Vectoring: The replacement to Directional Influence in Smash 4

[micstar615]

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

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

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

So basically: combos are still usable but will lose their consistency earlier than they should, but what if you switch the combos to accommodate to an opponent's VI, will their "escape" be too out of range for any kind of follow up before their hitstun ends?

 

[ChillySundance]

It really does seem like a majority of combos over 3 hits will be regulated to the 0% - 30% range. After that it's going to start revolving more about reads and frame traps. Here's hoping it simply makes mid-percent combos reactionary for faster, more combo oriented characters, but I think it's going to suck for characters with limited air speed and range, like Bowser Jr or Kirby.

 

[TTTTTsd]

So basically: combos are still usable but will lose their consistency earlier than they should, but what if you switch the combos to accommodate to an opponent's VI, will their "escape" be too out of range for any kind of follow up before their hitstun ends?

That's the dynamic part that people don't seem to wanna get.

 

[Chiroz]

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

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

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

Those scenarios are not "incredibly uncommon" they will either always happen, or never happen. It literally depends on how much % of your knockback VI shifts you. If it's greater than what DI can shift you then it will never happen, it it's lower than DI can shift you then my example will always happen.

The same exact thing goes for comboes, with the exact same formula. It literally depends on how much VI shifts you, something none of us knows yet.




Basically everyone is crying wolf over VI when we have no idea whether it's stronger or weaker than DI is.

It's like saying: I used to move your car in a straight line in X, but now I will move it diagonally through X and Y. And you guys are screaming: "But that means you are moving it less in X! This will suck!"

Not mandatorily, what if before I could only move it 10 units in X while now I can move it 1000000 units diagonally? I can assure you 1000000 units diagonally is much more than 10 in X. (It's 1000 in X btw).

 

[bc1910]

So basically: combos are still usable but will lose their consistency earlier than they should, but what if you switch the combos to accommodate to an opponent's VI, will their "escape" be too out of range for any kind of follow up before their hitstun ends?

Yes, combos will lose consistency earlier.

I don't really know how I can explain the second part but basically yes, you can switch up your combos to accommodate VI to an extent. However "switched up" combos are still just combos, and they too will lose consistency earlier than they should, like any normal combo.

That's the dynamic part that people don't seem to wanna get.

But it isn't truly dynamic. DI is truly dynamic because you can usually follow up a combo to the same percentages if you read their DI correctly. Yes you will need to switch the combo up, but provided you switch it up correctly, opponents aren't getting out of the combo at earlier percentages. With VI, this goes out the window. They WILL get out of the combo at earlier percentages whether you read their VI or not.

The only saving grace here will be whether VI increases your hitstun as well, which should mean that it isn't so effective at escaping combos and is mostly effective at making you survive for longer.

 

[Chiroz]

Yes, combos will lose consistency earlier.

I don't really know how I can explain the second part but basically yes, you can switch up your combos to accommodate VI to an extent. However "switched up" combos are still just combos, and they too will lose consistency earlier than they should, like any normal combo.

As I have already proved to you, you don't know if you will lose consistency just yet.

 

[C-SAF]

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

Most people aren't strictly opposed to keeping DI, this just isn't DI. Giving this new thing a new name will keep everyone from confusing it with DI in other games.

I don't care what its called particularly, but a real name will be much easier than specifying "Smash 4 DI" all the time.

 

[Conda]

The result is the same combo-wise. If DI-ing always makes an early combo require a different move (ie uair instead of utilt), then you can read when your opponent is gonna do the uair, and the DI close instead and make their uair miss (since they expect a far DI from you, not a close DI). Etc - DI worked like this too (changing your DI to play with your opponents expectations of how you will DI). Reads will still be a part of play.

 

[bc1910]

As I have already proved to you, you don't know if you will lose consistency just yet.

I think you may have me confused with someone else, you haven't said (or proved) anything to me.

 

[Chiroz]

I think you may have me confused with someone else, you haven't said (or proved) anything to me.

I already proved it in the thread anyways, just read it. We have no proof as to which is stronger yet VI or DI.

 

[TTTTTsd]

The only saving grace here will be whether VI increases your hitstun as well, which should mean that it isn't so effective at escaping combos and is mostly effective at making you survive for longer.

It doesn't extend the hitstun but again, I think you can still follow VI properly at lower percents. Higher percents it matters less to begin with beyond killing due to this game's knockback anyways.

 

[wannabe33]

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


A vector is defined by direction * distance.


Legend:
A = Distance
B = Direction.

Distance is a magnitude, which is a constant.

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

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






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

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

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



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



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

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





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

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



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



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

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







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

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

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



Substituting we get the following:


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




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

We now have:

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




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

Our formula is left as:

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







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

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





And this is the final formula.

What does it claim?

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

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

Thorough and persuasive analysis. While I maintain a suspicion vectoring is going to improve survivability on balance, you've demonstrated we can't be sure of that right now. Hopefully we get more testing and information sooner rather than later.

The points about how VI makes follow-ups harder and combo escapes easier stand, though.

 

[bc1910]

VI doesn't increase your hitstun? Damn, that really sucks.

I already proved it in the thread anyways, just read it. We have no proof as to which is stronger yet VI or DI.

Your posts are interesting and definitely worth considering for VI vs DI in terms of surviving hits.

In terms of getting out of combos though, I cannot see how DI could possibly be better than VI unless proper DI (significantly) reduces your hitstun in Melee and Brawl. To the best of my knowledge it does not, but I could be wrong there.

 

[TTTTTsd]

Getting out might be easier but I still think the followup game is more possible than Brawl. Being in the air here is a lot less safe especially when you gotta be on the defensive, with the new Airdodge lag among other things. It's going to be based on offensive reads, which is both strange and has potential. I wanna see how it goes.

 

[Chiroz]

If someone has the game, or 2 copies of the demo they could start looking at the numbers to analyze just how much VI affects your knockback.

 

[kupo15]

Here you guys go for anyone who is still confused as to the differences between DI and VI
@ Strong Badam

 

[Neo X]

So basically you hold your control stick towards the character you get hit by, right?

 

[Chiroz]

Here you guys go for anyone who is still confused as to the differences between DI and VI
@ Strong Badam

Since you already made a video of it. Could you test the values with angle being 45% and then check just what % VI needs to affect combos and survivability "stronger" than DI.

Edit: Also if you are going to test the above you should include gravity into that formula.

 

[kupo15]

Since you already made a video of it. Could you test the values with angle being 45% and then check just what % VI needs to affect combos and survivability "stronger" than DI.

I don't have the game so I can't test for real numbers. I just made up numbers in the video to prove a point

So basically you hold your control stick towards the character you get hit by, right?

Yea I think that pretty much sums it up

 

[Chiroz]

I don't have the game so I can't test for real numbers. I just made up numbers in the video to prove a point



Yea I think that pretty much sums it up

I understand that your video is more focused on the mechanical differences. I just want people to realize that there ARE numbers at which VI is actually weaker than DI in every case. So there is a possibility that this actually affects the game less than DI anyways and that we shouldn't be crying wolf until we actually know the actual values of VI and can compare it to past values of DI.

 

[Espy Rose]

Thank you kupo.
That video should be on the first post or sometihng.

 

[kupo15]

Welcome Espy

I understand that your video is more focused on the mechanical differences. I just want people to realize that there ARE numbers at which VI is actually weaker than DI in every case. So there is a possibility that this actually affects the game less than DI anyways and that we shouldn't be crying wolf until we actually know the actual values of VI and can compare it to past values of DI.

I can keep an open mind to that idea. I'll be interested to see more info about this when we understand it better

 

[ChillySundance]

So basically you hold your control stick towards the character you get hit by, right?

unless you are being comboed/thrown at low %, in which case you hold away and up.

 

[Rajing Clue]

Nice find Strongbad.

Would prefer if this were not in the game- but it is, so we will adapt.

But I gotta say, I was really looking forward to the higher percentage follow ups I was seeing on certain characters. Not saying they'll go away entirely depending on the situation, but know now they will be more difficult and less reliable against people who know what they're doing. I personally am a fan of a "higher hitstun" type gameplay more akin to 64 and melee to an extent that allowed for more guaranteed followups, as I love the tension in the neutral game when more reliable damage is on the line for out reading or spacing your opponent.

This game looks super fun either way though!

 

[Chakra-X]

Nice work on everyone involved but...Are the "Sky is Falling" conjecture based on real-world proof that VI, or whatever the consensus of the name comes to, is that detrimental? Has it been proven that VI dramatically prevents combos below 80 percent, or is this all in theory?

 

[TTTTTsd]

It's all in theory and in SOME experimentation but not like, extensive amounts. No solid numbers have been found and VI seems to scale based on KB itself so the test character is also important, etc.

Basically it's really young and "The sky is falling" is an exaggeration.

 

[Boy Jordan]

So this is just an examination of how direction influence works differently in this game compared to past iterations? Seems to me there's no need to call it something different. Unless I'm missing something and VI and DI are both completely different things, I don't think we should muddle the lingo up--we're already nearing a point where we have too many poorly coined terms and jargon in general that makes memorization harder for someone trying to get into the competitive scene.

Seriously, this is just DI, right? Only Smash 3DS and Wii U work it differently?

 

[dedekong]

Why do people continue to call it DI when the only thing being influenced is the distance?

 

[Shaya]

I think in these situations you're better off letting the sands of time tell. I don't mind transitioning to a different term, because to a "layman" of maths/etc but are prolific within the Smash series will see DI as vastly different to "VI". Other mixes will prefer DI over a new term, obviously, with people more mathematically prone preferring a new term on average.

But yeah, iono about you, but I think we should just kill the discussion on what it should be called.

 

[kupo15]

So this is just an examination of how direction influence works differently in this game compared to past iterations? Seems to me there's no need to call it something different. Unless I'm missing something and VI and DI are both completely different things, I don't think we should muddle the lingo up--we're already nearing a point where we have too many poorly coined terms and jargon in general that makes memorization harder for someone trying to get into the competitive scene.

Seriously, this is just DI, right? Only Smash 3DS and Wii U work it differently?

They are kinda completely different things even though VI does something similar. Its not only directional influence but also knockback influence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_l60yxG-Yg&list=UUHoT-OZF2EkD3U8wgtVqqTg

 

[Boy Jordan]

They are kinda completely different things even though VI does something similar. Its not only directional influence but also knockback influence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_l60yxG-Yg&list=UUHoT-OZF2EkD3U8wgtVqqTg

Yeah, thanks for your video. Helped clear things up for me where the details are concerned, but I still hold the same viewpoint. I think the confusion comes in where some people never thought of directional influence to mean "the angle you choose" but "the influence the direction of your analog stick provides". Angles and vectors both deal with direction, so if this mechanic is just the new way that direction influence in general works (both angle and knockback), there's really no need to coin the term differently. That's just my two cents anyway. Seems this discussion has been worn thin in this topic, so I'll try not to breath further life into it.

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

Here you guys go for anyone who is still confused as to the differences between DI and VI
@ Strong Badam

Good video, thanks.

I think in these situations you're better off letting the sands of time tell. I don't mind transitioning to a different term, because to a "layman" of maths/etc but are prolific within the Smash series will see DI as vastly different to "VI". Other mixes will prefer DI over a new term, obviously, with people more mathematically prone preferring a new term on average.

But yeah, iono about you, but I think we should just kill the discussion on what it should be called.

I've created a separate thread for the topic.

http://smashboards.com/threads/the-di-vi-naming-debate.368978/

 

[ChillySundance]

I'm still not comfortable saying that this won't be extremily disruptive for low to mid % combos without real testing.

I see a lot of people going on about how it will enforce variation in combos and reading, which would indeed create complexity and counterplay for combos, but there is a real difference between "The opponent can shift position but remain within a predictable range after launch, forcing me to adapt" and "This combo is no longer PHYSICALLY possible for my character because the enemy removes themselves from my effective range and I have no options to reach them before the hit stun wears off."

The latter is what I'm worried about. Low % combos are one thing, but I feel like this is also going to upset a lot of set knockback moves that would otherwise have useful and reliable followups.

One way to possibly test this would be to go into training mode and pause the game while hitting the CPU, then switch control to the CPU, unpause, then immediately hold a direction. That is assuming you are allowed to control the opponent in training mode, which I haven't checked yet.

 

[Tagxy]

Here you guys go for anyone who is still confused as to the differences between DI and VI

Cool video, although my only issue with it is near the end in determining its affect on combos as it relates to DI. While its something Im fine with either way, I find this to be a better assessment of how DI and this relate on the matter (which I still believe the game is referring to as hitstun shuffling).

Ultimately, its not the mechanic itself but rather the size of the vector added as it relates to the angular range for DI. Or in more general terms, it depends on the size of the green box. This has partly to do with how movement in smash works as well. I find this to be a very important distinction, as the mechanic itself doesn't inherently lead to more or less combos. Thus far most statements on hitstun shuffling have claimed that there's a notably more shallow angle, which is how Ive designed the above picture.

And as Ive stated before, I believe the issue some peeps are having is their experience of smash 4 went from this:

to this

 

[Chiroz]

Cool video, although my only issue with it is near the end in determining its affect on combos as it relates to DI. While its something Im fine with either way, I find this to be a better assessment of how DI and this relate on the matter (which I still believe the game is referring to as hitstun shuffling).

Ultimately, its not the mechanic itself but rather the size of the vector added as it relates to the angular range for DI. Or in more general terms, it depends on the size of the green box. This has partly to do with how movement in smash works as well. I find this to be a very important distinction, as the mechanic itself doesn't inherently lead to more or less combos. Thus far most statements on hitstun shuffling have claimed that there's a notably more shallow angle, which is how Ive designed the above picture.

And as Ive stated before, I believe the issue some peeps are having is their experience of smash 4 went from this:

to this

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people. It all depends on how big the box is. We don't know that yet. It could be extremely small, making combos even easier than in Brawl (which they are easier than Brawl already anyways), or it could be a big box and make combos break earlier. Crying wolf over a possibility without having any data to back it up does not help in any way. It's just creating mass panic for no reason.



Technically if you made the box on the first picture 1/4th as big, would people be worried about this mechanic? It wouldn't allow even 1/3rd of the movement DI did if that was the case...

 

[Tagxy]

It's true with killing as well, imagine the black line as a blastzone:

It really depends on the values. Unfortunately cool as the discovery of the mechanic was, strongbad seemed to have he wrong idea about the gameplay implications, which has now lead to a great amount of misunderstanding.

 

[Chiroz]

It's true with killing as well, image the black line as a blastzone:

It really depends on the values. Unfortunately cool as the discovery of the mechanic was, strongbad seemed to have he wrong idea about the gameplay implications, which has now lead to a great amount of misunderstanding.

Thank you so much for this. This is what I have been saying all along. If I knew you, I would hug you.




As can be noted by the pictures created by Tagxy we don't know the numbers on this mechanic and as such we don't know if it makes combos easier to escape or surviving high % easier. It could actually be the opposite and make combos harder to escape and surviving harder. It literally depends on the numbers.

 

[Tagxy]

To be clear, Im not trying to say combos will be easier or harder. And quite frankly, I think the game's punishment game becomes much deeper and fun when combos arent heavily reaction based and require meaningful choice.

Really I'm just trying to correct the slandering of a mechanic that to be honest is pretty freakin cool. If there is an issue, itll be with the values not the mechanic. If I had to give my best super duper completely unfounded guess, I think as compared to other smash games it probably wont be much different.

Also, its obvious combos will be more difficult than our initial impressions of the game as I also indicated, but then again we have yet to maximize our abilities to execute them as well.

 

[ChillySundance]

This is smash bros. The Square of Influence is probably really, really big.

Or at least that's what I'm going to assume until we get proper information otherwise, lol.

 

[Chiroz]

To be clear, Im not trying to say combos will be easier or harder. And quite frankly, I think the game's punishment game becomes much deeper when combos arent heavily reaction based.

Really I'm just trying to correct the slandering of a mechanic that to be honest is pretty freakin cool. If there is an issue, itll be with the values not the mechanic. If I had to give my best super duper completely unfounded guess, I think as compared to other smash games it probably wont be much different.

Also, its obvious combos will be more difficult than our initial impressions of the game as I also indicated, but then again we have yet to maximize our abilities to execute them as well.

I know, it's also exactly what I was saying. Everything you are saying is exactly what I was saying, almost word for word.