The DI/VI Naming Debate

[Conda]

2-3 days of the release, clost to a week of the demo and 5-6 events for one person in the entire world to find out. We're talking about individuals here. How many people were playing Smash who post things online? At least 300,000? What are the chances for every individual to find out on his own?

How does calling it VI help? How is that easy to search for when you dont know what its called? Youd search for "smash 4 DI" to see how Di has changed.

And that doesnt even matter, because educating and welcoming new players is more important (veterans will self teach, newcomers have to be shown they want to learn). My job is to make people realise they want to learn competitive smash, and to not make us seem like we make things more convoluted than they need to be.

 

[Jaxas]

How does calling it VI help? How is that easy to search for when you dont know what its called? Youd search for "smash 4 DI" to see how Di has changed.

And that doesnt even matter, because educating and welcoming new players is more important (veterans will self teach, newcomers have to be shown they want to learn). My job is to make people realise they want to learn competitive smash, and to not make us seem like we make things more convoluted than they need to be.

It helps by adding a way to tip people off to the change during discussion. If people notice it on their own then they will search for it, yes, but if they don't notice it themselves then they won't even know that they should look. If you see people in a Twitch chat talking about DI, you assume it's still Melee/Brawl DI being held over, not a new (or heavily modified) mechanic.

Also, as for searching for "Smash 4 DI", hopefully the description thread will be titled something along the lines of "<VI/KI/etc>: The Replacement for DI in Smash 4 - Details Inside!" or something. As long as we make sure that whatever the official description thread is has a title like that, we're good whatever we call it.
(Also, as a side note, searching google for "Smash 4 DI" brings up the "Vectoring: the replacement to Direction Influence in Smash 4" thread as the 2nd result, right after the DI page on ssbwiki.com)

 

[Chiroz]

How does calling it VI help? How is that easy to search for when you dont know what its called? Youd search for "smash 4 DI" to see how Di has changed.

And that doesnt even matter, because educating and welcoming new players is more important (veterans will self teach, newcomers have to be shown they want to learn). My job is to make people realise they want to learn competitive smash, and to not make us seem like we make things more convoluted than they need to be.

Because if you already know DI and hear "DI" you won't be curious about it because you already know it. Whereas if you heard a completely new mechanic it makes you curious.

You keep contradicting yourself over who you are commentating to. You just said it was only to pros and now you say it's focused on new players.

New players and pros both don't care about what the mechanic is called and honestly they are the "vocal minority". Most of the people who watch tournaments are people who are already used to the lingo, understand the mechanics from other iterations of the game but are just not adept at the game. Some of these people will probably try out this iteration of the game and if they don't realize that DI changed they will never learn the mechanic.

Sure they won't miss what they don't know but it will be a harder curve for them to learn and get better, it's like someone trying to learn Melee without ever learning what DI is. At some point they'll realize they are doing something wrong and look it up, yes, but how long will that take: a month? 3 months? Many players will get frustrated, many won't understand at all what's going in. It's objectively less welcoming than just naming it something else.

 

[Morbi]

Because if you already know DI and hear "DI" you won't be curious about it because you already know it. Whereas if you heard a completely new mechanic it makes you curious.

You keep contradicting yourself over who you are commentating to. You just said it was only to pros and now you say it's focused on new players.

New players and pros both don't care about what the mechanic is called and honestly they are the "vocal minority". Most of the people who watch tournaments are people who are already used to the lingo, understand the mechanics from other iterations of the game but are just not adept at the game. Some of these people will probably try out this iteration of the game and if they don't realize that DI changed they will never learn the mechanic.

Sure they won't miss what they don't know but it will be a harder curve for them to learn and get better, it's like someone trying to learn Melee without ever learning what DI is. At some point they'll realize they are doing something wrong and look it up, yes, but how long will that take: a month? 3 months? Many players will get frustrated, many won't understand at all what's going in. It's objectively less welcoming than just naming it something else.

Indeed. I feel as though you hit the nail on the head; the mechanic is relevant, not the name. Albeit, I do agree, if we are solely naming this mechanic for newer players to distinguish the two, "VI" is objectively better. No question. However, if we are naming the mechanic for veterans, "DI" is sufficient as everyone is already familiar with the term.

 

[Overtaken]

The game is not out yet. When I'm commentating a tournament 4 years from now, I will not have to worry about viewers and players being confused because it works differently than in Brawl. There is zero long-term thinking going on, and absolutely no consideration being done for people who are outside of the scene.

Use vectoring if you want. If you aren't a commentator then it doesn't matter what you use honestly. But for some people, communication matters, and it is our job to not make people feel alienated by tossing around words like Vectoring just because some people on the internet felt it was a good name that melee/brawl players could google and read about.

If all I wanted to do is explain Smash 4 DI to brawl and melee pro players, I'd stick with "VI"/"Vectoring."
But that is not all that is important. In fact, it is the least important thing here.

Dude, your argument makes absolutely no sense, no offense. When you speak of people 'outside of the scene' and how naming should all be oriented around competitive-smash recruitment, you do realize that "DI" is literally just a meaningless combination of two letters just as much as "VI" would be? You think when casuals are watching some chaotic pro match and hear the commentator say "Oh, beautiful DI there!", that they are just like "I oh I totally know what he meant by that, good thing 'DI' is not a glib, cryptic, overly-technical phrase or else I wouldn't know what's going on right now!"? Even "Directional Influence" doesn't immediately explain anything without a great deal of explicit context.

When both Smash jargon and by extension, Smash commentary, is not filled with such things as "Tech Chases", "SHFFLing" and "Waveshining", I'll buy this idea that the lexicon is supposed to be designed to be intuitive and appealing to casuals.

The casual-to-competitive transition happens generally because the individual can naturally experience the competitive nature of Smash on their own just by experiencing the game. It's not 'hidden'. If they want to come to places like SB or to tournaments, they'll have to have a sense of curiosity to begin learning the ways. And since disseminating changes and information is fairly imperfect given there is no central place or authority to refer to, there is no weekly news pamphlet distributed explaining all the newly discovered changes, the best we can do is at least call it something slightly different so that when people who are unaware hear it in passing, in conversations, they will necessarily be exposed to the fact that there has been significantly new mechanical change. Continuing to call it DI will not 'bring people in from the outside', it will only keep more people out of the loop and for longer periods of time.

Someone who is interested or already semi-competitive who casually observes a conversation or references to DI, especially in the form of match commentary, will almost certainly be none-the-wiser of the changes upon hearing it. Hearing "VI" in any context will pique their curiosity and lead to them inquiring and learning. In either case, an 'outsider' or 'casual' could hear 'DI' or hear 'VI' and not know or care what is being talked about.

 

[Leonyx]

Um, I'm kinda a Smash scrub but I lurk here a lot. Figured maybe I could input a bit: I totally did the research on what was then called Vectoring when I heard that term. Had the term been called DI again, I would have just assumed it was the same technique as previous games. In fact, I had been DI'ing in the demo of the game until the Vectoring piqued my interest enough to check it out.

I certainly appreciate the change in the name.

 

[Chiroz]

Um, I'm kinda a Smash scrub but I lurk here a lot. Figured maybe I could input a bit: I totally did the research on what was then called Vectoring when I heard that term. Had the term been called DI again, I would have just assumed it was the same technique as previous games. In fact, I had been DI'ing in the demo of the game until the Vectoring piqued my interest enough to check it out.

I certainly appreciate the change in the name.

This right here. This is exactly what I am talking about. There were many just like Leonyx in ZeRo's stream. And just like Leonyx and just like those in ZeRo's stream there are many, many more we don't know about who will appreciate substantially a change in name.

The name doesn't HAVE to be VI, but it shouldn't be DI just to help people like Leonyx learn the game faster and ease them into the competitive scene.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

I feel KBI is better than VI solely because up until now, "vector" has never been a part of standard smash terminology. Before smash 4, you never heard people discussing vectors, save for situations that dealt with the hard, mathematical aspects of the game. Meanwhile, knockback has been around since the 64 days. In smash, vector and knockback are basically interchangeable, because when you're discussing knockback, you're talking about both the direction the victim took, and the magnitude of the direction. But in general, people won't hear vector and think "oh, you mean knockback?" unless you lay it out for them. VI certainly isn't an inappropriate term, but KBI works better because people will immediately be able to pick up on what you're talking about. When you add a vector, you are influencing your knockback, by either changing its magnitude or its direction. KBI is simply more intuitive.

 

[Jaxas]

I feel KBI is better than VI solely because up until now, "vector" has never been a part of standard smash terminology. Before smash 4, you never heard people discussing vectors, save for situations that dealt with the hard, mathematical aspects of the game. Meanwhile, knockback has been around since the 64 days. In smash, vector and knockback are basically interchangeable, because when you're discussing knockback, you're talking about both the direction the victim took, and the magnitude of the direction. But in general, people won't hear vector and think "oh, you mean knockback?" unless you lay it out for them. VI certainly isn't an inappropriate term, but KBI works better because people will immediately be able to pick up on what you're talking about. When you add a vector, you are influencing your knockback, by either changing its magnitude or its direction. KBI is simply more intuitive.

I agree with this, Knockback Influence (I'd abbreviate it KI, myself) describes what happens simply and effectively.

 

[Overtaken]

I feel KBI is better than VI solely because up until now, "vector" has never been a part of standard smash terminology. Before smash 4, you never heard people discussing vectors, save for situations that dealt with the hard, mathematical aspects of the game. Meanwhile, knockback has been around since the 64 days. In smash, vector and knockback are basically interchangeable, because when you're discussing knockback, you're talking about both the direction the victim took, and the magnitude of the direction. But in general, people won't hear vector and think "oh, you mean knockback?" unless you lay it out for them. VI certainly isn't an inappropriate term, but KBI works better because people will immediately be able to pick up on what you're talking about. When you add a vector, you are influencing your knockback, by either changing its magnitude or its direction. KBI is simply more intuitive.

I agree with this, Knockback Influence (I'd abbreviate it KI, myself) describes what happens simply and effectively.

The only reason I am against "knockback influence", is because my understanding is that 'knockback' is just a value of 'strength' of/behind the attack, and the new mechanic is not influencing the raw amount of knockback you are receiving but instead, the 'coordinates' of your trajectory in essence. It may simply influence KB in a defacto sense (holding down when you are hit at a 90 degree, vertical angle), but it also may influence angle/direction, i.e. when you hit anything other than straight up or down. It's the same reason DI is inappropriate but reversed, as DI would imply you are simply and strictly changing angle/direction, while when it is possible to do that, it's not limited to that. It's really a combination of 'KI' and 'DI' ultimately.

For instance, rotating the sails of a sail boat is not changing the strength of the wind pushing against it, quite, it's altering where it get's pushed as to influence where the ship gets pushed. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope you see what I mean. And I may very well be wrong about all of this, this was just my reading and understanding of Strong Bad's explanation.

 

[Jaxas]

The only reason I am against "knockback influence", is because my understanding is that 'knockback' is just a value of 'strength' of/behind the attack, and the new mechanic is not influencing the raw amount of knockback you are receiving but instead, the 'coordinates' of your trajectory in essence. It may simply influence KB in a defacto sense (holding down when you are hit at a 90 degree, vertical angle), but it also may influence angle/direction, i.e. when you hit anything other than straight up or down. It's the same reason DI is inappropriate but reversed, as DI would imply you are simply and strictly changing angle/direction, while when it is possible to do that, it's not limited to that. It's really a combination of 'KI' and 'DI' ultimately.

For instance, rotating the sails of a sail boat is not changing the strength of the wind pushing against it, quite, it's altering where it get's pushed as to influence where the ship gets pushed. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope you see what I mean. And I may very well be wrong about all of this, this was just my reading and understanding of Strong Bad's explanation.

I'm not so sure about that; KI still works as it is affecting your knockback (since the way it changes is adding things to the original knockback equation that you are then launched by, whether that's adding to your knockback or changing the angle (though the angle is changed by adding an amount of knockback in a new direction)), and as such I'm still a supporter of that name.

However, I'd also be fine with using a better moniker if one comes up (KDI to show its relation to DI?).

 

[Overtaken]

Would you agree or disagree that under this new mechanic, it is circumstantially possible to change the angle of trajectory but not the distance? In other words, you can press the stick in such a way that you travel the same distance, the same amount of units, but arrive at a different peak/end coordinate? Even if it is the case that most inputs result in an effectively altered or 'influenced' knockback, is it necessarily the case that it does?

Here, I drew a little illustration similar to ones you'll find floating around in discussions like this (over 9000 hours in paint)



Quick note: the circle in this illustration is neither quite perfect nor concentric as it should be, but just imagine for the purpose of understanding that it is.

Key:
Pink line: arena floor
Grey line: uninfluenced trajectory
Green circle/arc: Angular/directional influence (DI)
Blue line: Knockback/distance influence (KI)
Red square: Vectoral influence (VI)
--------------
Purple triangle: uninfluenced final position
Yellow triangle x2: example final positions that intersect (DI) and (VI).


So the two yellow triangles are where my point comes into focus. It is at these two points where you can use VI to arrive at a point that does not influence distance traveled, aka 'knockback', though you do simply change the angle. Similarly, there are two points (where the blue line intersects the red square) where you could change the 'knockback' while having zero effect on the angle. See how VI is distinct from either DI or KI, even though it can circumstantially yield the same result as either? Or am I way mistaken?

 

[Indigo Jeans]

The only reason I am against "knockback influence", is because my understanding is that 'knockback' is just a value of 'strength' of/behind the attack, and the new mechanic is not influencing the raw amount of knockback you are receiving but instead, the 'coordinates' of your trajectory in essence. It may simply influence KB in a defacto sense (holding down when you are hit at a 90 degree, vertical angle), but it also may influence angle/direction, i.e. when you hit anything other than straight up or down. It's the same reason DI is inappropriate but reversed, as DI would imply you are simply and strictly changing angle/direction, while when it is possible to do that, it's not limited to that. It's really a combination of 'KI' and 'DI' ultimately.

For instance, rotating the sails of a sail boat is not changing the strength of the wind pushing against it, quite, it's altering where it get's pushed as to influence where the ship gets pushed. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope you see what I mean. And I may very well be wrong about all of this, this was just my reading and understanding of Strong Bad's explanation.

Would you agree or disagree that under this new mechanic, it is circumstantially possible to change the angle of trajectory but not the distance? In other words, you can press the stick in such a way that you travel the same distance, the same amount of units, but arrive at a different peak/end coordinate? Even if it is the case that most inputs result in an effectively altered or 'influenced' knockback, is it necessarily the case that it does?

Here, I drew a little illustration similar to ones you'll find floating around in discussions like this (over 9000 hours in paint)



Quick note: the circle in this illustration is neither quite perfect nor concentric as it should be, but just imagine for the purpose of understanding that it is.

Key:
Pink line: arena floor
Grey line: uninfluenced trajectory
Green circle/arc: Angular/directional influence (DI)
Blue line: Knockback/distance influence (KI)
Red square: Vectoral influence (VI)
--------------
Purple triangle: uninfluenced final position
Yellow triangle x2: example final positions that intersect (DI) and (VI).

So the two yellow triangles are where my point comes into focus. It is at these two points where you can use VI to arrive at a point that does not influence distance traveled, aka 'knockback', though you do simply change the angle. Similarly, there are two points (where the blue line intersects the red square) where you could change the 'knockback' while having zero effect on the angle. See how VI is distinct from either DI or KI, even though it can circumstantially yield the same result as either? Or am I way mistaken?

You make a good point in your sailboat analogy, and I can see what you're getting at. Indeed, knockback and this new mechanic can be mutually exclusive. If you input any vector perfectly (more or less) perpendicular to your uninfluenced knockback, then you would essentially get Brawl's DI effect. But out of the eight cardinal directions, for any one given knockback trajectory you are subjected to, there are only two possible directions you could exert a vector in that would only result in your trajectory being changed, and not your overall force of launch. Six times out of eight, people are in fact going to be seeing knockback distance affected, in addition to flight path. And that's partly where my support for KI/KBI/w/e lies in. Because most of the time, knockback will in fact be influenced.

The other, more subjective reason, is that I consider knockback, in a more general sense, to be both the angle a victim flies at and the amount of KB units they have been subjected to. So for me, personally, a person launched with 120 KB units of force at 45 degrees has a different overall "knockback" than someone launched with 120 KB units of force as well, but at 50 degrees. I understand this isn't something that can easily be agreed with, because it probably isn't the standard train of thought in the community, so I'm willing to cede this point.

 

[Overtaken]

You make a good point in your sailboat analogy, and I can see what you're getting at. Indeed, knockback and this new mechanic can be mutually exclusive. If you input any vector perfectly (more or less) perpendicular to your uninfluenced knockback, then you would essentially get Brawl's DI effect. But out of the eight cardinal directions, for any one given knockback trajectory you are subjected to, there are only two possible directions you could exert a vector in that would only result in your trajectory being changed, and not your overall force of launch. Six times out of eight, people are in fact going to be seeing knockback distance affected, in addition to flight path. And that's partly where my support for KI/KBI/w/e lies in. Because most of the time, knockback will in fact be influenced.

The other, more subjective reason, is that I consider knockback, in a more general sense, to be both the angle a victim flies at and the amount of KB units they have been subjected to. So for me, personally, a person launched with 120 KB units of force at 45 degrees has a different overall "knockback" than someone launched with 120 KB units of force as well, but at 50 degrees. I understand this isn't something that can easily be agreed with, because it probably isn't the standard train of thought in the community, so I'm willing to cede this point.

And to be fair to you, I don't recall Strong Bad explaining how many different directional inputs the game will accept, or if it is even known at all yet. Because if it is limited to just the typical 8 directions, then none of them will perfectly line up with the 'DI' arc, and therefor there won't technically be an input that won't alter the total distance or knockback, even if a 'down-left' or 'down-right' input will get very close, it won't be exact. I would still argue that never-the-less, the principal of the matter is still the superior reason to choose 'VI' over 'KI', since in addition to the principal of the matter being the thing that I believe would result in a better fundamental understanding of what the player needs to press and why, but also because there is an implicit way in which 'KI' excludes angle/direction, in the same way 'DI' implicitly excludes knockback, whereas 'VI' is expressly inclusive of both.

EDIT:

Ok my math skills were always a bit lacking but if I remember the most basic thing from geometry in shcool, I worked out that in order for a precise "down-left" or "down-right" vectoral input to precisely co-incide with DI, the strength of VI would have to be the square root of x*x+x*x (vis-a-vis Pythagorean Theorem) where (x) is KB value. So if we said the uninflunced KB value was 100, the displacement strength of VI would have to be roughly 141.42, aka greater than KB value itself, aka obviously not the case. For what it is worth.

 

[Jaxas]

And to be fair to you, I don't recall Strong Bad explaining how many different directional inputs the game will accept, or if it is even known at all yet. Because if it is limited to just the typical 8 directions, then none of them will perfectly line up with the 'DI' arc, and therefor there won't technically be an input that won't alter the total distance or knockback, even if a 'down-left' or 'down-right' input will get very close, it won't be exact. I would still argue that never-the-less, the principal of the matter is still the superior reason to choose 'VI' over 'KI', since in addition to the principal of the matter being the thing that I believe would result in a better fundamental understanding of what the player needs to press and why, but also because there is an implicit way in which 'KI' excludes angle/direction, in the same way 'DI' implicitly excludes knockback, whereas 'VI' is expressly inclusive of both.

EDIT:

Ok my math skills were always a bit lacking but if I remember the most basic thing from geometry in shcool, I worked out that in order for a precise "down-left" or "down-right" vectoral input to precisely co-incide with DI, the strength of VI would have to be the square root of x*x+x*x (vis-a-vis Pythagorean Theorem) where (x) is KB value. So if we said the uninflunced KB value was 100, the displacement strength of VI would have to be roughly 141.42, aka greater than KB value itself, aka obviously not the case. For what it is worth.

You do have a good point, however I'm just not a fan of VI for describing this, because as @ Conda has been saying it isn't easily understandable based off of the name. As such, it could be confusing to newcomers or players returning after time away, as well as people on streams and the like.

I feel like we're overlooking a different word that would serve as a better descriptor, but I honestly can't think of anything we could use. Trajectory Influence? Launch Influence? I've always been terrible coming up with names...

 

[guedes the brawler]

I wouldn't really call it intuitive for people who have played previous versions for years have been conditioned to do the exact opposite of what's occurring in Smash4.

Also, the explanation went a bit deeper than just saying "go the opposite way." He presented how much knock back is being reduced, or increased numbers wise.

You are assuming most people know what DI is. most don't. they try to VI in previous games.

 

[Fex13]

i like to call it canlpitpiahdwmmm

combosarenolongerpossibleiftheplayerisatleasthalfwaydecentwhichmakesmemad

 

[MushroomKiller]

@ 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

o.0 Since when did I ever think of you as a 'simpleton whose intelligence (I) can continue to denigrate'? I don't think I've ever said that. Did I? It's been a while, can't remember. But all I seem to remember interacting with you is the following:

1. Quoting your post to call out Conda on being pretentious, which I later realized was simply Conda joking around;

2. Quoting your post to let you know WHY I thought Conda was being pretentious, which, for some reason, you seemed to take more offense than Conda did.

I'm a bit lazy to guide you to those specific replies, so maybe you can check them up yourself? X) Thanks. And if for some reason, you thought I was insulting your intelligence, reply to me with that post? Double thanks! It'd be great if you can show me where exactly I thought you as a dumbass, seeing as how I hate insulting people over nothing Unless you were passing some unfounded judgment, which in that case, is almost as bad as the OP calling StrongBad a 'pissy' for all the wrong reasons XD So are you a quick-to-jump-to-conclusion pissy, or do you have legitimate reason for thinking that I was enjoying the fact that you're some dumbfudge (which you're clearly not) and in every way felt superior to you in terms of intelligence?

Also: I think that your knowledge of 'vectors' actually surpass mine, because when I think 'vectors', I think... Arrows! I stopped learning vectors after high school math, because Literature is where it's at for me :3 As I have said countless, countless times: I like VI because I find the name cool, not because I think I sound smart or anything. Not discounting the rest of your argument - I do see truth behind it - but just providing a simple reason why I like VI as a name

Oh, and about your little part on: 'We gotta cater to minds of all shapes and sizes, man'. Do you realize I'm essentially advocating the same thing? I've said countless times that I'll be perfectly happy with whatever the community decides on. I've also said that I'll be fine with any name OTHER than DI, which means VI, FI, KI are all fine by me. Even when DI is chosen in the end, I'd be fine with it, because, in all honesty... I couldn't give two ****s.

Now, in your words...

Sheesh. I am kaput, finished.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

My issue with calling it Vectoring is that the definition of a vector is something that has DIRECTION. It implies DI isn't about direction which is bogus.

The difference between DI in Melee/Brawl vs Smash4 isn't that Smash4 lets you vector, the difference is simply that the vectors allowed now contain more degrees of freedom. Jumping Up in Mario 1 is a vector, and so is jumping Forward-Side-Up in Mario64.

It's fine if you don't want to call it DI to distinguish it from DI, but choosing "Vectoring" is extremely ironic because the very definition of a vector is that it has direction. Mathematically if you were to influence the direction of something, it means you are changing it's vector.

 

[Overtaken]

My issue with calling it Vectoring is that the definition of a vector is something that has DIRECTION. It implies DI isn't about direction which is bogus.

The difference between DI in Melee/Brawl vs Smash4 isn't that Smash4 lets you vector, the difference is simply that the vectors allowed now contain more degrees of freedom. Jumping Up in Mario 1 is a vector, and so is jumping Forward-Side-Up in Mario64.

It's fine if you don't want to call it DI to distinguish it from DI, but choosing "Vectoring" is extremely ironic because the very definition of a vector is that it has direction. Mathematically if you were to influence the direction of something, it means you are changing it's vector.

It's direction and distance. This has been covered all throughout the thread. Is changing merely the direction changing the vector? Well yes, technically (because the attack received gives the motion its distance), but this not the best way of naming it and it's conflicting. When talking about what this mechanic is allowing us to 'influence', it is both direction and distance. With DI, direction is the only thing you are actually influencing, while a separate mechanic (the other player in fact) is providing the distance half of the final result.

 

[guedes the brawler]

what a circular topic.

we can't really enforce a name, regardless. How about we give it time?

 

[Deleted member 268018]

Who gives a crap what it's called? The idea behind the skill is the same, Sakurai just made it more intuitive and logical. Why can't it keep it's former name? A newer iPhone is still an iPhone, even with upgrades.

 

[Morbi]

Who gives a crap what it's called? The idea behind the skill is the same, Sakurai just made it more intuitive and logical. Why can't it keep it's former name? A newer iPhone is still an iPhone, even with upgrades.

An iPhone 4 is not an iPhone 5 just because it is similar.

Similar =/= congruent.

 

[Deleted member 268018]

An iPhone 4 is not an iPhone 5 just because it is similar.

Similar =/= congruent.

But is it the same sort of system? Yes. It's the same mechanic, but improved. The iPhone 5 is an improved system over the iPhone 4. I do not think there is enough change with the DI to go overboard and name it something different.

 

[Morbi]

But is it the same sort of system? Yes. It's the same mechanic, but improved. The iPhone 5 is an improved system over the iPhone 4. I do not think there is enough change with the DI to go overboard and name it something different.

This is precisely why I advocate for calling the mechanic DI 2.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

One of my first posts in this thread (or the other one, I forget) stated that I'd be totally fine with Knock-back Influence (KBI or KI).

I just can't support calling this "Vectoring" or an acronym using it. It is senseless and completely disrespects the fact that "vectoring" has been in the game since the beginning.

 

[Viper Bite]

Let's all eat this for breakfast.

 

[Venks]

I'm against it being called vectoring because there is more at play than simply vectoring. Vectoring doesn't describe the survival possible by directions outside of the opposite direction. However after testing it out several times it appears diagonal inputs are still better even in situation where "Vectoring" deems it shouldn't.

Therefore vectoring is simply a subset of directional influence.

 

[Radical Larry]

I'm, at a whole, against the name "Vectoring" for the reason of this new standard, due to the fact that it's a silly and unnecessary term for it. If there were to be one good term, it should be this:

Knockback Dilation

The reasoning is simple for this; your knockback is dilated when you use this new mechanic, and it's dilated either further or shorter depending on how you use it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm, at a whole, against the name "Vectoring" for the reason of this new standard, due to the fact that it's a silly and unnecessary term for it. If there were to be one good term, it should be this:

Knockback Dilation

The reasoning is simple for this; your knockback is dilated when you use this new mechanic, and it's dilated either further or shorter depending on how you use it. It's as simple as that.

Then how does that take in to consideration the potential slight change in direction as well?

 

[Radical Larry]

Then how does that take in to consideration the potential slight change in direction as well?

Honestly, that's something I do not know of yet. I've only tested for the knockback and not much of the angle. However, from my tests, I can say that the potential slight change is factored by the dilation itself, as well as possible other sloping factors, more specifically, rotation. However, since the new mechanic works as a slope depending on where you're hit and where you're sent, it's truly hard to say what can happen; honestly, I'm still a bit stumped about it until I can test it all fully and understand it.