The DI/VI Naming Debate

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

I put a poll into this thread, the options available aren't related to the leading post ~ Shaya
This thread is to discuss the name for the mechanics behind "moving your character in the air" between Melee/Brawl and Smash 4. My main arguments and select arguments made by other posters will be included in this post.

The point is that there's a concern to distinguish mechanics between the games. Will Smashers be confused by the mixing of old terminology with new mechanics? Will giving this new mechanic a new name be beneficial for the community as a whole? I argue that it will not.

If we are to call the Smash 4 mechanic "vectoring" based solely on how the game interprets the action of moving the control stick, then by that logic we should call "airdodging" something like "airsliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee. More importantly, it's hasty to invent new terms when legacy terms capture the essence of the action perfectly enough (looking at you hurtbubbles (sorry Kadano ). "Directional influence" does not describe the underlying mechanic used by the game but the overt input as performed by the player to interact with this mechanic. Thus, the term "directional influence" is adequate, accurate, and ubiquitous.

The most important takeaway of Strong Bad's post is his prediction/conclusion that combos will take on a different form of execution based on this new mechanic. His efforts have been beneficial for recognizing this distinction.

I made a quick graphic to help explain this to people (especially those unfamiliar with vectors).

Hope it helps =x

We tested this based on feel. We had a general feeling of what percents moves ceased to combo; Sheik's D-throw would stop comboing at (some percent, varies on victim) without any vectoring, and they would visually go a specific distance. After implementing vectoring, not only would we go that much distance, but would be able to act sooner than if we were simply at that percentage. It'd also be really strange to suffer less hitstun if you vectored against knockback.

Unlike with trajectory DI, with Vectoring, you are unable to alter the distribution of KB. Despite going left or right, the vertical component of KB remains unchanged, simply a new component of horizontal momentum is added.

Graphic by @Teneban shows the differences between Vectoring/Vector Influence and Directional Influence.​

Note how in the right portion of the graphic, the range of directional influence creates an arc, while in the left graphic, it's purely a square. This is because Directional Influence rotates vectors. Vectoring (or Vector Influence, or whatever you want to call it) adds an additional vector, uninhibited by the original trajectory of the attack.

And as jokingly put for simplicity,

Counter 1: Does Directional Influence only refer to the "direction" of the trajectory?

The argument that directional influence only refers to the "direction" of the trajectory falls apart. Vectoring refers to addition and subtraction from the trajectory, while the mechanic described in Strong Bad's post above

This is because Directional Influence rotates vectors. Vectoring (or Vector Influence, or whatever you want to call it) adds an additional vector, uninhibited by the original trajectory of the attack.

says that DI uses rotational vectoring to calculate its trajectory. Here, it is stated that both mechanics involve vectors, but that one refers to additive vectors while the other is rotational. Thus, "directional" cannot refer to the fact that you can only influence the direction of your trajectory and not the distance of your trajectory in Melee DI, but instead refers to the fact that you're moving the control stick in a direction to influence where your character goes after being hit.

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

By the logic that we should call it "vectoring," then it would be right to retroactively name Melee DI "rotationaling" or "Angular Influence."


Counter 2: "Will using "DI" across games cause confusion for gamers new and old?"

The argument that different "DI" across games will confusion is a slippery slope, at best, and I think very misleading, at worst. Again I bring to your attention the air-dodging argument: Shall we call air-dodging "air-sliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee? And yet everyone understands that "air-dodging" and "air-sliding" are the same thing, because everyone understands that Brawl doesn't allow you to air-dodge in a direction.

Again, "direction." Not "air-vectoring." > >

The conflation here stems from the unintuitive complexity of Melee or Brawl's DI mechanic, as compared to the intuitive simplicity of Smash 4's mechanic. Just because Melee is confusing doesn't mean that people will be confused when they learn that Smash 4's mechanic is different than Melee or Brawl's.

To really underline it again, the key argument I'm making here is that we're naming the action, and not the mechanic behind it. We didn't call it L-canceling for Smash 64 we called it Z-canceling because we used Z. We didn't call it lag-canceling (at first) for Melee because L-canceling described the action everyone was doing - using the L-button. Likewise, we distinguish from "auto-canceling" because that canceling doesn't require pressing a button - it's automatic. Or in the case of Peach, it comes from her float (which would be a type of auto-cancel, in this case).

Looking through Strong Bad's thread I see that at least a few of you do not immediately understand this though so I will make an extra example.

Let's take something simple like the action of shutting a door. Now, some doors only shut horizontally, like most car doors, while some doors only shut vertically, like the DeLorean. So if we tried to apply a "shutting" action onto a door, some doors will only respond in a vertical way as opposed to a horizontal direction of movement. But we don't distinguish between a horizontal and a vertical motion of shutting - like, HS or VS - we just call it "shutting the door." This is exactly the case for a term like DI, which describes the action and not how the game responds to that action with its underlying mechanic.


Selections of other poster's arguments are below.

. . .
Opinion time though: Calling this something other than DI is silly.

You're still "influencing" your "direction" when you're hit. The mechanic is handled differently in this game, but the idea of holding a direction is still there.

As an example from another game series, SF2 and SF3/4 all have links, but they're handled differently in SF2 than they are in SF3/4. We still call them links though because the general idea is the same.
. . .

I don't consider myself stagnant: if the vast majority of the community decides to call it "VI" then it will be referred to as VI. Cohesive understanding in our community is stronger than weak understanding of individual items, so while it may be "silly" it still serves its purpose and we move on with it. Excellent example with SF.

To be fair, you're still influencing the direction of something, so I don't see why we still couldn't just call it DI and clarify that it's just different in this game than the past ones. If this is truly what's going on, then it's the only thing there to take DI's place anyway.

. . .
"VI" is still a form of directional influence, therefore there is nothing inaccurate about simply calling this mechanic DI.
. . .

Exactly. The developers changed the mechanics of DI - this is supposed to be replacing the old directional influence. Thus DI is still fitting.

My question is, why didn't we call melee DI something different, with Vectoring in the title? ie "rotational vectoring"?

It would be allowed to be retroactively named this then, yes.

Vectoring implies that the game is just now using vectors. No, vectors have been used for all of the games, but rotated instead of added.
. . .

It seemed intuitive to me that the constituents of trajectory were not new but the math used to handle them would be. I can't easily express my understanding of Melee's trajectory mechanic, but Smash 4's mechanic is intuitive. Also, the math does matter, but does not necessarily need to be reflected in our terminology.

But vectors themselves aren't new, which makes "Vectoring" a term that's just trying to sound cool.

Imo, when it comes to naming, we're getting caught in the 'this is a new technical mechanic, let's name it something mechanical and technical" trap.

These are the feelings I get as well.

. . .
edit: IMO, DI should be a blanket term for ALL post-knockback position-altering in smash bros. This new thing, whatever it's going to be called, is more like a subspecies of DI exclusive to smash 4.

This is more or less my argument.

We didn't have to call Airdodges different things in Brawl, even though they worked very differently than in melee.

I wrote my argument before I saw your post, just to let you know. Good example.

. . .
Some mechanics work different in other games of a series, it doesn't mean said mechanic gets a new term. Anyone who truly is interested in playing multiple iterations of Smash is likely very keenly aware at that point that some mechanics probably differ, and it's up to them to do that research to inform themselves of the details.

People can be told once and then be expected to remember, with all of everything else we pick up in Smash this seems miniscule in comparison.

This does not mean we need to call the mechanic 'vectoring', as it is obscure, uninformative, and lacks any conveyance whatsoever. We can do better.

Saying "you add a vector" is not conveyance. It's like saying "thermodynamics is thermodynamics" Vector is not a good word to use for the name of the AT, simply put. This is not meant to be combative, it is meant to be constructive. The smash community has a history of choosing accurate and conveying names for its ATs, let's not stop now.

Hm.

. . .
We have to stand back and not get as attached to the scientific name. This is something scientists have to do often, but is a worthwhile endeavour.

There is also no shame in accepting "DI" as the word to use when talking about influencing knockback properties in Smash. It does not have to mean we are talking about "specifically direction-altering inputs", but "DI" has become a word of its own now, which may need to have more wide application in the Smash community. It's a good thing to have an eloquent and characteristic vocabulary develop, and we shouldn't think too OCD-ishly technical about naming.
. . .

Agreed, but some naming discussion is good too, if not inevitable at some point, heh.

. . .
"Aggro" is a word used in every MMO, even if the MMO doesnt technically have the traditional aggro mechanic.

There can be Melee DI and Smash 4 DI. We'll call it DI, but it's clear its different between both games. That's how you'll differentiate between them.
. . .

Indeed it seems at least LoL players are using the term "proc" to describe any triggered on-hit attacks and not just "programmed random occurences." I mean 'random' is literally in the acronym right there... heh.

Yes. It's like DACUS - Dash attack cancel up smash. A silly name, but it didn't try to be anything flashy or cool. It was accurate, dorky, but had conveyance.

We do have some exceptions, yes. DACUS was silly, heh.

. . .
"Vectoring" exercises bad naming practises and isn't useful. Fighting games name their technical mechanics something non-technical sounding - that's the whole point of naming them. We may as well call Dodging "L-input attack cancelling" and Spot Dodging "hitbox -liminating"

But we don't, we call them interesting and easy-to-grasp terms. A Short-Hop isn't called a "fractional jump", it is Short-Hop." And thank the gods we didn't name "wavedash" something technical-sounding and goofy.

Specifically, I think "vectoring" is poor because its categorically separate than what DI refers to. I actually don't know how we got the name wavedash, but it came off as goofy to me at first.

Wavedash sounds super goofy/technical, actually.

If we'd called L-cancelling "Soft landing" like Nintendo does, and called Wavedashing "airdodge slide", I'm almost sure we wouldn't get half as many casuals who get caught up in calling them glitches.

I actually attribute this to the community's handling of their response. Too much it seemed that people seemed to pointing to the fact that it had a 'special name' in the game - that's not the point. A simple game design argument suffices: 'Ask me, else the game crash, what kind of response would be programmed into the game for air-dodging into the ground, a slide, or a full stop? It was an already-designed aspect of the game itself; it's not possible for it to be a glitch.'

I'm willing to bet money that DI was changed to vector addition because this is INSTINCTIVELY what most players do when they're hit if they don't know how past DI works. If they're smacked out, they want to get back to the stage, so what direction do they hold? The direction towards the stage. If they're being truly combed, they hold the control stick in the direction they want to go to avoid the next hit.

This is definitely designed to be more intuitive than figuring out what angle the player needs to hold to use old DI. This is also how I thought old DI worked before I realized DI was a thing instead of just hoping that I could hold the control stick hard enough to not get KOed like holding down the B button when catching a Pokemon as a good luck ritual. I'm totally for this.

Very early on a player once told me I had good DI, and this was before I even knew what DI was. Then I heard about DI and started doing it wrong. Then someone corrected me and I had to relearn it a third time. Indeed, this new mechanic is intuitive.

Conda's post is good I think.
TL? wrote out some additional thoughts.

 

[Raijinken]

I still vote Launch Influence, LI, for simplicty of explanation while differentiating from DI as present in past games.

Also helps explain it to people who, whether because they're pre-physics class kids (as most people I know when they started playing Smash) or for whatever other reason, don't really understand Vectors. Vectoring is a cool word, but it's needlessly complicated.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm open to whatever the name ends up being as long as it's not also called DI, if for no other reason then it being possible to properly use the new mechanic without actually changing the direction you're launched in, just the amount you're launched. That right there makes DI sound like a bit of a misnomer.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Someone on the thread suggested Knockback Influence (which is similar to the poster aboves "launch influence") which is better than both DI and VI.

Let's be real

vectoring is a stupid name

 

[Boy Jordan]

I'm open to whatever the name ends up being as long as it's not also called DI, if for no other reason then it being possible to properly use the new mechanic without actually changing the direction you're launched in, just the amount you're launched. That right there makes DI sound like a bit of a misnomer.

I'd just like to raise the point that to a lot of people, myself included, directional influence has been taken to mean "the influence that the direction of your analog stick provides" rather than "the angle you choose". This is a really minor point to bring up, because really, I'm not too concerned how naming conventions fall through in the debates--I'm more concerned with tournament setting rulings like the use of customs, stage bans, et cetera--but I thought I'd just bring it up. Angles and vectors both work with directions, anyway. It'd just come down to "Smash 4's DI works differently from past Smash games". I don't see how that'd be a problem, though, cause we say the exact same for airdodging and other shared mechanics.

 

[Ghoti]

I like Vectorial Influence. The acronym VI flows pretty well, and the mechanics are founded on vectors.

Continuing to call it DI is inaccurate as the mechanics are different.

KI is too close to KO

 

[UltiMario]

Srry SB but im just gunna call this DI.

There is no "old" DI in Smash 4. If there was this Vectoring in addition to some type of old DI, maybe I'd go along with some other name. But there's not. DI just changed basically, Smash 4 has a different type of DI.

People are used to calling it DI, and so people when talking about it, will continue to ask things why "How do I DI against X move" because that's what we're used to saying and everyone will understand that.

This is coming from a person who literally corrects everyone when they call a Meteor a Spike and a Spike a Meteor. I very much enjoy precise terminology but I don't think this is a term we really need to change just because the mechanics of DI changed.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

I'd just like to raise the point that to a lot of people, myself included, directional influence has been taken to mean "the influence that the direction of your analog stick provides" rather than "the angle you choose". This is a really minor point to bring up, because really, I'm not too concerned how naming conventions fall through in the debates--I'm more concerned with tournament setting rulings like the use of customs, stage bans, et cetera--but I thought I'd just bring it up. Angles and vectors both work with directions, anyway. It'd just come down to "Smash 4's DI works differently from past Smash games". I don't see how that'd be a problem, though, cause we say the exact same for airdodging and other shared mechanics.

Srry SB but im just gunna call this DI.

There is no "old" DI in Smash 4. If there was this Vectoring in addition to some type of old DI, maybe I'd go along with some other name. But there's not. DI just changed basically, Smash 4 has a different type of DI.

People are used to calling it DI, and so people when talking about it, will continue to ask things why "How do I DI against X move" because that's what we're used to saying and everyone will understand that.

This is coming from a person who literally corrects everyone when they call a Meteor a Spike and a Spike a Meteor. I very much enjoy precise terminology but I don't think this is a term we really need to change just because the mechanics of DI changed.

These two are basically right.

Using DI and "VI" needlessly complicates things.

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

These two are basically right.

Using DI and "VI" needlessly complicates things.

Serious suggestion: Flight Influence

"DI" always did seem superfluous as a term. I laughed at FI because I always considered it this way, where if you move one direction after being hit another direction you'll move the best way out of it. Plus the voiceless fricative rolls off a bit smoother than "v" and provides a slightly different punctuation...

. . .
Using a simple name like DI or FI is better than 'vectoring' and 'VI' because they actually convey something when described.

This is important for use outside of internet forums. Commentators like I and others would greatly appreciate a more fitting and conveying name.

 

[Shaya]

Hey, I've just done some mod hijinx to add a poll to the first post (hopefully this works).
I purposely try to be devil's advocate-ish/impartial to the answers in these types of polls. The results are not meant to be binding in any real way, and is more of just a sampling for interest's sake. It helps remove the need for short posts/echoing common notions as well~

Question: Preferred term (inc. word derivatives)
"Vector[ing]", "Vector Influence (VI)", "Direction Influence (DI)", "Knockback [?] (Kx)", "Other"

 

[Zebra Dragon]

In my opinion, using DI when it doesn't only change direction now is not a good idea.
Using KI when it doesn't only change knockback in its usual definition, (which is just the norm of the KB vector) could be seen as strange, but somehow I prefer it since it's the first time in the series that it's possible to do so and isn't really incorrect.
Vectoring is accurate, but weird, and not really practical to use.

VI is not bad, but I find it weird for first timers and I'm gonna use KI, personally, since I find the term intuitive and easy to understand, like the new mechanic itself. (except that map a square to a circle thing, which is weird as **** in addition to allow "lazy" KI habits, I hope it gets patched.)

 

[Ganreizu]

I personally think VI sounds badass, regardless of whether it's spoken as VI or vector influence.

 

[Thinkaman]

I prefer VI because it's better than emacs.

 

[guedes the brawler]

VI, but standing for Vectorial Influence instead of Vector Influence

 

[DrakeRowan]

I prefer KI as K sounds better than V, imo.

 

[NotLiquid]

"Vectoring" and even Vectors requires too much explaining. It's not a layman friendly term (and hell I think of vector graphics when I hear that name). The fact that we had to have such a huge post explaining what that entails is proof enough. We don't call DI for "Angling" even though angles is what the mechanic technically alters mathematically.

Knockback Influence is as simple and effective as it gets. Easy to understand and everyone, including newcomers, will know what the concept actually relates to upon hearing the name. It's also much more in line with Directional Influence as a name.

 

[Accelerator]

I will be calling it VI, because that is what Strong Bad named it. He discovered the tech, he gathered the data on it, and he presented it to the community at large.

Why do you lot who didn't contribute to it's finding and and function think you have any naming rights to it?

 

[Kitem]

I know I'm coming into this with no posts, but I'd like to suggest a change to either title-


KDI standing for Knockback Directional Influence or Knockback based Directional Influence.

or

VDI standing for Vectorial Directional Influence or Vectorial based Directional Influence.


I'm suggesting as such with this in mind-
The new form DI is absolutely defined under Directional Influence's meaning, but it is in fact very different from how we see it. So I'd like to point to something that shares these two facts, SDI.
Like "Vector Influence" Smash DI is in no way the same as regular DI but also like "Vector Influence" it is accurately defined under "Directional Influence". Many new players or players wanting to get into competitive Smash will have heard of "Directional Influence" through the grape vine and have a vague idea of what "DI" is, in their mind it's already established- it's the direction manipulation those pros use to stay alive as long as possible. Because of this established term, naming Hitstun Shuffling "Smash DI" makes it simple for them to intuitively understand that it is it's own technique but shares the same principle basis as DI.

That is exactly why KI or VI should be renamed to KDI or VDI. If this is being named for accuracy as well as to be intuitive for people just starting to learn about the game and its mechanics, as in the past, that is the best way convey both.

I'm voting for Knockback as it is much easier for people to understand at first sight than Vectorial, and I believe that should be the main priority.

 

[Jackson]

I would just want to call it DI. Sure, the mechanics may be a bit different, but overall it has similar effects. Not much of a reason to change the name at this point.

 

[Conda]

I feel if KI and DI get more votes together than VI, that we use KI instead. The main point of this poll is to show whether people do or do not want to call it VI. I will never use it - not to explain smash mechanics to my gf, and not to explain smash mechanics to my stream viewers. It presents too much work on my end, and it is fully due to the name.


The mechanic is simple enough, but EVERY time I explain them, I will have to also explain why we call it vectoring. And I will have to deal with the inevitable eye-rolling and alienation that occurs.

And that's not good.



Vectoring is a name that is both making the mechanic sound negative and too technically convoluted for its own good. "After all, it must be convoluted f the best thing we can call it is Vectoring."
It is turning this mechanic into something that sounds like it breaks the game.

Choosing a name that will make newcomers and friends feel alienated - like the competitive community is a bit too much for them - is a very unnecessary thing to do.


I am glad I helped made the issue of the name a proper discussion that we can vote on.

I will be calling it VI, because that is what Strong Bad named it. He discovered the tech, he gathered the data on it, and he presented it to the community at large.

Why do you lot who didn't contribute to it's finding and and function think you have any naming rights to it?

Nobody has rights to it. A bad name is a bad name, and if we can change it to make teaching and commentating easier and to avoid required lengthy explanations of what a 'vector' is to begin with, then we should.

 

[TeaTwoTime]

If we're picking something other than DI, I'm in favour of Vectorial Influence (VI). Most stream chats I've seen are full of people using "Vectoring" and "VI" frequently as though it's already been confirmed as the new name.
That said, there's nothing wrong with sticking with DI. All that needs to be clarified is that DI in Smash 4 is different to the DI from Melee and Brawl.

 

[JediLink]

DI is inaccurate because more often than not you're not even going to be changing your direction - just knockback. Vector influence is more descriptive of what the mechanic actually is.

 

[Conda]

We should not be 'okay' with how alienating this name is for new players to learn and understand. Ignoring them is a misstep for any competitive community, and I hope we dont get too caught up in enjoying our super-technical mechanic names at the expense of our community's accessibility.

DI is inaccurate because more often than not you're not even going to be changing your direction - just knockback. Vector influence is more descriptive of what the mechanic actually is.

It is only more descriptive after you spend a while explaining vectors as a thing. We couldve called DI vectoring back during melee. I wonder how many new players and commentators it would've alienated.

Saying vectoring is easier to understand is simply false. It may be more accurate, but every single mechanic in smash could be renamed something more accurate and technical. But our game and commentary would sound like an elitist joke, and rightfully so.

 

[Cook]

Pretty sure everyone that actually plays competitively at, you know, tournaments and stuff... is gonna call it DI, lol.

 

[DrakeRowan]

"Vectors" has to do with Math, and hardly anybody likes Math; therefore, Knockback Influence all the way. The mechanic specifically alters Knockback and every smasher is familiar with knockback, instead of Vectors. Imagine teaching a random Joe, a beginner, about Knockback Influence vs Vector Influence.

You: "Hey Joe, this mechanic here is called Knockback Influence."
Joe: "Knockback Influence, eh? So it alters Knockback correct?"
You: "Duh; Of course <3

VS.

You: "Hey Joe, this mechanic here is called Vector Influence."
Joe: "Vector Influence? What's a vector? Does it have something to do have Math?"
You: "Umm no; it alters Knockback trajectory.
Joe: "Oh. Then why not call it Knockback Influence?"
You: "Cause well... SCREW THE RULES; THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY CALLS IT ."

 

[Conda]

"Vectors" has to do with Math, and hardly anybody likes Math; therefore, Knockback Influence all the way. The mechanic specifically alters Knockback and every smasher is familiar with knockback, instead of Vectors. Imagine teaching a random Joe, a beginner, about Knockback Influence vs Vector Influence.

You: "Hey Joe, this mechanic here is called Knockback Influence."
Joe: "Knockback Influence, eh? So it alters Knockback correct?"
You: "Duh; Of course <3

VS.

You: "Hey Joe, this mechanic here is called Vector Influence."
Joe: "Vector Influence? What's a vector? Does it have something to do have Math?"
You: "Umm no; it alters Knockback trajectory.
Joe: "Oh. Then why not call it Knockback Influence?"
You: "Cause well... SCREW THE RULES; THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY CALLS IT ."

Precisely. The votes on KI and DI are split, but they show that the majority of people not only do not Want to call it VI, but that they simply Wont.

No matter how many people feel its a cool name, I am not explaining vectors at tournaments or on streams, nor will i engage in conversation where we have to talk about vectors. It is un-Smash-like and presents work to those who have to teach it. The easiest way to teach it is just to send someone to a forum or FAQ. It is much too alienating and even more unintegratable conversationally.

Alienating players who want to learn the game ain't my cup of tea, thus i'll never use VI as a name. I've been working for the good of the community for a while now, and that is the perspective I come from.

The name is so bad that you have to explain what words in the name mean and how they apply to the game, and youll also have to clarify that all smash games have had vectors (and we just got silly with our naming in Smash 4 because...? No reason)

 

[JediLink]

I'd be fine with KI if Killer Instinct didn't exist.

 

[Conda]

I'd be fine with KI if Killer Instinct didn't exist.

I'd be fine with VI if she wasnt a LoL character.

Honestly, the reasonings against "VI" are much stronger and meaningful than the reasonings for it. The poll should take that weight into account.

Why can we not use "DI", meaning Distance Influence? Because a few posters want it to sound more technical than the mechanic it replaces. That is literally the only reason. Arguing VI is more accurate is arguing all other Smash mechanic nicknames are ill-suited and inaccurate.

"What is DI?"
"In smash 4, its Distance influence. You influence how far you are launched."
Done and done.

If you can't explain VI in one sentence without using the word 'vector' or 'vectoring', without the asker having to follow up with "why is it called vectoring, then?", then VI is not only a bad name, but unusable.

No matter the results of this poll, this fact will not change and people will still not use it outside of a pocket on the internet.

 

[Forsage]

I'm more than happy leaving the term at DI to be honest.

There's two groups the term needs to be used for, players who are familiar with DI as a mechanic for influencing air movement, and players who are completely unfamiliar with what DI is in any Smash game.

For the first group, a simple conversation can explain how the new mechanic works.
"Hey, did you know that DI works differently in the new Smash games?"
"Huh? No I didn't, how's it different now?"
"You can DI in any direction, not just perpendicular to your launch path."
"Oh cool, thanks for the info!"

For the second group, who've never heard of DI before, it already sounds intuitive.
"Did you know you can slightly control where you fly through the air by holding a direction on the Circle Pad? They call it directional influence, or DI for short."
"No I didn't, thanks!"

In both cases it's a short explanation, and keeps terminology similar to past Smash games. Introducing vector influence or knockback influence makes no difference to the new group of players, but confuses the players used to calling it DI. It's not a huge state of confusion, but it means we have to have this conversation about renaming DI on a bunch of streams, or among friends, or at a tournament, etc.

"Wow, can't believe he DIed out of that!"
"They're calling it KI now actually for knockback influence; it works differently from past Smash games."
"Really? Okay then, I guess I'll have to get used to that. How's it different?"
... etc.

So I'm for keeping it at DI, but if you guys absolutely want to change the term... Please don't include vectors in the name. As a math student, I'm familiar with how scary people find vectors. While it's possible to teach people how it works in game without explaining vectors, it defeats the point of creating a more descriptive name.

 

[Conda]

Very well said. We've got to listen to voices of reason like this.

I'm more than happy leaving the term at DI to be honest.

There's two groups the term needs to be used for, players who are familiar with DI as a mechanic for influencing air movement, and players who are completely unfamiliar with what DI is in any Smash game.

For the first group, a simple conversation can explain how the new mechanic works.
"Hey, did you know that DI works differently in the new Smash games?"
"Huh? No I didn't, how's it different now?"
"You can DI in any direction, not just perpendicular to your launch path."
"Oh cool, thanks for the info!"

For the second group, who've never heard of DI before, it already sounds intuitive.
"Did you know you can slightly control where you fly through the air by holding a direction on the Circle Pad? They call it directional influence, or DI for short."
"No I didn't, thanks!"

In both cases it's a short explanation, and keeps terminology similar to past Smash games. Introducing vector influence or knockback influence makes no difference to the new group of players, but confuses the players used to calling it DI. It's not a huge state of confusion, but it means we have to have this conversation about renaming DI on a bunch of streams, or among friends, or at a tournament, etc.

"Wow, can't believe he DIed out of that!"
"They're calling it KI now actually for knockback influence; it works differently from past Smash games."
"Really? Okay then, I guess I'll have to get used to that. How's it different?"
... etc.

So I'm for keeping it at DI, but if you guys absolutely want to change the term... Please don't include vectors in the name. As a math student, I'm familiar with how scary people find vectors. While it's possible to teach people how it works in game without explaining vectors, it defeats the point of creating a more descriptive name.

 

[Maraphy]

Tbh, the strongest arguments, imo, seem to be the ones arguing for using "DI"

But "VI" is winning; i'm fine with using "VI" if that's what most people will use

 

[KingBroly]

the simpler the better. I had to lookup what vectoring was in the dictionary to understand it. This is a video game. We shouldn't have to do that.

 

[adlp]

im calling it VI

try to stop me

 

[camzaman]

A better question is, should we boycott Smash WiiU because it's another stupid smash game where you die in 2 minutes instead of 30 seconds.

 

[Strong Badam]

First off, your OP is far from objective. Rather than present each option in equally fair lights, you start off your poll by ****ting on at least a few options, supporting what you feel we should call it (...DI), and calling one of your oposers "pissy." The impartiality here is amusing. While rude and insulting, it also helps my case, so thanks dude.
Not really sure why a poll was added to the OP given this information.

Secondly, I don't much care to address most of your post, so I'm just going to say what I think about this issue and leave it at that, pulling relevant quotes from the OP when applicable but otherwise just writing paragraphs as one normally would.

The most important thing to address, I'm sure, is:

Why we shouldn't call it DI

Of course, there are many proponent's of calling it DI as we always have, citing that we don't change the names of things every time a mechanic changes. Like how SDI functions differently between Melee, and Brawl, we call it SDI because the root concept is the same: use a control stick input during Hitlag/Freeze Frames and you'll warp some units in the direction you pressed. The strength of this, or the amount of hitlag attacks have, isn't relevant to the root definition.
Likewise, other mechanics have changed throughout the series, such as the Air Dodge. In Melee, the Air Dodge is directional (or in place) and goes into special fall afterward. It changes your character's physics. In Brawl, this mechanic follows the falling (or rising) trajectory you would have otherwise taken if you hadn't air dodged. But the main concept of this mechanic, BEING ABLE TO DODGE IN THE AIR, hasn't changed. When the Dash mechanic was changed in Brawl to no longer allow Dash Dancing, we still called it Dashing... because your character dashes. The list goes on.

This is completely different from DI vs. the current mechanic in question. If the name of DI was "Combo or Death Mitigation" based on situation, we would leave it alone because that definition clearly hasn't changed. Or if it was called Directional Influence, because you can influence things by holding a direction, that wouldn't be changed. But neither of those are the name, definition, or origin. Directional Influence, at its core, was named such because you are able to influence the trajectory (direction) at which you are sent. Trying to re-interpret its origin for your case is clearly fallacious and won't fly here.

Now that I've explained why it's wrong, I will describe why it'd be a good thing for the community from a practical point of view.

If you are in the camp that knows you will play Smash 4 and abandon all other smash games completely, calling it DI grants you no consequence. And if you are a veteran to the series who understands how DI works in previous games as well as the difference here, it's probably not a big deal to just be aware that the mechanic is different. Ignoring that the definition of "Good DI" would drastically change, be ambiguous, and at times literally impossible to make note of, calling it DI is horrendous when considering people new to the series.

If new players were to just play Smash 4, that'd be fine. They would learn the mechanic as it is and be fine, because they'd never play a game in which "DI" is different. But unlike other competitive communities who decide which game of a series to play based on release date, the Smash community loves all of its games. Smash 64, Melee, and Project M (a game that's not even official/from Nintendo) still see competitive play today, and absolutely will continue to through Smash 4's release. Not only will Smash 4 be huge, but the other games will benefit highly from the huge influx of players playing because of Smash 4. People will play Smash 4, see other games at multi-game tournaments, and become interested in them in a way they never had the chance to before. When they play the game, and their DI is bad, they won't understand why. Because you've named it the same mechanic despite being different. It'd be like referring to Street Fighter 4's Focus Attack as "Parry" despite that being the name of a wildly different mechanic in Street Fighter 3. No bueno.

To those who've no vested interest in the other Smash games, calling it DI will be fine for you, but it's quite obvious that doing so is toxic to the other games of the community. Not only does this potentially harm the future growth of those games, calling it DI does not do anything positive for Smash 4. The decision to me is obvious. You either call it the same thing & harm other games, or you call it something else and nothing negative occur to Smash 4.

So now that we've determined why we shouldn't call it DI (and why not doing so is crucial), the question on everyone's mind is:

What should we call it instead?

Last thought:

Strong Bad I think you're just being pissy.

You call it lazy, harmful, but what you're doing is demanding a level of distinction that doesn't exist (and isn't even accurate) for all the terms used in Smash, as I've shown in my arguments and as other posters have in theirs, but right now demanding it for your term. Knockback it off, will ya?

Look: If you want us honor something by calling it "vectoring," why don't you just ask us? I think the community has been through enough naming loops by now to incorporate these new mechanics (and any new names) if we allow ourselves to be mature about it. Instead what I often see is people fame-rushing their posts as if it's karma on reddit by rushing headlong into rash opinions about things: namely, whether this Smash 4 mechanic will be good or bad. With the fact that that it may scale with knockback (and we haven't even gotten a good feel for it), it's hardly too late to tell.

Even in the post you quoted, I stated that I didn't specifically want people to call this Vectoring, it was just the first term my thoughtgroup came up with that accurately described the phenomenon concisely.

The funny thing here is, I don't really care what it's called, as long as it's not DI. Vectorial Influence, Knockback Influence (particularly funny for the KI shortening, C-C-C-Combo Breaker~), and Vectoring all describe it accurately enough to get the point across. I expect the community to eventually decide which they would like to use. If you truly think that I'm trying to gain fame from this by naming it something specific... wouldn't I have put my name in it? or something? All I'm trying to do here is give it a name that is accurate, concise, and represents it in a way that's not confusing to verterans and new players alike. In contrast, you're arguing your heart out to eventually be wrong and harm the future growth of the scene. Which one of us is being pissy here?

 

[Conda]

KI is a good middle ground that, if strong bad is okay with, should be adopted. The fact that he didn't intend people to call it Vectoring is reason enough to feel alright with calling it something better.


Because there is more to the Smash scene than technical game-mechanic-studiers on the web, and Vectoring is not a good name for others to actually use and explain clearly.

This is nomenclature in a game - how accessible and conveying the name is is VERY important and we can't ignore that just because some people find the technicality of the name 'Vectoring' to tickle their technical-gaming itch. It is misrepresentive of the competitive scene and alienating.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The mainstream smash terminology has always had its flaws and often tends to be misleading. There are numerous examples of clumsy 'translations' [RAR sounds bad and is better named Pivot Jump and a DACUS is not an upsmash cancelled into a Dash Attack] or terminology that's straight-up misleading [SDI has nothing to do with Directional Influence!]

Since I'm quite a quibbler when it comes to terminological discussions, I'd strongly prefer this technology not to be called DI. It is an objectively inaccurate term as you do not influence the direction you're launched into. Simple as that.
I will admit though that vectoring is a pretty bad term as well. The word itself doesn't make a lot of sense and it sounds quite bad and useless. Both terms should be avoided by the community imo.

I prefer VI because it's not only an accurate term but also because it's obviously akin to DI [which is a different thing in a different game but serves the same purpose]. It gives the smash terminology some much needed consistency. KI or LI are also fine if you think the term 'vectorial' is too daunting for some people. I'll definitely use VI for vectorial influence though.

 

[Conda]

Its not about whether we feel VI is too technical a name, its about it alienating people from learning competitive smash and joining the scene.
By deciding we should have more technical and mathematical names for mechanics, we are making the competitive scene less inclusive and welcoming, since we are no longer giving a crap about teaching the game to others.

Im all about that and it's pretty important to me, which is why I'm not for VI as a nickname. Hopefully thats understandable

 

[TTTTTsd]

Regardless of what it was designed to do, everything should be named on a functional basis. In games like KOF you have Guard Cancel Blowback and Guard Cancel Roll. Both are ultimately guard cancels, but they're named differently because while they both have the same endgoal(help you escape block pressure), they work differently.

VI is a different beast from DI entirely, in how you use it and what it does. It aims to achieve the same kind of effect DI would have albeit more extreme, but design philosophy and function should always be separated when naming something like this, to not confuse any new players.

 

[Conda]

Regardless of what it was designed to do, everything should be named on a functional basis. In games like KOF you have Guard Cancel Blowback and Guard Cancel Roll. Both are ultimately guard cancels, but they're named differently because while they both have the same endgoal(help you escape block pressure), they work differently.

VI is a different beast from DI entirely, in how you use it and what it does. It aims to achieve the same kind of effect DI would have albeit more extreme, but design philosophy and function should always be separated when naming something like this, to not confuse any new players.

Choosing a different name is good, but not ANY different name. We are being selfish in choosing VI and not trying to come up with a helpful and conveying name.