Vectoring: The replacement to Directional Influence in Smash 4

[Tuffi]

Just read the original post and I'm pretty sure that graphic is not completelly accurate, it should look something like this:

Spoiler

(sorry about my paint skillz)

The original graphic is implying that if get up-smashed and you hold the circle pad to the bottom-right, you would change your travel distance just as much as holding only downwards, which I assume is incorrect. That's how vectors work, afterall.

 

[Conda]

It's mostly the name. For example, we did not call "DI" something that actually discussed the movement altering variable that you were changing in the game's physics engine. We took a simpler more conveying approach.
There is no reason to go so far with the name of this mechanic. It doesn't matter if you're altering vectors, it doesn't mean the mechanic should be called vectoring. Game terms would sound ridiculous and silly if game designers and players took this approach to naming.

 

[ChillySundance]

Just call it Launch Influence for crying out loud. It's not DI because you're not really influencing the direction so much anymore, but the properties of your launch. LI.

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

 

[Conda]

Just call it Launch Influence for crying out loud. It's not DI because you're not really influencing the direction so much anymore, but the properties of your launch. LI.

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

I agree with this.

DI is still often used as a word (even if slightly improperly) to describe the ways you get out of PKFire and similar multi-hit moves, so 'DI' as a traditional descriptor still has a use withing Smash 4. But it is fine if DI means two slightly different things.

Viewers and players often don't care so much as to what is behind the mechanic, but what it is used for. And this is --important--, because the whole point of coming up with a name to call something in the first place is for actually using it in the real world to describe something.

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

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

 

[ChillySundance]

I think vee-eye rolls off the tongue better than Eff-eye, but I'm honestly a bit iffy about using the word vector to describe this phenomenon. Vector doesn't really relate to this game's theme very well, whereas concepts such as smashing, flying, launching and direction do. Using terms like these would be more intuitive when naming a technique like this.

 

[Ghoti]

Concerning the name, Vectorial Influence (VI) is the best. It is a completely different mechanic from DI.

VI allows the direction and distance of knock back to be modified within a certain range, but DI is parabolic and doesn't allow for as many options for movement during knock back.

 

[MadKraken]

Just read the original post and I'm pretty sure that graphic is not completelly accurate, it should look something like this:

Spoiler

(sorry about my paint skillz)

The original graphic is implying that if get up-smashed and you hold the circle pad to the bottom-right, you would change your travel distance just as much as holding only downwards, which I assume is incorrect. That's how vectors work, afterall.

Apparently the range of influence is in fact a square. So it really takes TWO vectors, one for each axis, instead of the one more intuitively implied by control stick input.

 

[vileguy]

Just read the original post and I'm pretty sure that graphic is not completelly accurate, it should look something like this:

(sorry about my paint skillz) [/SPOILER]
The original graphic is implying that if get up-smashed and you hold the circle pad to the bottom-right, you would change your travel distance just as much as holding only downwards, which I assume is incorrect. That's how vectors work, afterall.

This isn't accurate. The circle should be bigger than the square such that the corners touch. There should be a deadzone between maximum left/right/up/down and the x/y component of the corners where the additional distance doesn't change anything.

The reasons to not call this mechanic DI are 1. it acts completely different based on your inputs 2. DI affects direction only, whereas this affects direction and magnitude, both parts of a vector. Vectoring is a poor term in that it's probably not a legitimate form of the word vector, and vector influence makes sense without any additional translation. The only downside is that people might hear "VI" as "DI" thanks to similar pronunciation.

 

[Conda]

Concerning the name, Vectorial Influence (VI) is the best. It is a completely different mechanic from DI.

VI allows the direction and distance of knock back to be modified within a certain range, but DI is parabolic and doesn't allow for as many options for movement during knock back.

The name implies that the other smash games didn't involve Vectors. It's like the argument being made is that "in melee, you altered direction, and in Smash 4 you don't alter direction at all, but vector" which is more technical than informative and less useful to take into consideration when coming up with a good name.

Apparently the range of influence is in fact a square. So it really takes TWO vectors, one for each axis, instead of the one more intuitively implied by control stick input.

Then we must call it "Double-vector influencing", because it technically involves two vectors.

/sarcasm
In all seriousness though, getting this technical with a name isn't a good thing as the name won't stick, since it's not a conveying name. We'v done better in the past and can do better with "VI" or "vectoring". It's all fine and well that it involves vectors, but that doesn't need to mean we have to call it by that.

DI involves more than just simple "directions", but we kept the name simple and elegant.

This isn't accurate. The circle should be bigger than the square such that the corners touch. There should be a deadzone between maximum left/right/up/down and the x/y component of the corners where the additional distance doesn't change anything.

The reasons to not call this mechanic DI are 1. it acts completely different based on your inputs 2. DI affects direction only, whereas this affects direction and magnitude, both parts of a vector. Vectoring is a poor term in that it's probably not a legitimate form of the word vector, and vector influence makes sense without any additional translation. The only downside is that people might hear "VI" as "DI" thanks to similar pronunciation.

The point is that people will know what is being talked about (ie audiences watching a tournament) because it's a different game. There can be different kinds of DI, but we don't need a different name for things that technically work differently. Our language would be a mess if we did this.

 

[ItsRainingGravy]

Just briefly tested this.

Stage: Battle Field (Final Destination version)
Move being used: Mega Upper/Mega Man's Up Tilt (Fresh)
Testing: Vertical KOs
Vector Input: Straight Down

Opponent: Link
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 87-88%
KO percentage with vectoring: 129%
KO percentage difference: 41-42%

Opponent: Pikachu
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 75%
KO percentage with vectoring: Somewhere between 107-111% (brother just left/wasn't able to finish testing)
KO percentage difference: 32-36% (not complete data)

Tested on the 3DS Smash demo. Link is the heaviest character, Pikachu is the lightest.

 

[<π]

I don't say stuff like this often... but I got on zero's stream and his community's responce to this stuff is just disgusting.

People are so ignorant and opposed to any change no matter how slight, it is really sickening sometimes.

 

[Conda]

It is, at the end of the day, a simpler and basic version of DI, from a game developer standpoint. It works differently than DI in the other games, as they replaced it with a different input-altering mechanic. It replaces DI mechanically and technically, but it has similar gameplay applications. Thus it is very closely related, no matter how differently the mechanic works and behaves on a technical level. .

Just briefly tested this.

Stage: Battle Field (Final Destination version)
Move being used: Mega Upper/Mega Man's Up Tilt (Fresh)
Testing: Vertical KOs

Opponent: Link
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 87-88%
KO percentage with vectoring: 129%
KO percentage difference: 41-42%

Opponent: Pikachu
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 75%
KO percentage with vectoring: Somewhere between 107-111% (brother just lest/wasn't able to finish testing)
KO percentage difference: 32-36% (not complete data)

Tested on the 3DS Smash demo. Link is the heaviest character, Pikachu is the lightest.

 

[oukd]

i read the first post and was going to suggest VI but im glad people are already covering this

vectoring is an entire syllable bigger than DI and my mouth is lazy

 

[slimjim]

I don't say stuff like this often... but I got on zero's stream and his community's responce to this stuff is just disgusting.

People are so ignorant and opposed to any change no matter how slight, it is really sickening sometimes.

True, they forget that if we have kb decay due to move staling, that alone will keep combos viable. Not to mention the implementation of the c-stick, the gamecube controller, a few weeks/months to figure out combos, imperfect VI, etc. Combos aren't going anywhere guys.

 

[Raijinken]

Was thinking more about the name for this, what about LI for Launch Influence? Since you ARE influencing the launch path, just not... the same way as DI.

Vectoring is a bit long (plus a lot harder to explain to, say, younger people who haven't taken physics/math/stuff with vectors). And we don't want something as oddly named as SDI, which sounds enough like DI to make anyone think it's just a stronger version.

 

[ChillySundance]

I suggested launch influence too. It really makes the most sense for what this actually achieves.

 

[Conda]

VI will fall into the pit of being conversated thusly:
1- "that was good VI"
2- "Describe VI for the viewers"
1- "Well, the knockback in this game uses vectors that...."
2- "People are asking what a vector is"
1- "Well, in game development, physics-"
2- "Nevermind, I'll explain it -- you input a direction opposite of the knockback to descrease your knockback and live longer."
1- "Yeah, that's a better way of describing it. It's basically DI but different."
2- "But basically lets you accomplish the same goal - living longer when being launched"
1- "Yup."

"DI, but works differently."
That'll be the most efficient roudnabout way of describing VI. It's bas when you can't use the word 'vector' to simply describe "vectoring" and "vector influence".

Launch Influence is better than VI, since you can describe it thusly:
"You press an input to influence your launch distance"

DI is also better than VI, since you can describe it thusly:
"You press a direction to influence your launch distance"

 

[Cactusblah]

VI sounds like a good name for this unfortunate mechanic.

 

[Ryuker]

I was about to propose FDI (Flight Distance(or Destination) Influence) then I read the comment on SDI..
perhaps DM (Destination Manipulation)?

 

[MadKraken]

I suggested launch influence too. It really makes the most sense for what this actually achieves.

I'm down for launch influence. Not that I matter. But I like it.

 

[TL?]

I think we should keep DI and just a knowledge that it has been reworked for a few reasons.

You still hold a direction to influence where exactly attacks send you. The implementation has changed but the purpose of the mechanic is the same. You still hold a direction to live longer, you still hold a direction to escape followups or to make your opponent guess on their followup.

Old DI was technically vectoring as well. It changed the vector you were sent towards. The difference is that the knock back power was constant.

Vectoring is too abstract of a name. Yes I know knock back is changed along with direction, but we still call tilt attacks tilts even though you can't tilt a 3ds slide pad.

 

[<π]

VI will fall into the pit of being conversated thusly:
1- "that was good VI"
2- "Describe VI for the viewers"
1- "Well, the knockback in this game uses vectors that...."
2- "People are asking what a vector is"
1- "Well, in game development, physics-"
2- "Nevermind, I'll explain it -- you input a direction opposite of the knockback to descrease your knockback and live longer."
1- "Yeah, that's a better way of describing it. It's basically DI but different."
2- "But basically lets you accomplish the same goal - living longer when being launched"
1- "Yup."

"DI, but works differently."
That'll be the most efficient roudnabout way of describing VI. It's bas when you can't use the word 'vector' to simply describe "vectoring" and "vector influence".

Launch Influence is better than VI, since you can describe it thusly:
"You press an input to influence your launch distance"

DI is also better than VI, since you can describe it thusly:
"You press a direction to influence your launch distance"

How do you describe DI to people?
=I've always taught "you can change your launch angle.

VI is pretty easy to explain too.
=You can change your launch strength and angle.

 

[Conda]

I think we should keep DI and just a knowledge that it has been reworked for a few reasons.

You still hold a direction to influence where exactly attacks send you. The implementation has changed but the purpose of the mechanic is the same. You still hold a direction to live longer, you still hold a direction to escape followups or to make your opponent guess on their followup.

Old DI was technically vectoring as well. It changed the vector you were sent towards. The difference is that the knock back power was constant.

Vectoring is too abstract of a name. Yes I know knock back is changed along with direction, but we still call tilt attacks tilts even though you can't tilt a 3ds slide pad.

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

 

[[TSON]]

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

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

Because Melee DI varies... Holding up + away will get you out of virtually any combo now. There's not really a way to mess that up.

 

[Chiroz]

Just briefly tested this.

Stage: Battle Field (Final Destination version)
Move being used: Mega Upper/Mega Man's Up Tilt (Fresh)
Testing: Vertical KOs
Vector Input: Straight Down

Opponent: Link
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 87-88%
KO percentage with vectoring: 129%
KO percentage difference: 41-42%

Opponent: Pikachu
KO percentage w/o vectoring: 75%
KO percentage with vectoring: Somewhere between 107-111% (brother just lest/wasn't able to finish testing)
KO percentage difference: 32-36% (not complete data)

Tested on the 3DS Smash demo. Link is the heaviest character, Pikachu is the lightest.

Do you have videos you can show? It seems extremely weird that Jigglypuff has a difference of <6% (or <13% of her damage) from VI against no VI while Link has 41-42% (or 50% of his damage) and Pikachu has 36% (also 50% of his damage).

Why would VI be 4 or more times as strong on Link and Pikachu than it is on Jigglypuff?

Are you sure you sweepspotted all Mega Uppers?

Maybe you should try it with Mario's Up Smash.

 

[Conda]

Because Melee DI varies... Holding up + away will get you out of virtually any combo now. There's not really a way to mess that up.

Have we actually seen this be the case? Hitstun is still lengthy enough to allow for combos, even if you can launch yourself further during combos by using DI in smash 4.

Air speed, ground speed, mobile attacks, large hitboxes, and ranged attacks can still be used if players end up using DI to be launched further during combo chains.

 

[Muster]

Just briefly tested this.

Stage: Battle Field (Final Destination version)
Move being used: Mega Upper/Mega Man's Up Tilt (Fresh)
Testing: Vertical KOs
Vector Input: Straight Down

Did you use a fresh mega upper for every test? It's strange how the results vary so much from what people have been saying

 

[Chiroz]

Did you use a fresh mega upper for every test? It's strange how the results vary so much from what people have been saying

This tests are 4 times as strong as Strong Bad's initial test on Jigglypuff for some reason.

 

[ItsRainingGravy]

Do you have videos you can show? It seems extremely weird that Jigglypuff has a difference of <6% (or <13% of her damage) from VI against no VI while Link has 41-42% (or 50% of his damage) and Pikachu has 36% (also 50% of his damage).

Why would VI be 4 or more times as strong on Link and Pikachu than it is on Jigglypuff?

Are you sure you sweepspotted all Mega Uppers?

Maybe you should try it with Mario's Up Smash.

I don't have any real way of recording footage, unfortunately. I can try with my phone, but my brother won't be back until Friday. (Rather unfortunate timing on his part...)

All Mega Uppers were sweetspotted, and they were all fresh. I made absolutely sure of this.

Whenever he gets back, I will test this in more detail with all of the characters on the demo.

Lastly, I am unsure as to why this difference is so huge compared to the Jigglypuff test. Though I assume it has something to do with the fact that she was hit by a fully charged up smash. Not sure why that would affect it, but it is a difference to note.

Additionally, take note that these results were tested on the Smash 3DS demo, and not the actual copy of the game. That could have made the results different as well.

EDIT: Going to work now. Won't be available to answer questions until later.

 

[Chiroz]

I don't have any real way of recording footage, unfortunately. I can try with my phone, but my brother won't be back until Friday. (Rather unfortunate timing on his part...)

All Mega Uppers were sweetspotted, and they were all fresh. I made absolutely sure of this.

Whenever he gets back, I will test this in more detail with all of the characters on the demo.

Lastly, I am unsure as to why this difference is so huge compared to the Jigglypuff test. Though I assume it has something to do with the fact that she was hit by a fully charged up smash. Not sure why that would affect it, but it is a difference to note.

Additionally, take note that these results were tested on the Smash 3DS demo, and not the actual copy of the game. That could have made the results different as well.

EDIT: Going to work now. Won't be available to answer questions until later.

The demo is basically the release version with everything locked. We haven't found any differences in mechanics. I doubt this would be the first.



The fully charged up-smash doesn't tell us anything about why Jigglypuff only has 13% control while Link and Pikachu have close to 50%.



It could be due to weight, but Pikachu is closer in weight to Jiggz than he is to Link and in this scenario Pikachu basically has 3.5 times the control Jiggz has while having about 90% of the control Link has.



If these tests are true then it means VI isn't actually controlled by Knockback amount (or at the very least knockback amount isn't the predominant variable in the equation). There is some other variable which has much greater influence in how much you can control VI. We need to test what it is.

 

[vileguy]

Holding up + away doesn't get you out of combos, it gets you out of them sooner. If a combo normally works between 10-30%, it now works between 11-27% if the effect were 10% on the knockback. Often one combo leads into another higher %, so this would just happen sooner. Overall yes you can escape earlier, but DI does that as well. It's probably going to be safe to hold up and away the majority of the time, but no more than DI. If you get knocked the opposite direction by an attack, now your input is up and towards. The possibilities for outcomes aren't much different than DI, it's just less obscure how you get those results.

 

[AlbobDS]

Perhaps the heavier a character is the more they're affected by VI? (or launch influence or smash 4 di or whatever you wanna call it)

 

[Raijinken]

Holding up + away doesn't get you out of combos, it gets you out of them sooner. If a combo normally works between 10-30%, it now works between 11-27% if the effect were 10% on the knockback. Often one combo leads into another higher %, so this would just happen sooner. Overall yes you can escape earlier, but DI does that as well. It's probably going to be safe to hold up and away the majority of the time, but no more than DI. If you get knocked the opposite direction by an attack, now your input is up and towards. The possibilities for outcomes aren't much different than DI, it's just less obscure how you get those results.

Furthermore, you'll have to be wary of your percent, or react quickly, as attempting to LI upward out of a combo that gets a killmove mixed into it could get you killed.

 

[C-SAF]

I think we should keep DI and just a knowledge that it has been reworked for a few reasons.

You still hold a direction to influence where exactly attacks send you. The implementation has changed but the purpose of the mechanic is the same. You still hold a direction to live longer, you still hold a direction to escape followups or to make your opponent guess on their followup.

Old DI was technically vectoring as well. It changed the vector you were sent towards. The difference is that the knock back power was constant.

Vectoring is too abstract of a name. Yes I know knock back is changed along with direction, but we still call tilt attacks tilts even though you can't tilt a 3ds slide pad.

If you read Strongbad's initial post the idea of changing the name comes from the fact that the community is still playing melee and older smash games where DI is mostly the same. Now that DI is completely different in Smash 4, with new mechanics and way to keep from dying, it would make sense to change the name. People would have to constantly specify that they were talking about "new smash 4 DI" whenever someone came into the middle of a conversation/thread/twitch stream to avoid confusion. Change the name to VI and you immediately know its Smash 4 they are referring to.

 

[AlbobDS]

Also i've been reading more in to this since the last post I made,

Spoiler

Soooo... basically if i'm getting this right, Vectoring makes all kill moves kill at higher percents, when people are already not dying till around 160% from people not knowing kill moves?

These matches are going to be soooo slowwwwwwww

and I have to say that i'm a lot more accepting of the new mechanic than I was before.

 

[Strong Badam]

Got a minute to answer questions. I will ignore obnoxious attempts to refer to this mechanic as DI for now to save time, and make a comprehensive post why referring to it as DI is stupid, lazy, and harmful at a later date. In the mean time, it seems like most people are picking up Vectoring, VI, or KI. These are all acceptable terms in my opinion.

By the way, how sure are we it doesn't influence hitstun? How was this tested?

@ Strong Badam

Note: Just so I don't pass off as an *******, I am not claiming it wasn't tested or anything of the sort. I appreciate all the effort you did to collect this data and present it to us. I am just curious as to how the hitstun part was tested.

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

So is there something going on with Smash 4 that's making this not work? If Jigglypuff uses DI and is sent to the left or right after the u-smash, she is flying up a longer path to the blast zone than if she were just sent straight up (I think), so realistically she would have a better chance of surviving. Don't know why I'm asking this, I'm just curious because I think DI in previous Smash games has made a lot of sense to me.

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

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

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

@ Strong Badam I have a few questions for you.

1. Is there a window for vector inputs by the defending player, or can you apply the vector anytime during knockback?

2. Let's say for some reason, someone is holding up when taking a hit, but the person that hit them used a vertical K.O move. After taking the hit with the upwards vector already applied, the player reacts by pressing down. What happens in this situation? Does it create a new vector and replace the old one? Does it create a new vector while leaving the first vector? Or will it ignore the input altogether while leaving the original vector?

3. Was there any extensive testing done with this against low-mid percent combos? How badly does it actually affect the combo game? I think a good idea would be to try Mario's Dthrow to up tilt combos on Link with link holding different directions to see if it allows him to escape for free.

Sorry if someone else already asked these questions, and thanks for your time.

I do not know the answers to 1 and 2.

3. Testing was done, the players in Texas such as @Oracle @Sethlon and @Denti noticed significant changes in the percentage ranges at which true combos were possible. As one would expect, however, true combos are certainly still possible at earlier percentages.

Quick question for Strong Bad : Does lightly holding a direction(like tilting) produce a different vector value?

I don't know. Someone should test this.

 

[Conda]

We all understand that Vectoring is different than DI, but it is a replacement mechanic and has the same implications when it comes to gameplay - survive longer after launches, escape combos, etc.

 

[Chiroz]

Perhaps the heavier a character is the more they're affected by VI? (or launch influence or smash 4 di or whatever you wanna call it)

The problem is Pikachu is much lighter than Link yet they still share almost the same VI.



Here's a question: How sure are we that Jiggz dies the earliest at 45%? @ Strong Badam did you test a G&W fully charged smash at 44% and Jiggz didn't die? Or did you just test it at 45 without testing any lower?

If the latter is the case then Jiggz might have been dying as early as 31-34% and VI could in fact actually be a circle instead of a square (it would explain why she still died at 47% even though she was pressing right).

 

[DanGR]

As I understand it, VI influences trajectory, only visually.

Behind the scenes, VI makes constant adjustments to the character's vector, as illustrated in the image below.

In this example, a character is sent upwards at a 90° angle, but left VI is used to influence the character's vector position to the left. It's important to note that the character never translates along the diagonal (black) slope, which is how DI would influence the knockback. Instead, in effect Smash 4 knockback is only applied along the Y-axis, while VI "teleports" you along the X-axis; momentum is maintained after you've "teleported."

As you can see, the vector influenced trajectory is the same (90°), and the total travel distance using VI is the same as the original trajectory travel distance. This is why vector influencing your character in a perpendicular direction to your original trajectory doesn't help you survive longer.

 

[Strong Badam]

Unless blast zones work different in smash 4, you should still have to be concerned with the direction it sends you as well. Perhaps theres something I missed which I understand is likely, but otherwise this is my biggest gripe with your game play analysis.

Do you commonly have multiple forward-facing attacks that send forward and backwards?

@ Strong Badam - I would guess that this has already been addressed, but due to there not being any relevant info regarding it in the OP, I was left wondering. Are you absolutely certain that diagonal vectors are positioned as a square (as shown by the diagram) rather than along a circle? If it's the former, inputting vectoring diagonally in relation to the original knockback would obviously have a far stronger effect. Did you verify it with non-vertical knockbacks as well?

100% sure. KO percents were equivalent whether I held down or down-right/left on a vertical attack, indicating there was no such weakness in Vectoring as a result of using a diagonal input.

Ignoring inputs, DI is technically vector addition as well, just in a more limited way.

It is Vector Rotation, not addition.

I like this. Worth noting is that, starting from on-stage, it's rarely such that a move sends exactly toward the corner. This would require a 60-65 degree angle to counteract the effects of gravity/falling speed.