches.

---------

More testing needs to be done, sure, but testing won't change the fact that vectoring as a mechanic fundamentally makes Smash 4 a slower experience. Maybe even slower than Brawl! What testing will demonstrate is how impactful perfect vectoring is at various percents, and there's hope that a significant number of low- and mid-percent combos will still be possible. We're in week one of the Smash 4 meta and there's plenty to discover, but in a vacuum, vectoring doesn't bode well -- it could mark the return of a defense-oriented neutral that rewards camping and discourages aggressive play. That's not super fun to watch for a lot of spectators. Those who insist this is the death of Smash 4 are fools, but those pretending this doesn't have the potential to radically alter how the game is played are equally foolish.

Thanks for reading this overly long post. If you feel I've gotten something wrong or that I'm an idiot, please let me know.

Read my previous post. If you add 5 + 5 it isn't greater than 20, even though its 2 variables. You can't tell if combo's are easier to escape from or if survivability is enhanced if you do not know the %'s at which VI acts.

Take the following situation where you can not die at 100% being sent straight up by a move without VI because the move isn't strong enough or your % isn't high enough.

The shear fact that if instead you VI up in that same exact situation causes you to die proves that VI moves you further away than you are supposed to (compared to DI) and out of the combo bubble faster which is the point.

I added stuff to my previous post. 2 mathematical examples of how DI could affect survivability and combo escapes more than VI.





You guys are literally claiming that X + Y > Z without having ANY value for any of the variables just because X and Y are 2 variables. That's not how algebra works.

We first need to figure out what the % is on VI before we can make conclusions.





To give you a real game example. The only video we have of DI is it allowing Jiggz to live 6% more, lots of people have tested the technique but this is the only tangible proof we have (a video). DI in Melee and Brawl would allow you to live up to 30-40% more, which is MUCH higher than 6% difference.

I am not claiming VI has less of an impact than DI does, I am claiming that until we have a clear VI to Knockback ratio, we cannot make conclusions about which one makes more of an impact.

 

[wannabe33]

You guys are literally claiming that X + Y > Z without having ANY value for any of the variables just because X and Y are 2 variables. That's not how algebra works.

That's not what I'm claiming, anyway. Let X represent angle and Y represent distance. Can you still angle away from attacks like you can in Melee / Brawl? Yes. Can you now also alter the distance away from attacks? Yes. So I'm not claiming X + Y > Z; I'm claiming X + Y > X.

 

[Shadow the Past]

First and foremost, thank you for your work on this and for providing a clear and well-written post on the matter. This information is very helpful early in the public's hands.

On the matter of the naming: the name for Directional Influence should not be changed simply because the mechanics are somewhat different. I could see if it was an entirely new mechanic that was being discussed, but not simply because the designers decided to modify DI's execution.

For those who think this is an entirely different mechanic, I will let the definition speak for itself.

"Directional influence, abbreviated DI, is the control the receiver of an attack has over his or her trajectory."
- SmashWiki

"Pressing a direction while getting hit to change the trajectory of one's flight."
- StrategyWiki

"Directional Influence is when you aim for the direction you want to go when being launched."
- Smashpedia

"Directional Influence (DI): Will alter your trajectory to help you survive better."
- AlphaZealot via Smashboards

I'm going to repost this from earlier

Again, the difference being that we continue to play old iterations of the series even when new ones come out. This is relatively uncommon for most series, at least to the extent that we do it.

When a newer player hears a commetator on a video say "Good DI!" they either think "I know what DI is" or "I don't know what DI is and I want to find out what it is". Calling vectoring in Smash 4 DI is counterproductive to this, because if we hear a Smash 4 commentator say "Good DI", players transferring from old games to Smash 4 will think "I know what DI is because there was DI in older games" and just lead to confusion because it is not the same as DI. Calling it VI makes both old and new players go "I don't know what VI is and I want to find out".

Calling this DI, plain and simple, is lazy. That, and you do not mechanically understand how DI or VI works so you backpedal onto the defenitions of the abbreviated words rather than their mechanical interpretations in-game.

 

[TimeSmash]

If someone has any more data of this in use, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Also, can someone give me a really brief synopsis of important points highlighted (how it is different from DI, how it effects low percent combos, etc.)? I have been away for this thread for a bit, and I would love to stay informed

 

[TL?]

(If you want the tl;dr, just skip to the part about knockback influence(KI).)

Regardless of what we call it, "Vector or Vectoring" is not the best way to name it. Here's why:

1) Those terms are too technical. When we name something we should try to convey the concept of it in layman's terms. Names like "short hop", "fast falling", "air dodge", "spot dodge", and "edge guarding" are examples of good naming. If you were unfamiliar with "short hopping" and hear it, you would assume it's jumping but shorter. When some people hear "vectoring", it means nothing to them. Even some people who know what vectoring is will have a lot of questions still. @ Chiroz argues that it takes a few seconds to google, "vector", but that is too much. You don't have to look anything up to get the concept of a "short hop" or a "fast fall". Having to look something up breaks up a natural in-person conversation as well. It just adds in extra questions in between finding out how to use the mechanic. We can name it such that it requires no technical terms, so why have the extra step? We should name things as intuitively as possible. This new version/replacement of DI is easier to grasp, why give it a more difficult name?

2) Looking up the terms "vector" and "vectoring" I get(From Google search: "define vector, define vectoring":
Vector: a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.
Vectoring: direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

This new DI definitely involves vectoring. The problem is that so does the old DI. You change the trajectory, but essentially that results in changing the vector. Just because speed/magnitude in this case does not change doesn't mean it doesn't have it. Arguably all movement in smash is vectoring, whether that is running, walking, rolling, or jumping. You are moving towards a desired point. The new replacement for DI is not the only instance of vectoring in smash, and it would be misleading and potentially confusing to name it that.

3) Calling it "vectoring" makes it sound like it's an exploit or something that's not supposed part of the game when it's clearly an intentional mechanic. I know this one sounds really silly but we've all seen the people hating on wavedashing that clearly don't understand what it is. We all know how many people still think it's a glitch, and I wouldn't be surprised if people think the same of "vectoring" if we call it that, as little sense as it would make. It really doesn't sound like something you'd ever see in the instructions of a game like this.

Personally I think the best choices are keeping DI, or using Knockback Influence(KI).

The case for DI:

1) The most obvious reason is that it's already an accepted term. To a lot of people DI simply describes the phenomenon of holding a direction to alter where you end up during knockback. When people say things like "DI down", in this and previous smash games, it still means hold down on the control stick. It still serves the same purposes. You hold a direction so you survive longer, or to escape combos/strings/followups. Even though the implementation has changed and knockback is altered in addition to direction, the term still works.

2) "Directional influence" can be adapted. Terms don't have to mean exactly what they always have. To a lot of people "L canceling" meant pressing L to cancel landing lag, but it seems that now the more accepted version is that "L cancel" is simply short for "Lag cancel" since it can be done with any shield button. We call tilt attacks tilts, despite the fact that you aren't really tilting a 3ds slide pad, you are just sliding it halfway or slowly. The term still works if people know what you mean. It still makes sense to say, "directional influence is holding a direction to influence your knockback in terms of trajectory AND speed".

3) But won't people get confused if we call it DI and it works differently in the different games? No. Plenty of things work differently in the different smash games. Air dodging, Smash DI, grab releases, ledge mechanics, hitstun canceling, and many aspects of the movement. Things change, things get revamped, that doesn't mean everything has to be renamed. An air dodge is still an air dodge in this game, but we acknowledged that they are quicker and have landing lag now, just like how we acknowledged that they were no longer directional or caused free fall in brawl. Our mechanic for having some control over our knockback has undoubtly changed in this game, but it has arguably been revamped or overhauled and not replaced.

4) Funny enough, if you look up "vector" on thesaurus.com, it returns the following words as synonyms: "trajectory", "direction".

The case for Knockback Influence (KI):

1) Many people in this thread have suggested "Knockback Influence" or "KI". I think this best describes what's happening. It's direct with it's name, and works semantically. "Knockback" is a level above direction. It includes direction while also including the other relevant things to the mechanic like speed so it's perfect. It also right away tells us that we're referring to the knockback itself. With DI or Vectoring, you might at first think that plenty of things in this game involve directions and vectors or vectoring. With "knockback" influence it intuitively implies what you are influencing to more detail(the trajectory and/or speed of your knockback). It conveys the most information, and it does so in layman's terms. The only downside I see here is getting an entire community on board to adopt this. Also it sounds like Killer Instict, but come on.


In case there's any ambiguity left:
I think referring to it as "DI, but it's been revamped" works just fine and is the easiest road to go down. I also acknowledge that a lot of people in this thread are strictly opposed to keeping "DI". All things considered I think "Knockback Influence (KI)" is the best term semantically and intuitively for the mechanic, and the best compromise overall. The only trouble is getting everyone to adopt it.

 

[Chiroz]

That's not what I'm claiming, anyway. Let X represent angle and Y represent distance. Can you still angle away from attacks like you can in Melee / Brawl? Yes. Can you now also alter the distance away from attacks? Yes. So I'm not claiming X + Y > Z; I'm claiming X + Y > X.

No, you are not.

You do realize that Brawl and Melee ALSO have a Y, it's just you can't change it.




I'll give you a real life example so that you understand better.

You are launched 1000 units horizontally and 0 units vertically. 1000x, 0y. Let's assume the blastzone is at 800 units.

DIing perfectly upwards would leave you at 707x and 707y, which is still 1000 units in a diagonal. You survived the blow.


VI just adds a certain vector. Lets assume this Vector is 20% of the knockback. In this case that's 200. Your ending position is 800x, 0y. You died. Even if you were do DI upwards, that would just add a 200 vector in Y, leaving you at 800x, 200y and still dying.


In this scenario DI saved you, while VI didn't.



I'll go more mathematical with it in a second.

 

[Conda]

If someone has any more data of this in use, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Also, can someone give me a really brief synopsis of important points highlighted (how it is different from DI, how it effects low percent combos, etc.)? I have been away for this thread for a bit, and I would love to stay informed

The developers modified the mathematical physics calculations of DI from previous smash games, as well as changed how user input affects trajectory modification, in large part with a diferent set of rules. Some players feel it is just a change in physics and input effects, and doesn't warrant a new name, while others feel it is different enough in application to warrant calling it "vectoring". I'm on both sides of the argument, but mostly feel DI is fine to use even if it's inaccurate, because it wasn't super accurate or descriptive to begin with in past Smash games.

I also feel calling it 'vectoring' would cause Sakurai to rolls his eyes hardcore, and whatever name he gave it is likely works well enough without sounding like we're playing a Deus Ex game.

(If you want the tl;dr, just skip to the part about knockback influence(KI).)

Regardless of what we call it, "Vector or Vectoring" is not the best way to name it. Here's why:

1) Those terms are too technical. When we name something we should try to convey the concept of it in layman's terms. Names like "short hop", "fast falling", "air dodge", "spot dodge", and "edge guarding" are examples of good naming. If you were unfamiliar with "short hopping" and hear it, you would assume it's jumping but shorter. When some people hear "vectoring", it means nothing to them. Even people some people who know what vectoring is will have a lot of questions still. @ Chiroz argues that it takes a few seconds to google, "vector", but that is too much. You don't have to look anything up to get the concept of a "short hop". Having to look something up breaks up a natural in-person conversation as well. It just adds in extra questions in between finding out how to use the mechanic. We can name it such that it requires no technical teams, so why have the extra step? We should name things as intuitively as possible. This new version/replacement of DI is easier to grasp, why give it a more difficult name?

2) Looking up the terms "vector" and "vectoring" I get(From Google search: "define vector, define vectoring":
Vector: a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.
Vectoring: direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

This new DI definitely involves vectoring. The problem is that so does the old DI. You change the trajectory, but essentially that results in changing the vector. Just because speed/magnitude in this case does not change doesn't mean it doesn't have it. Arguably all movement in smash is vectoring, whether that is running, walking, rolling, or jumping. You are moving towards a desired point. The new replacement for DI is not the only instance of vectoring in smash, and it would be misleading and potentially confusing to name it that.

3) Calling it "vectoring" makes it sound like it's an exploit or something that's not supposed part of the game when it's clearly an intentional mechanic. I know this one sounds really silly but we've all seen the people hating on wavedashing that clearly don't understand what it is. We all know how many people still think it's a glitch, and I wouldn't be surprised if people think the same of "vectoring" if we call it that, as little sense as it would make. It really doesn't sound like something you'd ever see in the instructions of a game like this.

Personally I think the best choices are keeping DI, or using Knockback Influence(KI).

The case for DI:

1) The most obvious reason is that it's already an accepted term. To a lot of people DI simply describes the phenomenon of holding a direction to alter where you end up during knockback. When people say things like "DI down", in this and previous smash games, it still means hold down on the control stick. It still serves the same purposes. You hold a direction so you survive longer, or to escape combos/strings/followups. Even though the implementation has changed and knockback is altered in addition to direction, the term still works.

2) "Directional influence" can be adapted. Terms don't have to mean exactly what they always have. To a lot of people "L canceling" meant pressing L to cancel landing lag, but it seems that now the more accepted version is that "L cancel" is simply short for "Lag cancel" since it can be done with any shield button. We call tilt attacks tilts, despite the fact that you aren't really tilting a 3ds slide pad, you are just sliding it halfway or slowly. The term still works if people know what you mean. It still makes sense to say, "directional influence is holding a direction to influence your knockback in terms of trajectory AND speed".

3) But won't people get confused if we call it DI and it works differently in the different games? No. Plenty of things work differently in the different smash games. Air dodging, Smash DI, grab releases, ledge mechanics, hitstun canceling, and many aspects of the movement. Things change, things get revamped, that doesn't mean everything has to be renamed. An air dodge is still an air dodge in this game, but we acknowledged that they are quicker and have landing lag now, just like how we acknowledged that they were no longer directional or caused free fall in brawl. Our mechanic for having some control over our knockback has undoubtly changed in this game, but it has arguably been revamped or overhauled and not replaced.

4) Funny enough, if you look up "vector" on thesaurus.com, it returns the following words as synonyms: "trajectory", "direction".

The case for Knockback Influence (KI):

1) I think this best describes what's happening. It's direct with it's name, and works semantically. "Knockback" is a level above direction. It includes direction while also including the other relevant things to the mechanic like speed so it's perfect. It also right away tells us that we're referring to the knockback itself. With DI or Vectoring, you might at first think that plenty of things in this game involve directions and vectors or vectoring. With "knockback" influence it intuitively implies what you are influencing to more detail(the trajectory and/or speed of your knockback). It conveys the most information, and it does so in layman's terms. The only downside I see here is getting an entire community on board to adopt this. Also it sounds like Killer Instict, but come on.

Fantastic points, articulated everything better than I was able to.

Again, any argument claiming we should call it vectoring, is also arguing that we should've been calling "DI" vectoring in melee and brawl as well.

The physics and input effects are different in SSB4, yes. But that is not necessarily cause for a different naming style to what is a very similar mechanic at the end of the day. If DI is a bad name to use for Smash 4, then it's a bad word to use for it in melee and brawl. We should name it vectoring in each smash game. Heck, get even more accurate - call it additive vectoring and circular vectoring. Make it feel even more like an exploit and less like a "press a direction to change how you get launched" mechanic.

At the end of the day, I can see pro players saying "it's still DI, it just works way differently."

Kind of like how we call cars 'Cars', because first we had horse carriages, then horseless carriages. We got all 'slang'-y and called them Cars instead. Cars means nothing compared to carriages at first, but once the public attribute "cars" to mean "horseless carriage", then the word sticks. This is how 'new words' work, and we don't have to create brand new nicknames for things whenever they undergo changes - we can pass names down.

Carriages were changed, just as DI has been replaced and changed in Smash 4. We can still call it "DI", even if it's totally different. The same way we call these metal engine-toting automobiles "cars".


We can come up with a better name for it in Ssb4 if we don't want to use DI.

 

[wannabe33]

No, you are not.
Even if you were do DI upwards, that would just add a 200 vector in Y, leaving you at 800x, 200y and still dying.

This is the relevant snippet of your post. Your example specifically concerns survival, and yes, there are theoretical examples where traditional DI can lead you to safety where VI cannot. The key word here is "theoretical." Such scenarios will be incredibly uncommon while scenarios where VI improves survivability will be incredibly common. If...

[blast zone distance] + [VI distance influence] =< [knockback distance]

...you'll be dead. In other cases, you'll live. Though yes, it's fair to say VI isn't strictly better than DI for survivability and this is a helpful observation.

 

[micstar615]

Does this really make follow ups harder? I think I recall seeing Zero play around with this by switching certain moves in a combo earlier today.

For example, during Mario's dthrow > Utilt > Utilt, the opponent can vector out of the last Utilt (sometimes the first depending on the percent), if they do can't you just Dthrow > Utilt > UAir instead? Wouldn't this just cause the combos to switch up based around reading if the opponent will vector or not? If so, this actually adds complexity to the game imo, combos will exist but they won't always be predictable and 100% safe, they'll take prediction and precision. I'm just theorizing, I'm not certain if it will in fact work this way but I don't think this will eliminate combos, especially not in early percents.

 

[Conda]

Does this really make follow ups harder? I think I recall seeing Zero play around with this by switching certain moves in a combo earlier today.

For example, during Mario's dthrow > Utilt > Utilt, the opponent can vector out of the last Utilt (sometimes the first depending on the percent), if they do can't you just Dthrow > Utilt > UAir instead? Wouldn't this just cause the combos to switch up based around reading if the opponent will vector or not? If so, this actually adds complexity to the game imo, combos will exist but they won't always be predictable and 100% safe, they'll take prediction and precision. I'm just theorizing, I'm not certain if it will in fact work this way but I don't think this will eliminate combos, especially not in early percents.

Precisely what I've realised as well.

 

[wannabe33]

If so, this actually adds complexity to the game imo, combos will exist but they won't always be predictable and 100% safe, they'll take prediction and precision. I'm just theorizing, I'm not certain if it will in fact work this way but I don't think this will eliminate combos, especially not in early percents.

No one reasonable is saying this is the death of combos or the death of mindgames -- no surprise that ZeRo, who was always great at mindgames in Brawl, is starting to theorycraft some Mario mindgames. The important point is that offense is harder: recipients of hits can move further away from offensive players and offensive players have to consider more defensive escape options when performing follow-ups.

 

[bc1910]

Does this really make follow ups harder? I think I recall seeing Zero play around with this by switching certain moves in a combo earlier today.

For example, during Mario's dthrow > Utilt > Utilt, the opponent can vector out of the last Utilt (sometimes the first depending on the percent), if they do can't you just Dthrow > Utilt > UAir instead? Wouldn't this just cause the combos to switch up based around reading if the opponent will vector or not? If so, this actually adds complexity to the game imo, combos will exist but they won't always be predictable and 100% safe, they'll take prediction and precision. I'm just theorizing, I'm not certain if it will in fact work this way but I don't think this will eliminate combos, especially not in early percents.

With vectoring you will reach the percentage earlier where any follow-up is impossible, and this is NOT true of DI.

Vectoring won't eliminate combos completely but it will reduce their potency in a way that regular DI would not. Mario's Dthrow -> Utilt -> Uair is not a new combo, the only thing vectoring does is force you to use that combo earlier than usual. So instead of being unable to chain 2 Utilts at 50%, you're now unable to chain 2 Utilts at 40% and must switch to Utilt -> Uair. At the percent where Dthrow -> Utilt -> Uair would normally be required, vectoring will now get you out of that combo completely.

I am NOT saying that vectoring is the death of Smash 4 or anything like that, that would be a massive overreaction. However I wholeheartedly 100% believe that vectoring can only be a bad thing for follow-ups and combos. The extent of which remains to be seen, I for one am hoping it barely changes the already shaky combo mechanics, but I don't hold out much hope if Sheik's throw combos are easily escapable at around 40% now.

 

[Chiroz]

Ok, I'll go all mathematical for a second here:


A vector is defined by direction * distance.


Legend:
A = Distance
B = Direction.

Distance is a magnitude, which is a constant.

Direction itself is a vector which has X and Y values hereby known as BX and BY.
Bx = X in direction
By = Y in direction

C = controller input in X
D = controller input in Y.






DI can change direction, meaning that in the following formula (A * B = DI), it can only change B.

This can happen by adding X and Y values to the direction. (It can also be done by multiplying by a rotation matrix, but let's go with the simple version of just adding values to X and Y).

Let's assume that the % of the value added is J.
J = Constant from 0-1 which represents the % of DI.



Let's calculate both the X and the Y value for DI, hereby known as DIx and DIy.
DIx = X in Vector after DI.
DIy = Y in Vector after DI



As a whole we get the formula for DI as:
(A * (Bx + (C * J))), (A * (By + (D * J))) = (DIx, DIy)

This is equal to: ((A(Bx) + ACJ), (A(By) + ADJ)) = (DIx, DIy).





As we know VI doesn't actually change the formula, instead you are just adding your own vector! This vector you are adding is actually a % of the original vector.

Let's assume that this % is represented as K.
K = Constant value from 0-1 representing the % of VI.



Let's calculate both the X and the Y value for VI, hereby known as VIx and VIy.
VIx = X in Vector after VI.
VIy = Y in Vector after VI



The formula is then equal to: ((A * BX + (K * C * A * Bx)), (A * BY + (K * D * A * By))) = (VIx, VIy)

This is equal to: ((A(Bx) + KCA(Bx)), (A(By) + KDA(By))) = (VIx, VIy)







Now that we have both formulas, let's go ahead and analyze what you guys are claiming is the following:

You are claiming that VI is always greater than DI or in other words that VI>DI.

In formulas sake this is VIx>DIx and VIy>DIy



Substituting we get the following:


A(Bx) + KCA(Bx) > A(Bx) + ACJ AND A(By) + KDA(By) > A(By) + ADJ




Let's eliminate the variables that are repeated on both sides (A(Bx) and A(By)) by subtracting them from both sides.

We now have:

KCA(Bx) > ACJ AND KDA(By) > ADJ




Now let's eliminate the variables that are multiplied on both sides by dividing both sides by said variables (AC and AD)

Our formula is left as:

K(Bx) > J AND K(By) > J







Since we already know both J and B (both values of B), let's make the formula around the value we don't know which is K.

K > J/(Bx) AND K > J/(By)





And this is the final formula.

What does it claim?

It claims that in order for VI to be stronger than DI then the value K which is the % of knockback in VI must be BOTH greater than J/(Bx) and J/(By). J/(Bx) is the max percentage of DI on X and J/(By) is the max percentage of DI on Y. Basically if a move has 1000 units of knockback and you can DI 300 of it on X and 200 of it on Y, then VI must be able to shift you 300 otherwise DI will be stronger.

Since no one knows just how much VI shifts you just yet this is completely unprovable.