The DI/VI Naming Debate

[InfiniteTripping]

I'm fine with knockback influencing but calling it directional influencing makes no sense when it no longer just influences direction. You might as well call it Aunt Sally if you're going to call it that.

 

[TL?]

I'm warming to the term Knockback Influencing even though I don't think even that term describes it very well either (since the new mechanic also works in situations where you are not technically being knocked back)

What kind of situation would this be?

 

[Bedoop]

KI sounds nice.
Probably because I've played a few DBZ games before, but I'm not a DBZ-intrested guy, so I guess it just sounds nice imo.

 

[Conda]

@ InfiniteTripping

The new DI involves vectoring, but it's not the only instance of vectoring in the game. Old DI as well as any movement in the game(running, jumping) is technically vectoring. Even though magnitute stayed the same, you're still changing your vector with old DI. You're still directing your character towards a (different) point. It's correct, but it's more technical than it needs to be and somewhat vague. Knockback Influence conveys more information and does so in layman's terms. You don't need to know what a vector is to use the mechanic correctly to survive or escape combos. It only makes the mechanic seem more difficult than it is. "Knockback Influence" is easier to understand and describes it perfectly.

Yeah, as I posted earlier, it is would be strange for any competitive community to just get rid of a staple and characteristic term they've used for so long in their series, for multiple titles. I mean, is nothing sacred? A huge element of competitive gaming is being ignored here and tossed under the bus in exchange for something of literally no value. Ooo, a technical name. Let's rename jumping "vertical position adjusting" while we're at it, make Smash the weirdest game to commentate and describe mechanically.

There's a reason Sakurai didn't have to hire a scientist and mathematician to help with mechanics naming is because there's no value in having names of mechanics be overly technical for 'accuracy' purposes.

Honestly, for a competitive community to lose attachment to a characteristic name with a lot of history, to a new name for the sake of 'technical accuracy', speaks bounds to viewers and onlookers about how we view our game, as well as how considerate we are of our inclusiveness.

These are people - potential pro gamers and supporters of our community - who are trying to become more familiar with what the competitive smash scene is like, and how down-to-earth and/or exclusive their vibe may or may not be.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

What kind of situation would this be?

Yo mamma...

...I forget what I was referring to there. But yeah... thinking about it more I think knockback influencing is better than vectoring and vector influencing. You made some good points. It's more understandable and descriptive of the situation.

 

[Chiroz]

It's more about "Oh, they changed the name of this staple movement mechanic in their beloved series into a totally uncharacteristic mathematical name because the physics changed a bit?"

Or maybe it could be: "Oh they changed the name of the mechanic so that they could make other players aware that there was a change in the player's interaction with the specific mechanic. It's good they aren't so full of themselves that they would prefer to keep their inside slang instead of making things obvious for newcomers."

Everything can be put into your perspective.

 

[Conda]

Or maybe it could be: "Oh they changed the name of the mechanic so that they could make other players aware that there was a change in the player's interaction with the specific mechanic. It's good they aren't so full of themselves that they would prefer to keep their inside slang instead of making things obvious for newcomers."

Everything can be put into your perspective.

You can explain DI much quickly with the new way it works than you can with VI. What makes 'vectoring' easier and simpler to explain to newcomers? It's the complete opposite, as the term has no conveyance and no personality. DI already obviously has to do with directions and influence, which tells you it's a movement mechanic. What about "Vectoring" tells you it's even a movement mechanic?

When I use the term "vectoring" during commentary, new players and outsiders who want to enjoy some general high-level competitive gameplay and are curious what the Smash scene is like are going to be lost. "Vectoring? What's going on, this is smash bros. These guys can't be for real." Explaining what vectoring is, and especially justifying the decision to have a mathy name rather than a fighting-mechanic name, is going to be more time consuming than if I stick with DI/directional influence. This is what is alienating, and makes our scene seems as if we treat our game in a convoluted non-common-sense way.


The only way you can explain VI/Vectoring quickly is to use the explanation you'd use if DI was the name. You can explain DI in a way that is simple, conveys the gameplay mechanic (not 'math', but how it is USEFUL to the player in a fight), and justifies the name 'di':
"You press the control stick in a direction to influence how you are launched."

So what is it about Vectoring that makes it easier to explain to newcomers? I assume you'd use 'vectors' in the description, otherwise why have it in the name at all?

Someone should try to actually explain vectoring fully in one sentence in a way that justifies VI/Vectoring as the name, rather than DI. The description has to be different enough than how you would describe the mechanic if its name was "DI", or else a radical change (and loss of style and approachability points) is not worth it.

Because community growth and approachability, as well as common sense when it comes to presentation, is important for us all to keep in mind.

I can sure as hell explain DI in one sentence, because the name doesn't demand further terms to be needlessly explained.


Edit:
And not all viewers and newcomers are willing or caring at all about how good we are at accurately technically naming mechanics in Smash. They want to watch smash, and they want to hear people talking about mechanics that are easy to come to an understanding of. You know, so they can continue to enjoy watching our high-level pro players fight each other. VI/Vectoring is literally a name that demands visiting a wiki/forum, and that is the most obvious proof it's a bad name for a competitive community to adopt. Unless we're not caring about having an exciting presence in the competitive gaming arena - a competitive game that everyone can enjoy.


If that's not important, then I don't know what is. I'm glad I and many others value it going forward with our work in the competitive community.

 

[Morbi]

Honestly, we should just call "vectoring" what everyone wants to call it; however, we must make the name a little bit longer to distinguish the two. "The DI that Never Was" should be our name. Everyone vectored when they were first learning to DI; hence, "The DI that never was" and the shorthand version "TDITNW." We could even opt to call it "DI with an additional vector."

"Extreme directional influence?"
"Directional influence with more directional influence"?
"Directional influence ver. 2"?
"DI that is not really DI but we were to lazy to come with a different name"?
"DI, but not the DI from any other Smash"?
"It's still DI"?

After trying to come up with a different name, I realize that vectoring is the superior choice as that is what we are all currently calling it. Did anyone notice that? We are literally referring to vectoring as vectoring.

You guys can maintain your stagnant attitude for as long as you want, that is your prerogative. The point is, Strong Bad coined the term after bringing it to our attention, and that was the moment that it was named something. There is no debate.

 

[Conda]

Honestly, we should just call "vectoring" what everyone wants to call it; however, we must make the name a little bit longer to distinguish the two. "The DI that Never Was" should be our name. Everyone vectored when they were first learning to DI; hence, "The DI that never was" and the shorthand version "TDITNW." We could even opt to call it "DI with an additional vector."

"Extreme directional influence?"
"Directional influence with more directional influence"?
"Directional influence ver. 2"?
"DI that is not really DI but we were to lazy to come with a different name"?
"DI, but not the DI from any other Smash"?
"It's still DI"?

After trying to come up with a different name, I realize that vectoring is the superior choice as that is what we are all currently calling it. Did anyone notice that? We are literally referring to vectoring as vectoring.

You guys can maintain your stagnant attitude for as long as you want, that is your prerogative. The point is, Strong Bad coined the term after bringing it to our attention, and that was the moment that it was named something. There is no debate.

If that was true, we'd be calling a lot of mechanics very different names. Only time will tell, and many people are going to continue calling it what it has always been as a gameplay mechanic in smash.

When we speak of technicals here on the forum, sure, we'll call it vectoring and talk about vectors and pie charts and angles. The internet text arena can have that name. But when it comes to shouting about how M2K accurately avoided being K.O.d due to a directional input on his controller - we're gonna shout "Awesome DI!" like we have for the past dang decade.

 

[Chiroz]

You can explain DI much quickly with the new way it works than you can with VI. What makes 'vectoring' easier and simpler to explain to newcomers? It's the complete opposite, as the term has no conveyance and no personality. DI already obviously has to do with directions and influence, which tells you it's a movement mechanic. What about "Vectoring" tells you it's even a movement mechanic?

When I use the term "vectoring" during commentary, new players and outsiders who want to enjoy some general high-level competitive gameplay and are curious what the Smash scene is like are going to be lost. "Vectoring? What's going on, this is smash bros. These guys can't be for real." Explaining what vectoring is, and especially justifying the decision to have a mathy name rather than a fighting-mechanic name, is going to be more time consuming than if I stick with DI/directional influence. This is what is alienating, and makes our scene seems as if we treat our game in a convoluted non-common-sense way.


The only way you can explain VI/Vectoring quickly is to use the explanation you'd use if DI was the name. You can explain DI in a way that is simple, conveys the gameplay mechanic (not 'math', but how it is USEFUL to the player in a fight), and justifies the name 'di':
"You press the control stick in a direction to influence how you are launched."

So what is it about Vectoring that makes it easier to explain to newcomers? I assume you'd use 'vectors' in the description, otherwise why have it in the name at all?

Someone should try to actually explain vectoring fully in one sentence in a way that justifies VI/Vectoring as the name, rather than DI. The description has to be different enough than how you would describe the mechanic if its name was "DI", or else a radical change (and loss of style and approachability points) is not worth it.

Because community growth and approachability, as well as common sense when it comes to presentation, is important for us all to keep in mind.

I can sure as hell explain DI in one sentence, because the name doesn't demand further terms to be needlessly explained.


Edit:
And not all viewers and newcomers are willing or caring at all about how good we are at accurately technically naming mechanics in Smash. They want to watch smash, and they want to hear people talking about mechanics that are easy to come to an understanding of. You know, so they can continue to enjoy watching our high-level pro players fight each other. VI/Vectoring is literally a name that demands visiting a wiki/forum, and that is the most obvious proof it's a bad name for a competitive community to adopt. Unless we're not caring about having an exciting presence in the competitive gaming arena - a competitive game that everyone can enjoy.


If that's not important, then I don't know what is. I'm glad I and many others value it going forward with our work in the competitive community.

As I have said many times and you keep ignoring, it's the fact that you're informing the player the technique changed. Calling it DI doesn't inform the player that it changed and unless the player GUESSES the technique changed he will never learn it did. Calling it VI (or KI/FI) informs the player instantly that the mechanic is different.



Calling it DI is literally saying: "We don't need to inform anyone outside this small naming circle that the technique is different, they should figure it out themselves". While naming it anything else is saying: "Hey look, there's a new mechanic, it works very close to an old mechanic in previous iterations but you should be aware it changed".

 

[Conda]

As I have said many times and you keep ignoring, it's the fact that you're informing the player the technique changed. Calling it DI doesn't inform the player that it changed and unless the player GUESSES the technique changed he will never learn it did. Calling it VI (or KI/FI) informs the player instantly that the mechanic is different.

New players don't need to know anything changed. It's irrelevant, and 5 years from now when new players will still be learning about Smash 4 for the first time, we'll still have to explain "it changed from that game released 11 years ago, so we called it something that's weird and difficult to explain unmathematically"

They need to hear a name that makes sense - directional influence. Influencing your flight via a directional input. VI is harder to explain, especially to new players who don't know or care at all about past mechanics, because 100% of the justification for "VI" as a name is "because it changed a bit."

 

[Chiroz]

New players don't need to know anything changed. They need to hear a name that makes sense - directional influence. Influencing your flight via a directional input. VI is harder to explain, especially to new players who don't know about past mechanics, because 100% of the justification for "VI" as a name is "because it changed a bit."

You do realize that performing DI doesn't work in this game, right? Or rather it does work but it puts you in a worse position.

You would rather let all those players keep doing it wrong and NOT learning a technique just because you are so adamant about keeping a name, it's the definition of elitist.

You keep saying DI is easier to explain. They are both just as easy to explain, you can explain them with the exact same words.

The difference is with one of the 2 names players will realize they need to relearn the mechanic while with the other name they won't know they have to relearn it.

 

[Conda]

You do realize that performing DI doesn't work in this game, right? Or rather it does work but it puts you in a worse position.

You would rather let all those players keep doing it wrong and NOT learning a technique just because you are so adamant about keeping a name, it's the definition of elitist.

I'm not sure why it's earthshattering to understand that mechanics change slightly from game to game. In Brawl, people didn't keep pushing a direction when airdodging needlessly, or airdodging into the ground to no effect. We all learn how the new game works and what are the good and bad things to do during a fight. Calling a new mechanic 'Vectoring" helps nobody, it just introduces a huge first-impressions-no-no for onlookers who are watching their first competitive smash match for the first time, hearing the lingo they use for simple mechanics that used to sound evocative.

 

[Chiroz]

I'm not sure why it's earthshattering to understand that mechanics change slightly from game to game. In Brawl, people didn't keep pushing a direction when airdodging needlessly, or airdodging into the ground to no effect. We all learn how the new game works and what are the good and bad things to do during a fight. Calling a new mechanic 'Vectoring" helps nobody, it just introduces a huge first-impressions-no-no for onlookers who are watching their first competitive smash match for the first time, hearing the lingo they use for simple mechanics that used to sound evocative.

New players won't be "frightened" by calling a technique VI. Wavedashing is a much stranger term which holds absolutely 0 meaning, yet no one was scared or has huge first impressions because of it. Gamers understand every game has it's own language, if you've never played a MOBA you won't understand what people mean by CS, orb-walking, animation cancelling, kiting, etc. Yet LoL has 300 million players, I don't think it's much of a problem.



It's not earth shattering to understand my point of view if you stop being so biased. There's a bunch of groups of players. You have newcomers to the series who don't know anything about it, these people won't get confused by a name like DI, because they never knew how it was before. You have the real hardcore pros who are already looking into the new mechanics of the game, they won't get confused by any names because they are part of the process of discovering and naming techniques.

Then you have the group of semi-casuals or the competitive players who aren't that much into the game. These people know the mechanics from past games, yet they are not so into the game that they spent their past 2 months analyzing every ounce of data available. These people will probably get the game in 3 months and look for the mechanics online. If you see something such as: "Wavebouncing" you will say "Well, I already know that mechanic and know how to do it, don't need to learn it". In that same way they will read "DI" and think that exact same thought, without realizing the mechanic actually changed. Not only that, but the ones that are reading everything in a quick fashion will read over DI's explanation and it will be so close to the previous DI's explanation that they will "skip" over it without realizing it and get confused about why it isn't working.

It happens ALL the time.



If you were to name the technique a different name nothing of that would happen. They would read "VI" and even if they read it wrong they would know SOMETHING changed because the name changed and would reread it until they understand it.

 

[Conda]

VI ignores a large aspect of what matters a lot in competitive gaming - not just due to the word itself, but where it comes from - a place that cares not for acknowledging new Smash players and general e-sports spectators. These are important - especially bringing in new competitive players and welcoming them into an inclusive environment that we've built to be easily teachable.

It's why we sticky topics, answers questions on streams, and post how-to videos. Vectoring gives us all more work to do in the explaining department, and offers zero in return.

It gives new players a bad vibe into how we approach the technical aspect of our game right from the get-go, and how much we take them into consideration.

It also shows how we treat our game's own terms, such as DI. Our community is already pretty aggressive when it comes to describing our own games in this series in very decisive ways. Let's not acknowledge this aggressive need for division by needlessly renaming mechanics in each game simply because they've been updated and changed.

I mean, imagine the MLG hosts taking an aside to explain what the smash commentators keep mentioning - "Vectoring". They'd have to talk about vectors and crap in order to adequately describe why it's called Vectoring/VI. And any description that dodges 'vectors' will feel sloppy and dumbed-down, because clearly the smash community felt the mathematics was important and impressive enough to include in the name.
It's ridiculous - no foresight was put into choosing the name Vectoring, and Strong Bad himself already said that he didn't intend that to be the name we use. We are making things harder for everybody, especially competitive smash's attractiveness as a spectator game.

Again, it's not about going over people's heads or scaring people, it's about communication and going through with having a down-to-earth competitive community - it's about being welcoming and not too exclusivist in presentation. We don't want to set a 'knowledge' bar for no reason other than acknowledging the technicality of a technique. The whole premise is bad for a competitive gaming community. Good for a scientific journal, but not for a spectator-friendly competitive game.

That's how you turn a spectator-friendly game (one where people say "his good directional influence saved him there" and viewers can get the jist of what that means without knowing anything about the game), into one that isn't spectator-friendly.

Some games can be viewed by anybody, because there is good language that is adopted to describe complex mechanics simply, and a strong commentator presence that focuses on making the game entertaining to a wide audience. Husky, for instance.


EDIT:

But again, I may be a basket case. I mean, special case. I'm a very community-focused dude and I completely understand if a lot of people aren't really thinking about how commentators and players focus on bringing new players into the game's community. To us, being friendly, informative, and concise is very important, and when the over-technical group tells us "Vectoring" is the new name for DI, we are understandably not as quick to adapt.

We're on the other side - communicating with new players and pro players alike, and developing a way of speaking during matches that make both sides feel like they are WELCOME and INCLUDED in the viewing experience.

 

[Chiroz]

VI ignores a large aspect of what matters a lot in competitive gaming - not just due to the word itself, but where it comes from - a place that cares not for acknowledging new Smash players and general e-sports spectators. These are important - especially bringing in new competitive players and welcoming them into an inclusive environment that we've built to be easily teachable.

It's why we sticky topics, answers questions on streams, and post how-to videos. Vectoring gives us all more work to do in the explaining department, and offers zero in return.

It gives new players a bad vibe into how we approach the technical aspect of our game right from the get-go, and how much we take them into consideration.

It also shows how we treat our game's own terms, such as DI. Our community is already pretty aggressive when it comes to describing our own games in this series in very decisive ways. Let's not acknowledge this aggressive need for division by needlessly renaming mechanics in each game simply because they've been updated and changed.

I mean, imagine the MLG hosts taking an aside to explain what the smash commentators keep mentioning - "Vectoring". They'd have to talk about vectors and crap in order to adequately describe why it's called Vectoring/VI. And any description that dodges 'vectors' will feel sloppy and dumbed-down, because clearly the smash community felt the mathematics was important and impressive enough to include in the name.
It's ridiculous - no foresight was put into choosing the name Vectoring, and Strong Bad himself already said that he didn't intend that to be the name we use. We are making things harder for everybody, especially competitive smash's attractiveness as a spectator game.

Again, it's not about going over people's heads or scaring people, it's about communication and going through with having a down-to-earth competitive community - it's about being welcoming and not too exclusivist in presentation. We don't want to set a 'knowledge' bar for no reason other than acknowledging the technicality of a technique. The whole premise is bad for a competitive gaming community. Good for a scientific journal, but not for a spectator-friendly competitive game.

That's how you turn a spectator-friendly game (one where people say "his good directional influence saved him there" and viewers can get the jist of what that means without knowing anything about the game), into one that isn't spectator-friendly.

Some games can be viewed by anybody, because there is good language that is adopted to describe complex mechanics simply, and a strong commentator presence that focuses on making the game entertaining to a wide audience. Husky, for instance.


EDIT:

But again, I may be a basket case. I mean, special case. I'm a very community-focused dude and I completely understand if a lot of people aren't really thinking about how commentators and players focus on bringing new players into the game's community. To us, being friendly, informative, and concise is very important, and when the over-technical group tells us "Vectoring" is the new name for DI, we are understandably not as quick to adapt.

We're on the other side - communicating with new players and pro players alike, and developing a way of speaking during matches that make both sides feel like they are WELCOME and INCLUDED in the viewing experience.

All of that is fine and dandy but none of that has anything to do with what I said. In fact, calling the mechanic DI actually goes against exactly what you said "being welcoming". You are hiding the fact that a mechanic changed by using the same name again. That's not good communication.

I want to point out that you yourself realize that you don't have a strong argument which is why you keep saying "Vectoring" and bringing in over the top examples about things I am not advocating for. I have stated many times I don't care about the name of the technique as long its not DI. My reasons are specifically community driven and I have explained exactly why.

Not everyone rereads every mechanic when a new game comes out. In fact 99% of people don't reread a mechanic they already know. If they know how to do it they won't just waste hours of their lives checking if every mechanic has changed and the fact that you expect them to is selfish.

You say there are tutorial videos and threads yet nobody is going to go into a thread that say "DI" because they already understand exactly what it is, or so they believe.

How do you inform someone how DI changed if they don't realize it changed at all.

You can say "we will teach them" but are you going to be teaching them for 6 more years? Are you going to be going into every stream, every tournament, every forum for 6 years making sure that everyone is well aware that DI has changed?

You seem to not care about any player that isn't involved in the first 3-4 months of the game. The people who will come here after everything has already been discussed and will only read exactly what they need to. If they see "DI" they'll believe they have no reason to read it because they already know it.




If the Vectoring thread was called: "How to DI". I would bet not even a fourth of the people that read it would have opened the thread and would still not realize that it changed at all. You can argue that it could be called something like "How to perform the new DI!" but how will you make sure everyone makes a flashy topic like that or includes the word "new" in their tutorials/threads? Will you be lurking the internet checking that all sources of information clearly portray the message that the mechanic is new?

Wouldn't a new name (be it VI, FI, KI or w/e) be the easiest way to portray said message and make sure every player knows the mechanic?

 

[Conda]

Wouldn't a new name (be it VI, FI, KI or w/e) be the easiest way to portray said message and make sure every player knows the mechanic?

It would, but if VI is the winner then I'm going back to DI. If we all agree to use something other than VI, such as KI, then I'll use KI as it has most of the benefits as DI and not the same drawbacks as VI.

But I don't feel people are going to go with KI. If they do, great - I'll come along. But if we let the VI front-page-craze take hold in our vocab going forward, I won't be using it.

I could be a maverick and just use KI, but if I have no support by other players, then it's not worth it. DI is the default, and VI is the learned 'new' name. If KI can replace it as the learned 'new' name, then that'll be a good change and I can live with it.

 

[Boy Jordan]

You guys can maintain your stagnant attitude for as long as you want, that is your prerogative. The point is, Strong Bad coined the term after bringing it to our attention, and that was the moment that it was named something. There is no debate.

I remember when Gimpyfish and others came back from the Brawl demo at E for All with a brand new mechanic to share: Ink Dropping. They were raving about how you could cause your character to fall over to avoid hits and to throw your opponents off guard, gaining an additional roll after it to further space yourself. Know what they were talking about? Tripping. Just cause "vectoring" is the first name suggested doesn't mean it will or should be the name to catch on. Ultimately, the community decides through their actual conversations and references to the mechanic itself.

@ Conda and @ Chiroz , you guys are on fire in this thread.

 

[Chiroz]

@ Conda I would like to just say I respect you and if I seem douchy at times it isn't on purpose. I get really into discussions sometimes and some of the times I don't know how to express myself so it what I do say ends up looking kind of like I am full of myself. Trust me, I am a real down to earth guy. I do solemnly believe it shouldn't be called DI though, but I don't mind if it's not called VI either. If it ends up being called DI though, I will also call it DI.

 

[Morbi]

I remember when Gimpyfish and others came back from the Brawl demo at E for All with a brand new mechanic to share: Ink Dropping. They were raving about how you could cause your character to fall over to avoid hits and to throw your opponents off guard, gaining an additional roll after it to further space yourself. Know what they were talking about? Tripping. Just cause "vectoring" is the first name suggested doesn't mean it will or should be the name to catch on. Ultimately, the community decides through their actual conversations and references to the mechanic itself.

@ Conda and @ Chiroz , you guys are on fire in this thread.

I was just referencing that the name has already caught on and whatnot; however, that is certainly a great example that illuminates the horrors of using the first established name.

 

[UltiMario]

You got a point with the fact that SB was the "first" person to name this, and it's caught on from that.

It's also caught on that people really don't like this name, if they did we wouldn't have this thread.

The reason this thread exists is because SB is bad at making catchy names for a mechanic, a mechanic we've had in Smash under a different name for 15 years already. Not only is he trying to change the name of a mechanic in the game, but the name he came up with sucks.

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

As for changing the name of a term, well... Two things. One, we're not CHANGING the name, because as of now the name of this mechanic has not been universally agreed upon. You can argue that we're changing it from DI to whatever (or rather: that we shouldn't change it from DI to whatever), but the fact is that I never saw this mechanic as DI in the first place. *gasp* Again, contradiction!

You sound like more of a "visual" learner than a "verbal" one, so I've drawn a picture for you.

So what we have here are two categories, "DI" and "SDI". As we see, the actual mechanic behind each is different: DI influences trajectory by the changing the "direction," while SDI influences trajectory by "warping." Both terms use "directional" to describe these mechanics, as we can see in the middle there: both DI and SDI have "DI" in the name.

This image is a bit more confusing but I'll walk you through it. The first two circles on the left are the same ones from the last image, but I've separated them from each other, and pulled "DI" as the larger category out to the left. I've also changed the mechanic name of DI from "direction" to "rotational vectors," which is the term Strong Bad used to describe it (and it seems true enough). So, "directional" collectively refers to the different mechanisms in both DI and SDI. This is separate form Smash 4's mechanic.

Now, on the right (purple) we see Smash 4's new mechanic, which uses additive vectors instead of rotational vectors. This is a new mechanic than the last two, but the question here is do we need a new name to describe it?

My point in this image is that, if you are going to argue that the new mechanic should be called "vectoring" so as to distinguish it from the old "DI", then that doesn't really make sense, since "vector" is a word that can describe both! We could have even used different terms long ago (called DI "VI") and then made a note about it instead.

Here's where I think we have ended up. As you can see, "DI" is used in both Melee's/Brawl's DI as well as SDI, and while there may be a separate term (on the right) to describe the functionality of Smash 4's mechanic (which is fine), I think, on the whole, we should refer to all the mechanics collectively as "DI", or if you think it best, we should come up with a new term.

"Vectoring," I think, is a silly, too-smart-sounding name that goes into the technical details of the game without capturing the overall picture.

Conda makes a good point:

Essentially, it seems like many people have the following outlook: "We need to make the name 'Vectoring', because it is something people should know. If a casual doesn't know what Vectors are, they have to look it up if they want to earn their 'I am a dedicated competitive smash player' Badge".

We shouldn't be building a wall like that for no good reason. It is alienating to new viewers and makes the whole community sound like we take the technicalities in the mechanics much too seriously.

While the counter to this may be that the confusion the two DIs would bring would outweigh any clarity that keeping the old term would preserve, using new, equally-confusing term wouldn't help either.


Since keeping "DI" may cause this confusion, and since I think the Smash community can evolve with its terms, I really think we should call it "FI" for "flight influence," as that is the most neutral and all-encompassing term we have.

 

[Thor]

I PERSONSALLY think we should call it distance influence, because you are directly influencing the distance you fly, either adding to it or subtracting from it.

I then think we could abbreviate it DI

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

@ Conda I would like to just say I respect you and if I seem douchy at times it isn't on purpose. I get really into discussions sometimes and some of the times I don't know how to express myself so it what I do say ends up looking kind of like I am full of myself. Trust me, I am a real down to earth guy. I do solemnly believe it shouldn't be called DI though, but I don't mind if it's not called VI either. If it ends up being called DI though, I will also call it DI.

Just wanted to say, the thing with your MOBA example is that all but one of those terms are practical, accessible, and functional in their names of those techniques: CS is when you last-hit; orb-walking is when you animation-cancel your auto-attacks; kiting is essentially zoning while moving and attacking (often to bait, I suppose). The only one that is mechanistically named is animation canceling, and to be fair, for anyone who's played platformera or RTS in the last 20 years, this is not a new mechanic by any stretch. Sure, maybe "DI" doesn't quite cut the distinction you want, but you argue that as if the lack of a distinction will cause confusion. However, I'd say that Conda's main point is that a term like "vectoring" is far-too technical sounding because it addresses the technique on a mechanistic level and not a functional or practical one - albeit how intuitive "vectors" are to conceptualize, I'd argue the term as-is is slightly ostentatious.

This discussion has been good, but I think it's up to those in more responsible positions now to take the reigns and make some community-wide decisions, or at least open up the discussion on a broader level.

 

[MushroomKiller]

See the bold there? Hey, look, my point exactly! Which is pretty much what Conda's been pushing for the whole time. I dunno where you get off saying that's he's acting self-righteous or elitist. Sooooooooo

You sound like more of a "visual" learner than a "verbal" one, so I've drawn a picture for you.

So what we have here are two categories, "DI" and "SDI". As we see, the actual mechanic behind each is different: DI influences trajectory by the changing the "direction," while SDI influences trajectory by "warping." Both terms use "directional" to describe these mechanics, as we can see in the middle there: both DI and SDI have "DI" in the name.

This image is a bit more confusing but I'll walk you through it. The first two circles on the left are the same ones from the last image, but I've separated them from each other, and pulled "DI" as the larger category out to the left. I've also changed the mechanic name of DI from "direction" to "rotational vectors," which is the term Strong Bad used to describe it (and it seems true enough). So, "directional" collectively refers to the different mechanisms in both DI and SDI. This is separate form Smash 4's mechanic.

Now, on the right (purple) we see Smash 4's new mechanic, which uses additive vectors instead of rotational vectors. This is a new mechanic than the last two, but the question here is do we need a new name to describe it?

My point in this image is that, if you are going to argue that the new mechanic should be called "vectoring" so as to distinguish it from the old "DI", then that doesn't really make sense, since "vector" is a word that can describe both! We could have even used different terms long ago (called DI "VI") and then made a note about it instead.

Here's where I think we have ended up. As you can see, "DI" is used in both Melee's/Brawl's DI as well as SDI, and while there may be a separate term (on the right) to describe the functionality of Smash 4's mechanic (which is fine), I think, on the whole, we should refer to all the mechanics collectively as "DI", or if you think it best, we should come up with a new term.

"Vectoring," I think, is a silly, too-smart-sounding name that goes into the technical details of the game without capturing the overall picture.

Conda makes a good point:
While the counter to this may be that the confusion the two DIs would bring would outweigh any clarity that keeping the old term would preserve, using new, equally-confusing term wouldn't help either.


Since keeping "DI" may cause this confusion, and since I think the Smash community can evolve with its terms, I really think we should call it "FI" for "flight influence," as that is the most neutral and all-encompassing term we have.

Sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but honestly... tl;dr! I'm a bit busy with work atm, and the pics actually turned me off, so maybe next time use words? I do enjoy reading! (I'll come back in future to try and some sense of what you clearly worked hard on, but atm I'm afraid I'll just have to skip through most of what I'm sure is a beautifully detailed explanation).

Just one thing: You mention that 'vectoring' is a 'silly, too-smart-sounding name'. I can't argue with you for silly - that's your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. I respect that. But 'too-smart-sounding'.... Now, I'm guessing this has to do with where I come from, but vectors is actually considered one of the EASIEST part of Math and Physics. I'm not trying to sound extra smart or act like I'm God of Math and Physics, because in reality they're **** compared to some of my peers. The fact is, as a concept that I find simpler than most other mathematical stuff, I assumed that Vectoring/VI/whatever would be simple enough for everyone to get - something which I now realize is clearly not the case. Cultural differences in education? Idk. But where I come from, if you try to use 'vectors' to sound smart, you'd probably be laughed at. Not sure if I sound pretentious here, but the fact is that I simply like Vector Influence because - surprise! - the same name you find silly, I happen to find cool

Also, as I mentioned multiple times: I'm actually FINE with naming the as-of-now-not-universally-named mechanic DI. I really, really am. It's just that, if you asked me, I would PREFER something else to avoid having to use the distinction "Sm4sh DI" and "All other Smash games DI", but eh, if the community decides on DI, I honestly won't complain

Actually, my ultimate conclusion is that people should just call it whatever the hell they want it to be, because if you say DI, people who use VI are going to know exactly what you're talking about, and vice-versa. Newcomers might have a bit of trouble at first, but in a community filled with jargon such as DACUS and SHFFL, it won't be the hardest mountain they climb.

I'm honestly a bit burned out from visiting this thread too many times, as I feel that I got too much into what I now see is a pretty silly affair. Any replies will still be welcome, of course, although my stance on this whole naming debate won't change. That, and the fact that I still think you're a bit of a pissy for jumping to conclusions about StrongBad ;P But hey, all's cool

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

Sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but honestly... tl;dr! I'm a bit busy with work atm, and the pics actually turned me off, so maybe next time use words? I do enjoy reading! (I'll come back in future to try and some sense of what you clearly worked hard on, but atm I'm afraid I'll just have to skip through most of what I'm sure is a beautifully detailed explanation).

Ah, well, did you see my earlier post then? It's short; you may find it helpful.
http://smashboards.com/threads/the-di-vi-naming-debate.368986/page-2#post-17618999

 

[Thor]

Sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but honestly... tl;dr! I'm a bit busy with work atm, and the pics actually turned me off, so maybe next time use words? I do enjoy reading! (I'll come back in future to try and some sense of what you clearly worked hard on, but atm I'm afraid I'll just have to skip through most of what I'm sure is a beautifully detailed explanation).

Just one thing: You mention that 'vectoring' is a 'silly, too-smart-sounding name'. I can't argue with you for silly - that's your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. I respect that. But 'too-smart-sounding'.... Now, I'm guessing this has to do with where I come from, but vectors is actually considered one of the EASIEST part of Math and Physics. I'm not trying to sound extra smart or act like I'm God of Math and Physics, because in reality they're **** compared to some of my peers. The fact is, as a concept that I find simpler than most other mathematical stuff, I assumed that Vectoring/VI/whatever would be simple enough for everyone to get - something which I now realize is clearly not the case. Cultural differences in education? Idk. But where I come from, if you try to use 'vectors' to sound smart, you'd probably be laughed at. Not sure if I sound pretentious here, but the fact is that I simply like Vector Influence because - surprise! - the same name you find silly, I happen to find cool

Also, as I mentioned multiple times: I'm actually FINE with naming the as-of-now-not-universally-named mechanic DI. I really, really am. It's just that, if you asked me, I would PREFER something else to avoid having to use the distinction "Sm4sh DI" and "All other Smash games DI", but eh, if the community decides on DI, I honestly won't complain

Actually, my ultimate conclusion is that people should just call it whatever the hell they want it to be, because if you say DI, people who use VI are going to know exactly what you're talking about, and vice-versa. Newcomers might have a bit of trouble at first, but in a community filled with jargon such as DACUS and SHFFL, it won't be the hardest mountain they climb.

I'm honestly a bit burned out from visiting this thread too many times, as I feel that I got too much into what I now see is a pretty silly affair. Any replies will still be welcome, of course, although my stance on this whole naming debate won't change. That, and the fact that I still think you're a bit of a pissy for jumping to conclusions about StrongBad ;P But hey, all's cool

Saying "Directional Influence", "Distance Influence", "Knockback Influence" is on-face intuitive - you influence your knockback/direction/distance. It might not be clear, but what is occurring is relatively clear.

Saying "Vectoring" makes people go "Huh?" What did he do? He vectored? That's not a verb... it would have to be defined to outsides for sure.

And "Vector influence" isn't obvious either - he influenced vectors? What vectors? If you explain how Smash uses vectors you'd be fine, but until you do that, at least some people would be confused.

 

[Chiroz]

Just wanted to say, the thing with your MOBA example is that all but one of those terms are practical, accessible, and functional in their names of those techniques: CS is when you last-hit; orb-walking is when you animation-cancel your auto-attacks; kiting is essentially zoning while moving and attacking (often to bait, I suppose). The only one that is mechanistically named is animation canceling, and to be fair, for anyone who's played platformera or RTS in the last 20 years, this is not a new mechanic by any stretch. Sure, maybe "DI" doesn't quite cut the distinction you want, but you argue that as if the lack of a distinction will cause confusion. However, I'd say that Conda's main point is that a term like "vectoring" is far-too technical sounding because it addresses the technique on a mechanistic level and not a functional or practical one - albeit how intuitive "vectors" are to conceptualize, I'd argue the term as-is is slightly ostentatious.

This discussion has been good, but I think it's up to those in more responsible positions now to take the reigns and make some community-wide decisions, or at least open up the discussion on a broader level.

I disagree completely, those terms are not "practical, accessible or functional", none of them. The only one even remotely accessible is kiting since it refers to a real world phenomenon and even then I've had almost every single one of my friends ask me what the technique actually means and why is it named like that when they are learning it (Since I am the most experienced in MOBAs of my friends). You are being completely biased about what is an "accessible" term and what isn't.


Orb Walking and CS are still part of the League of Legends vocabulary yet there are NO orbs and NO creeps in the game. Jungle monsters are called that, monsters, not creeps. Enemy units are called minions. And while there are auto attack modifiers there is not a single reference to an orb or an orb motion. As someone who'se played MOBAs since the birth of the genre I know exactly when and why those terms were "created" yet new players don't understand where they came from or what they mean at all. Most of my friends who play LoL have no idea what the terms literally mean, they just know what they technically mean in the game. Which brings me to my point. Most people nowadays don't know what "Orb Walking" means, yet they know what it represents in the game. They weren't scared of not knowing the term, they just looked up the technique online, saw what it was and implemented into their game, they didn't have to look up the story of Warcraft 3 DotA and how it evolved, they just looked specifically for the term.

This same behavior WOULD be mimicked if the technique was called Vector Influence. No matter what anyone says, it would. Even if you didn't know what a Vector was all you care about is the technique, not the name and as such no one would need a long explanation of what a Vector is, they would just require the same exact explanation you would give someone who asked you what DI was.

The difference between names is that one name makes you fully aware that the mechanic has changed while the other gives no warning to a player that the mechanic is different in this game. The latter can and will create future confusion for mid-level players who won't understand that the mechanic changed in its execution and they might just believe it only changed in its results (which it also did). And then there's the people who won't even realized it changed at all and will forever remain ignorant of the change just because they will see "DI" and say "Oh, I already know that, no need to research it!".



As I've said though, my main argument isn't that the technique should be named Vector Influence, it's that it shouldn't be called the same as a past technique because it won't communicate the fact that the technique changed.

 

[UltiMario]

I PERSONSALLY think we should call it distance influence, because you are directly influencing the distance you fly, either adding to it or subtracting from it.

I then think we could abbreviate it DI

I like how this sarcastic joke post has a lot more merit than most the reasoning in this thread for this whole naming debate.

It kinda puts it in perspective how petty an argument SB managed to start with this.

 

[Chiroz]

I like how this sarcastic joke post has a lot more merit than most the reasoning in this thread for this whole naming debate.

It kinda puts it in perspective how petty an argument SB managed to start with this.

I actually once suggested calling it DDI (Distance and Directional Influence) or something like 2DI or D2I. I have no problem with the names other people suggest, is more of the confusion "DI" would bring.

 

[UltiMario]

I actually once suggested calling it DDI (Distance and Directional Influence) or something like 2DI or D2I. I have no problem with the names other people suggest, is more of the confusion "DI" would bring.

Please do not argue that it's confusing.

Saying DI will be confusing is like the people at Blizzard that say that Hearthstone can't have more than 9 decks because it would confuse players. The statement is a pure fabrication because they're too lazy to come up with a better reason.

DI changed significantly from Smash 64 to Melee. It changed again slightly from Melee to Brawl. It changed significantly again from Brawl to Smash 4. We've gone through some level of change in DI for every smash game and still call it DI. Using DI as a very specific term does not accurately express the same thing in Smash 64 as it does in Brawl. We still call it DI in both games anyways. It's not confusing to anyone.

For the third time in Smash history, DI has changed. Strong Bad deciding it changed SUPER DUPER MUCH doesn't mean its not DI.

 

[Morbi]

I like how this sarcastic joke post has a lot more merit than most the reasoning in this thread for this whole naming debate.

It kinda puts it in perspective how petty an argument SB managed to start with this.

To be fair, there is about as much merit in calling this mechanic "DI" as there is in calling it "VI." The notion is fairly subjective and based on preference regardless of how you interpret the argument. It is a different mechanic... but not that different. So we should rename it, or we should not rename it. There are no logical reasons one way or the other. Just opinions. Opinions everywhere.

 

[Chiroz]

Please do not argue that it's confusing.

Saying DI will be confusing is like the people at Blizzard that say that Hearthstone can't have more than 9 decks because it would confuse players. The statement is a pure fabrication because they're too lazy to come up with a better reason.

DI changed significantly from Smash 64 to Melee. It changed again slightly from Melee to Brawl. It changed significantly again from Brawl to Smash 4. We've gone through some level of change in DI for every smash game and still call it DI. Using DI as a very specific term does not accurately express the same thing in Smash 64 as it does in Brawl. We still call it DI in both games anyways. It's not confusing to anyone.

For the third time in Smash history, DI has changed. Strong Bad deciding it changed SUPER DUPER MUCH doesn't mean its not DI.

The fact that until today I had no idea it changed from Melee to Brawl and I am a hardcore Smash veteran is enough to prove my point that renaming it DI doesn't communicate to people that it changed. Apparently I DIed incorrectly for 2-3 whole years while playing Brawl which is exactly what we should avoid. We should be as "welcoming" as we can to players by allowing them to understand the mechanics and not just hiding them.

You basically made my point.

 

[guedes the brawler]

let all the the terms fly around and see which one sticks.

it's the beginning of the scene, we have time.

 

[Conda]

@ Conda I would like to just say I respect you and if I seem douchy at times it isn't on purpose. I get really into discussions sometimes and some of the times I don't know how to express myself so it what I do say ends up looking kind of like I am full of myself. Trust me, I am a real down to earth guy. I do solemnly believe it shouldn't be called DI though, but I don't mind if it's not called VI either. If it ends up being called DI though, I will also call it DI.

I feel the same way. Upmost respect, hoping I don't sound like a poopface as well.

And yes, the fast that this is not the first time DI has changed is more reason to not jump to renaming.

 

[Mechageo]

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.

I agree with this. If we are going to rename DI for this version of the game, then we should have renamed air dodging when we went from Melee to Brawl.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

@ M MushroomKiller

Hate to destroy your image of me being this simpleton whose intelligence you can continue to denigrate, but I'm well aware what a vector is. Been aware, in both the mathematical/geometrical and biological sense of the word...

...and I still think it sounds ****ing lame and counterintuitive. It requires more yapping than necessary to explain a really, really self-explanatory mechanic in a competitive party game fighting game. That is the point everyone else against this whole vectoring thing is trying to drive home. It doesn't matter if you find it easy to understand or not; this isn't about you. This is about making information palatable and accessible for everyone else. You and I may think of trajectory and grids and pathogenic diseases (nyuk, nyuk) when we see the word "vector," be able to correlate that word with what's really going on, but the other guy might not. Believe it or not, those people are out there. It's a heady, almost (almost!) out-of-context "actioning" noun that doesn't jive well with others less knowledgeable about that kinda thing (or those that don't really care to know).

We gotta cater to minds of all shapes and sizes, man. Hell, it's part of the foundation this community is built on.

Sheesh. I am kaput, finished.

Smooth Criminal

 

[PlateProp]

This is seriously just a more intuitive DI.

Also I propose we change the name of SDI to Hitstun Shuffling, because thats the official name apparently and it sounds badass.

 

[smashbroskilla]

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?

I think it's hilarious when people talk about it like Strong Bad invented the wheel. Most people when they play smash for the first time automatically react by holding the analog towards the direction of the stage after being hit. I did when I played smash 64 it's human nature. In melee DI was definitely important and a big factor. This time around in the new smash you're supposed to hold the direction towards where you got hit from. "Strong bad collected the data"- ok so the guy made a youtube vid recording him testing this out. Some guy living in a log cabin in the woods probably discovered this in the first 5 minutes of playing as well. Respect to Strong Bad for making it factual in a video but is there really a need for several threads and heated debate over this mechanic?



It's funny as hell watching people go nuts over this.

 

[PlateProp]

Yo like,

Why not just call it smash 4 DI. It tells you what kind of DI, and there's no way you're getting it confused with the other DI unless you're incompetent.