Vectoring: The replacement to Directional Influence in Smash 4

[ShredPix]

Now that I have had more time to think about it I think Vectoring is making things way to complicated. Stay with DI.

All it really needs to be is:
Hold towards the stage after get launched to survive longer! Or hold away from your opponents to escape a barrage of attacks!

But...its not DI.

 

[GrownCannoli]

But...its not DI.

Do you even know what Di stands for?

Yes Di is different than past games but the way you hold the control stick influences the direction you go so the name is fitting. Everyone here is trying to make something out of nothing.

This thread reminds me of Victorian people that have a utensil for everything imaginable when a fork would do just fine. Some think its necessary, some think its not. If you get what I am saying.

Oh and thought provoking post btw. +1

 

[Schtizzel]

Vi is not DI, get over it.

DI = changing the angle
VI/KI/whatever = adding a vector

Yes, you just basicly tilt the joystick and alter your direction but doing the the same thing in Smash 4 doesnt get the same results as in Melee or Brawl. In Melee/Brawl you could hold the stick up when hit by a horizontal attack and survive but doing the same thing in Smash 4 will get you killed because it doesn't alter the horizontal distance.

When someone is hearing "DI" who only played Melee/Brawl, they will asume that It is the same thing but it isn't. They will get killed and comboed in Smash 4 the whole day long because "DI" doesnt work the same way as it did in the other Smash games. Nobody will actually look up what a term is refering to if they know the meaning from an other game of the same franchise. That wouldn't be that big of a problem if the new DI wouldn't differ so much form the Melee/Brawl variant.

Edit: It's like saying a short hop is basicly the same as a full hop because you're pressing the "jump" button and then you're character is performing a jump.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Recently, we discovered a new mechanic discovered by Strong Bad that he calls "Vectoring."

I'm not going to explain it as there's already a thread by Strong Bad that explains it...but what I can tell you is that it's pretty much another form of DI, but much easier to perform.

Anyways, this mechanic has recieved mixed reception from a lot of people. Some think it may not hurt the game that much (I'm one of them, and I'll explain why) and some think it will hurt the game a lot.

According to Strong Bad, this mechanic could limit combos and promote defensive play or just make Smash 4 a heavy-neutral game. Honestly, while I do get Strong Bad's opinion on how this can promote defensive play, I personally think this mechanic won't hurt combos that hard and I don't think it will hurt the game a lot. True, it will change the way people play Smash, but it won't hurt it a lot.

Here are some pros and cons I think this mechanic could offer:

Pros:
- Courages people to go off-stage to get early kills.
- Mindgames/Mix-ups will be nessassary IMO.
- ledge mechanics will be fully capitilized.
- Combos will still possible, you need to make a right guess where the opponent goes and does to continue your follow ups.

Cons:
- Matches last much longer
- Defensive play will be used if using a projectile character, such as Duck Hunt Dog

Before you comment below, one thing I also want to point out is that combos aren't what makes matches fun to watch. As I mentioned in the "Pros" part, it's the mix-ups that make it entertaining to watch. I've played fighting games for years and learned that mix-ups in fighting games and Smash Bros plays an important role for exciting matches and hype moments. The ironic part about it is that it's fine in other fighting games and yet, in Smash Bros, most just spread hate on it and thinks only combos should make the game fun to watch. I get combos are exciting to watch and Smash Bros and Street Fighter are different fighting games, but they're still part of the same genre. Super Smash Bros Melee heavily relied on Mix-ups to keep things going. The long insane combos were only possible in Melee with hitstun and L-cancelling and you can get out of those combos with good DI and hope the opponent guesses wrong. Brawl had combos, but the problem was that airdodging out of hitstun ruined combos and made them useless, but if you predict what the opponent does, you can follow-up. Smash 4 will have combos, you just need to make good guesses and continue them. Melee is my favorite of the series competitive wise, but I still like Brawl a lot, and any game, whether fighting game or not, can be competitive. Smash 4 seems to have a nice bright future, but it depends on how the meta at the moment plays the game.

In conclusion, the vectoring mechanic, in my opinion, WILL definitly change the way the game plays and while I do agree that it offers problems, I don't think it will hurt combos that much and I do think you will have to take advantage of the ledge mechanics to get early kills. Mix-ups will play a huge important role in this as well. It's like every other mechanic in every fighting game, they will offer some good or bad things. We do also have the "Rage" mechanic, if proved quite good, could counter this mechanic, but it's too early to judge and we should just wait for a few months for the meta to evolve and see if the games become much faster on the Wii U version.

 

[Lord Goomy]

This really didn't require it's own thread. Just post it in the Vectoring thread, there's no need to make extraneous threads.

 

[RanserSSF4]

This really didn't require it's own thread. Just post it in the Vectoring thread, there's no need to make extraneous threads.

My apologies, but I'm still new to the forums of Smashboards and trying to understand more of how it works.

 

[Greave]

I can test later to double check, but I'm almost positive it does not.
Smash DI appears to still be in the game, and VI appears to be read exactly the same as DI; namely, whatever direction you're holding your Circle Pad on the last frame of hitlag. Mashing down would likely SDI down a few times, and as long as you're pressing down at the right time you then VI as well.

Note, though, that we're only working with what we know so far; we could be wrong, but we wouldn't know yet because we haven't been able to test it extensively enough.

It would also be useful to test whether "rocking" the control stick back and forth (through the 8-6-4 o'clock positions) is read as multiple inputs in regards to Smash DI, like it was in Brawl. That way we can get maximum SDI while still holding down and getting maximum VI.

VI vs DI: everyone is arguing the wrong thing. Whether we consider this mechanic a form of DI or a new thing entirely is based on one thing: what we arbitrarily assign as the limits of the definition of "DI." So whether you say "This is DI" or "This isn't DI," you're not saying anything.

Instead, the real issue lies in how inclusive the definition of DI should be, and we should argue the merits and flaws of having a wider or narrower definition. But we've actually been arguing whether or not the new mechanic fits into our personal DI definition, which gets us nowhere.

 

[Chiroz]

It would also be useful to test whether "rocking" the control stick back and forth (through the 8-6-4 o'clock positions) is read as multiple inputs in regards to Smash DI, like it was in Brawl. That way we can get maximum SDI while still holding down and getting maximum VI.

VI vs DI: everyone is arguing the wrong thing. Whether we consider this mechanic a form of DI or a new thing entirely is based on one thing: what we arbitrarily assign as the limits of the definition of "DI." So whether you say "This is DI" or "This isn't DI," you're not saying anything.

Instead, the real issue lies in how inclusive the definition of DI should be, and we should argue the merits and flaws of having a wider or narrower definition. But we've actually been arguing whether or not the new mechanic fits into our personal DI definition,
which gets us nowhere.

I've personally been arguing how naming it DI would not convey the message that the mechanic has changed to someone who isn't part of this "discovery/naming" era.

 

[san.]

Please leave the name debate to here: http://smashboards.com/threads/the-di-vi-naming-debate.368986/

I read through the thread, and I have few problems with this so far. I think that at low percents, this will help combat spammable combos such as 40+% utilt chains, and instead promote linking your attacks in a variety of ways. I *do think that this will hurt some characters' ability to combo out of a throw (many still seem fine, though).

It is most definitely more intuitive than Melee and Brawl's DI. There were some powerful upward hitting attacks where for some characters you had to DI in front of them and others where you had to DI behind them. If you DI'd forward when you should've DI'd behind and vice versa, you ended up being sent straight up. Attacks that sent characters at 45 degree angles were much worse than vertical attacks that were difficult to DI on reaction. SSB4's system is indeed quite strong, but I think Brawl's DI + momentum cancelling was worse since it made some strong moves worse than attacks that were simply difficult to DI.

 

[Hong]

My apologies, but I'm still new to the forums of Smashboards and trying to understand more of how it works.

It's alright. I've merged your thread into this one.

 

[RanserSSF4]

It's alright. I've merged your thread into this one.

Thanks a lot. Appreciate that

 

[InfinityCollision]

Did more testing. Here are the results:

I'm not sure why you're trying to quantify the differences with and without vectoring as static damage values given that they all line up pretty well with increasing kill percentage by a factor of ~1.5. Similarly, minimum rage kills approximately 1.25x later than max rage. Net variance in your testing is thus ~1.875x (neutral/no rage vs optimal/max rage).

Your methodology and SB's appear to differ primarily in direction of KO, so that may require further investigation.

 

[xaerin]

Edit: So I was able to survive Pikachu's fresh Side-Smash at 180% being Pikachu and I was ONLY VIing downwards (No vertical VI), I think there's something we're missing. I don't think Pikachu should be able to survive another Pikachu's Side-Smash at 180% without any VI (Since we've established that VI is a square and not a circle doing downwards VI would be the same as doing no VI). I am really doubting it's a square.

So anyone knows if it is indeed a square?
confirmd?

 

[Jaxas]

So anyone knows if it is indeed a square?
confirmd?

I don't believe we've actually confirmed that, Strong Bad just said that it was.
If I can find a second 3DS tonight (I think my friend left his) then I'll test it, if not then I will by Wednesday if no one beats me to it.

Also, thoughts on how to test that specifically?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

So, you press your control stick in a direction, and it influences the direction and distance your character goes when getting hit.

Directional Influence.

It's not confusing. It encompasses the actual input, and the general result of what's happening.

This isn't even a discovery really, they just made DI more intuitive. You actually are influenced accurately by the input, rather than a less inherent input for the effect you desire. When you fall, if you hold right your character moves right, if you move left, they move left. They just applied this to your characters knockback movement. If you hold up, you'll go up higher, if you hold down, it puts a pressure on you to not go as high.

It's still DI. The direction of the stick is influencing the movement of your character.

Hell if you wanna call it vectoring we should also call moving "analoging". No point you say? Doesn't need its own new term you say? Exactly.

 

[wannabe33]

So, you press your control stick in a direction, and it influences the direction and distance your character goes when getting hit.

Directional Influence.

As has been explained time and time again in this thread, vectoring differs from Melee and Brawl DI in that it adjusts not just angle (DI), but angle plus distance (vectoring). In short, it adds a vector.

This is not a small change. This is a substantial change. Since you talk about movement, here's a better analogy: in Fighter A, you can only move left and right at a set speed; in Fighter A2, you can mash the control stick in either direction and speed up your movement. Fighter A's mechanics use the control stick to adjust just movement direction (walking), but Fighter A2's mechanics use the control stick to adjust for direction plus speed (running). Now imagine a group of people insist we should call running walking. After all, they both involve moving the character, right? They both involve control stick input, right? "Running" is just Fighter A2's version of walking. Someone might say something as follows:

"So, you press your control stick in a direction, and it determines which way your character goes.

Walking."

That would be silly. And it'd be super confusing to new players.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

As has been explained time and time again in this thread, vectoring differs from Melee and Brawl DI in that it adjusts not just angle (DI), but angle plus distance (vectoring). In short, it adds a vector.

This is not a small change. This is a substantial change. Since you talk about movement, here's a better analogy: in Fighter A, you can only move left and right at a set speed; in Fighter A2, you can mash the control stick in either direction and speed up your movement. Fighter A's mechanics use the control stick to adjust just movement direction (walking), but Fighter A2's mechanics use the control stick to adjust for direction plus speed (running). Now imagine a group of people insist we should call running walking. After all, they both involve moving the character, right? They both involve control stick input, right? "Running" is just Fighter A2's version of walking. Someone might say something as follows:

"So, you press your control stick in a direction, and it determines which way your character goes.

Walking."

That would be silly. And it'd be super confusing to new players.

It's not confusing, and it doesn't matter that it works differently from previous iterations.

You press a direction on the control stick to influence the movement of your character. Essentially, we could just as well call this "mechanic" movement like you said, but since we long since have assigned to applying an arbitrary term to this particular instance, there's just no reason we can't just use that term, because it's every bit just as relevant and applicable. It's referring to the same circumstance, and it's referring to the same resulting circumstance. There's absolutely zero logical reason to change what we already call it.

Directional influence. You press a direction on the control stick, and it influences where your character goes. Directional influence. It's perfect.

 

[wannabe33]

It's not confusing, and it doesn't matter that it works differently from previous iterations.

You press a direction on the control stick to influence the movement of your character. Essentially, we could just as well call this "mechanic" movement like you said, but since we long since have assigned to applying an arbitrary term to this particular instance, there's just no reason we can't just use that term, because it's every bit just as relevant and applicable. It's referring to the same circumstance, and it's referring to the same resulting circumstance. There's absolutely zero logical reason to change what we already call it.

Directional influence. You press a direction on the control stick, and it influences where your character goes. Directional influence. It's perfect.

It's not confusing, and it doesn't matter that it works differently from previous iterations.

You press a direction on the control stick to determine the movement of your character. We could just as well call this "mechanic" running like you said, but since we long since have assigned to applying an arbitrary term to this particular instance, there's just no reason we can't just use that term, because it's every bit just as relevant and applicable. It's referring to the same circumstance, and it's referring to the same resulting circumstance. There's absolutely zero logical reason to change what we already call it.

Walking. You press a direction on the control stick, and it determines where your character goes. Walking. It's perfect.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

It's not confusing, and it doesn't matter that it works differently from previous iterations.

You press a direction on the control stick to determine the movement of your character. We could just as well call this "mechanic" running like you said, but since we long since have assigned to applying an arbitrary term to this particular instance, there's just no reason we can't just use that term, because it's every bit just as relevant and applicable. It's referring to the same circumstance, and it's referring to the same resulting circumstance. There's absolutely zero logical reason to change what we already call it.

Walking. You press a direction on the control stick, and it determines where your character goes. Walking. It's perfect.

You're not making a very effective counter-point by agreeing with my logic.

 

[wannabe33]

You're not making a very effective counter-point by agreeing with my logic.

I'm making a simple argument:

1. DI is to vectoring what walking is to running.
2. No one in their right mind would advise treating running as a "kind of walking."
3. We ought not treat vectoring as a "kind of DI."

I supported premise [1] previously -- DI and walking both deal with one variable (angle and direction, respectively) while vectoring and running deal with two variables (angle / distance and direction / speed, respectively). I'm taking [2] as a given. If you want to object to what I've argued, you need to challenge either of the premises.

 

[Chiroz]

Here's some real life example ammunition.

Down at ZeRo's stream people were talking about DI, everything is fine and dandy until after a minute or 2 someone throws out the word "Vectoring". Once this happens at least 10 different people (if not more) ask what "Vectoring" is. They are answered with a variety of answers from deep mathematical answers to simple "It's like DI but it also changes your distance". The best answer I saw was "It allows you to change your knockback distance or your direction depending on where you point the stick". Obviously this was met with many mixed reviews from "Oh, I get it" to "Isn't that the same as DI?" and "Why is it called different, I don't get it?"

The mechanic was then explained thoroughly over and over again for about 30 minutes as more and more people popped up that didn't know what the mechanic was as soon as they read the name.



Now, here's the thing, when everyone was talking about DI in Smash 4 no one was asking what was DI. No one was asking how it was done. No one was asking if it had changed. Why? Because you assume it hasn't until someone tells you otherwise. If you see people talking about DI you expect it to be what you've always known. You might want to argue with me but this is a REAL example of people who were talking about DI and had NO idea it had changed until the word "Vectoring" was thrown into the mix. Just because of the word "Vectoring" they were able to realize that a mechanic that they knew from previous iterations has changed and they were able to learn something new, whereas if that word hadn't been used they would still remain ignorant to the change.



I had my theory that this would happen, but now I can actually give real life example. As such it's no longer a theory, it's a fact. Naming the ability DI will confuse semi-competitive players that aren't as hands down passionate as most of us here are. Those people that watch streams and play the occasional friendlies, they won't know what's happening and they will be out of the loop just because we want to keep a name for "tradition's" sake.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm making a simple argument:

1. DI is to vectoring what walking is to running.
2. No one in their right mind would advise treating running as a "kind of walking."
3. We ought not treat vectoring as a "kind of DI."

I supported premise [1] previously -- DI and walking both deal with one variable (angle and direction, respectively) while vectoring and running deal with two variables (angle / distance and direction / speed, respectively). I'm taking [2] as a given. If you want to object to what I've argued, you need to challenge either of the premises.

Except there is a flaw in your attempted analogy. Walking is not running. Both words define different things.

DI defines what happens perfectly.

1. Sure, which is why I can call the latter "moving" and the former "DI" since both words broadly encompass their specific terms well.

2. This isn't relevant.

3. Except it is.

Here's some real life example ammunition.

Down at ZeRo's stream people were talking about DI, everything is fine and dandy until after a minute or 2 someone throws out the word "Vectoring". Once this happens at least 10 different people (if not more) ask what "Vectoring" is. They are answered with a variety of answers from deep mathematical answers to simple "It's like DI but it also changes your distance". The best answer I saw was "It allows you to change your knockback distance or your direction depending on where you point the stick". Obviously this was met with many mixed reviews from "Oh, I get it" to "Isn't that the same as DI?" and "Why is it called different, I don't get it?"

The mechanic was then explained thoroughly over and over again for about 30 minutes as more and more people popped up that didn't know what the mechanic was as soon as they read the name.



Now, here's the thing, when everyone was talking about DI in Smash 4 no one was asking what was DI. No one was asking how it was done. No one was asking if it had changed. Why? Because you assume it hasn't until someone tells you otherwise. If you see people talking about DI you expect it to be what you've always known. You might want to argue with me but this is a REAL example of people who were talking about DI and had NO idea it had changed until the word "Vectoring" was thrown into the mix. Just because of the word "Vectoring" they were able to realize that a mechanic that they knew from previous iterations has changed and they were able to learn something new, whereas if that word hadn't been used they would still remain ignorant to the change.



I had my theory that this would happen, but now I can actually give real life example. As such it's no longer a theory, it's a fact. Naming the ability DI will confuse semi-competitive players that aren't as hands down passionate as most of us here are. Those people that watch streams and play the occasional friendlies, they won't know what's happening and they will be out of the loop just because we want to keep a name for "tradition's" sake.

This isn't a problem with what we're calling it. This is people choosing the most annoyingly complex way to explain something that is actually quite simple.

It's actually easier to explain than the old DI.

 

[ferioku]

So is it true that this makes combos 100% impossible?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

So is it true that this makes combos 100% impossible?

No...

 

[Chiroz]

Except there is a flaw in your attempted analogy. Walking is not running. Both words define different things.

DI defines what happens perfectly.

1. Sure, which is why I can call the latter "moving" and the former "DI" since both words broadly encompass their specific terms well.

2. This isn't relevant.

3. Except it is.


This isn't a problem with what we're calling it. This is people choosing the most annoyingly complex way to explain something that is actually quite simple.

It's actually easier to explain than the old DI.

You are being stubborn, read over the story again and understand the point. If you rename it DI most people won't realize anything changed. You need to put yourself in other people's shoes. If you hadn't read that thread and you went online to look at mechanics and techniques you would definitely jump over anything that said "DI" because you already know it.

Read my example again and look at exactly what I said: "You might want to argue with me but this is a REAL example of people who were talking about DI and had NO idea it had changed until the word "Vectoring" was thrown into the mix." This people were literally talking ABOUT DI and they didn't know it had changed. Once someone said "Vectoring" without any kind of definition many people got curious about what it was and that lead to an explanation which lead to people learning that the mechanic had changed and then to them learning what exactly had changed since last game.

 

[wannabe33]

Naming the ability DI will confuse semi-competitive players...

To add to this: Casual players, you mean. (ZeRo's chat, as are most Smash chats on Twitch, is comprised mostly of casual fans.) I don't think many people expected otherwise. The benefit of calling vectoring "vectoring" rather than "directional influence" is to provide a more precise terminology for informed viewers and competitive players. That casual fans aren't misled about Smash 4 vectoring being different from Melee / Brawl DI is nice too, but I don't think that's the most important thing.

Walking is not running. Both words define different things.

DI defines what happens perfectly.

DI is not vectoring. Both words define different things.

Vectoring defines what happens perfectly.

We'll run around in circles until you explain, specifically, why you think the walking / running analogy doesn't hold.

 

[Chiroz]

To add to this: Casual players, you mean. (ZeRo's chat, as are most Smash chats on Twitch, is comprised mostly of casual fans.) I don't think many people expected otherwise. The benefit of calling vectoring "vectoring" rather than "directional influence" is to provide a more precise terminology for informed viewers and competitive players. That casual fans aren't misled about Smash 4 vectoring being different from Melee / Brawl DI is nice too, but I don't think that's the most important thing.

DI is not vectoring. Both words define different things.

Vectoring defines what happens perfectly.

We'll run around in circles until you explain, specifically, why you think the walking / running analogy doesn't hold.

I don't believe anyone who watches or searches online info of a game is casual about that game. Casual level for me is someone who just plays the game for a few days then stops. It's a difference we share about the terminology.

You are saying that we shouldn't care about any new up and comers and should just care about our own small community. That's a really elitist thought. It's not the way I think about things. For me it's more about making the game accessible for everyone so that more people can get interested in the game and the scene of the game grows.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

To add to this: Casual players, you mean. (ZeRo's chat, as are most Smash chats on Twitch, is comprised mostly of casual fans.) I don't think many people expected otherwise. The benefit of calling vectoring "vectoring" rather than "directional influence" is to provide a more precise terminology for informed viewers and competitive players. That casual fans aren't misled about Smash 4 vectoring being different from Melee / Brawl DI is nice too, but I don't think that's the most important thing.

DI is not vectoring. Both words define different things.

Vectoring defines what happens perfectly.

We'll run around in circles until you explain, specifically, why you think the walking / running analogy doesn't hold.

Mostly for the same reason vectoring received backlash in the first place, it sounds heavy handed and silly and it's just not an intuitive choice for a name of a mechanic that is perfectly fine being called DI. They just changed it to be more in line with the direction you input on the control stick, in a direct effort to make it more intuitive.

You are being stubborn, read over the story again and understand the point. If you rename it DI most people won't realize anything changed. You need to put yourself in other people's shoes. If you hadn't read that thread and you went online to look at mechanics and techniques you would definitely jump over anything that said "DI" because you already know it.

Read my example again and look at exactly what I said: "You might want to argue with me but this is a REAL example of people who were talking about DI and had NO idea it had changed until the word "Vectoring" was thrown into the mix." This people were literally talking ABOUT DI and they didn't know it had changed. Once someone said "Vectoring" without any kind of definition many people got curious about what it was and that lead to an explanation which lead to people learning that the mechanic had changed and then to them learning what exactly had changed since last game.

I'm getting a little tired of people using made-up "new" or "casual" players and imagining up their sense of interpretation of the term DI as the main crux of their argument.

If someone wants to understand how a mechanic works, they can look it up, like the rest of the Internet. It's not really the name of the mechanics job to explain how it works, whether the name has been used before or not. Names would be a lot longer across the board if that were the case.

 

[Chiroz]

Mostly for the same reason vectoring received backlash in the first place, it sounds heavy handed and silly and it's just not an intuitive choice for a name of a mechanic that is perfectly fine being called DI. They just changed it to be more in line with the direction you input on the control stick, in a direct effort to make it more intuitive.


I'm getting a little tired of people using made-up "new" or "casual" players and imagining up their sense of interpretation of the term DI as the main crux of their argument.

If someone wants to understand how a mechanic works, they can look it up, like the rest of the Internet. It's not really the name of the mechanics job to explain how it works, whether the name has been used before or not. Names would be a lot longer across the board if that were the case.

That's exactly my point. They can look it up, but if the name is the same they won't immediately realize a new mechanic change. See, you yourself are eliminating your own counterarguments. There's no reason why you couldn't name it a different name as it could be looked up. Yet if it has the same name when people look them up they don't know it changed.

It's already happening, I am not making up players. Just go into a more casual discussion forums than Smashboards. Start talking about DI, talk about it for a bit and then bring up the word VI/FI/KU or Vectoring. If not a single person asks what VI is then I am completely wrong. Yet with only 1 person who asks what is Vectoring/VI/FI/KI that's one person who wouldn't have asked if the term hadn't been brought up and wouldn't have known the mechanic changed. Yet I can assure you it won't be only 1 person. It will be a very great number of people.

 

[wannabe33]

You are saying that we shouldn't care about any new up and comers and should just care about our own small community. That's a really elitist thought. It's not the way I think about things. For me it's more about making the game accessible for everyone so that more people can get interested in the game and the scene of the game grows.

I'm saying it's not the most important reason to clarify the DI / vectoring issue, not that it doesn't matter. I totally get where you're coming from though.

Mostly for the same reason vectoring received backlash in the first place, it sounds heavy handed and silly and it's just not an intuitive choice for a name of a mechanic that is perfectly fine being called DI.

You're making two points here:

1. That vectoring is a clumsy name for the mechanic.
2. That DI is a fine name.

I've already explained why [2] is problematic, and simply asserting it isn't doesn't cut it. Again, please explain why this is any different from the walking / running example. As for [1], it's a separate matter. If you want to argue that we need a new name for vectoring, rather than grandfathering vectoring under the "DI" label, I'd be more receptive to that.

 

[AeonXero]

I actually like the way Vectoring works. :]

 

[ferioku]

No...

Thanks. Im so relieved.

 

[GrownCannoli]

I wonder if @Strongbad knew this was all going to happen lol.

This is the last post I will make in this thread. I sincerely appreciate the work done for this thread but just because Strongbad "found" it first doesn't mean I have to call it vectoring. I will call it DI from now on because that's what I want to do. This is just my opinion and shouldn't get anyone mad.

 

[Greave]

I'm not a mod (obv), but I agree with what a mod said earlier about how the naming debate should be taken to the actual naming debate thread, lol. I'd rather come here to read about and offer ideas on how the new mechanic works, and its implications for Smash. I don't want to hear people bickering about semantics anymore.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

So is it true that this makes combos 100% impossible?

If you were told this outside this topic (or especially outside this board), please give a dope slap to whoever said this. The sky is not falling, thanks.

 

[ferioku]

If you were told this outside this topic (or especially outside this board), please give a dope slap to whoever said this. The sky is not falling, thanks.

Sure will! Looold

 

[Conda]

As has been explained time and time again in this thread, vectoring differs from Melee and Brawl DI in that it adjusts not just angle (DI), but angle plus distance (vectoring). In short, it adds a vector.

This is not a small change. This is a substantial change. Since you talk about movement, here's a better analogy: in Fighter A, you can only move left and right at a set speed; in Fighter A2, you can mash the control stick in either direction and speed up your movement. Fighter A's mechanics use the control stick to adjust just movement direction (walking), but Fighter A2's mechanics use the control stick to adjust for direction plus speed (running). Now imagine a group of people insist we should call running walking. After all, they both involve moving the character, right? They both involve control stick input, right? "Running" is just Fighter A2's version of walking. Someone might say something as follows:

"So, you press your control stick in a direction, and it determines which way your character goes.

Walking."

That would be silly. And it'd be super confusing to new players.

That is not at all what Zipzo was talking about. He's saying while it's different, the name "DI" still fits and can describe VI easier than "VI" can. Making it the better name.

Outside of this thread and forum, people will call it DI because it's the updated version of DI from past games. It uses different things, but DI can and does still explain the mechanics - direction + influence. You no longer change your direction, fine, but you still input a direction. There is no reason to have such a limited definition for a mechanic that has been in the series since the N64.


The math and technicalities do not matter once we learn it and understand "point in the proper direction to influence your knockback." Figuring out what the proper directions and %s are will be a normal process, but once we're done that we have to focus on being able to teach it easily. As a content provider and commentator, DI will let me do it much easier than VI, so I will use DI.

My goal and responsibility to the competitive scene is to bring players into this community, and provide as welcoming a vibe as I can. I have to represent the community in an inclusivist and down-to-earth vibe, but telling people "we renamed a mechanic into a mathematical word because it changed a bit" is the total opposite of what I want to do. It's the type of thing I never want to say to viewers of tournament streams and people who want to learn what the Smash community is like (and if we're as elitist as we are stereotyped as). "Vectoring" doesn't help our case, it's something that newcomers and onlookers can justifiably get a weird and elitist impression from.

 

[wannabe33]

EDIT: I didn't realize we're shifting all name-debate posts to the other thread. Please don't respond to this, as it'll be the last I talk about this topic in here.

That is not at all what Zipzo was talking about. He's saying while it's different, the name "DI" still fits and can describe VI easier than "VI" can. Making it the better name.

Outside of this thread and forum, people will call it DI because it's the updated version of DI from past games. It uses different things, but DI can and does still explain the mechanics - direction + influence. You no longer change your direction, fine, but you still input a direction. There is no reason to have such a limited definition for a mechanic that has been in the series since the N64.


The math and technicalities do not matter once we learn it and understand "point in the proper direction to influence your knockback." Figuring out what the proper directions and %s are will be a normal process, but once we're done that we have to focus on being able to teach it easily. As a content provider and commentator, DI will let me do it much easier than VI, so I will use DI.

My goal and responsibility to the competitive scene is to bring players into this community, and provide as welcoming a vibe as I can. I have to represent the community in an inclusivist and down-to-earth vibe, but telling people "we renamed a mechanic into a mathematical word because it changed a bit" is the total opposite of what I want to do. It's the type of thing I never want to say to viewers of tournament streams and people who want to learn what the Smash community is like (and if we're as elitist as we are stereotyped as). "Vectoring" doesn't help our case, it's something that newcomers and onlookers can justifiably get a weird and elitist impression from.

You are following in Zipzo's footsteps in not addressing the argument.

1. DI is to vectoring as walking is to running.
2. No one in their right mind would treat running as a "kind of walking."
3. We shouldn't treat vectoring as a "kind of DI."

Pick one of the two premises and explain why you disagree with it.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You are following in Zipzo's footsteps in not addressing the argument.

1. DI is to vectoring as walking is to running.
2. No one in their right mind would treat running as a "kind of walking."
3. We shouldn't treat vectoring as a "kind of DI."

Pick one of the two premises and explain why you disagree with it.

He doesn't have to because your preset definitions of the argument are incorrect from the get-go.

1. This analogy is false. A more accurate one would be that DI is to vectoring as moving is to walking or running.

2. No but it is a type of movement. IE Vectoring is a type of DI.

3. Except it is!

For the record so I don't get warned for more off-topic stuff I want to say this has more to do with the classification of the mechanic as a whole, rather than its name.

 

[wannabe33]

He doesn't have to because your preset definitions of the argument are incorrect from the get-go.

1. This analogy is false. A more accurate one would be that DI is to vectoring as moving is to walking or running.

2. No but it is a type of movement. IE Vectoring is a type of DI.

3. Except it is!

For the record so I don't get warned for more off-topic stuff I want to say this has more to do with the classification of the mechanic as a whole, rather than its name.

I've already gotten one infraction for off-topic posting, so I'll just say that you're simply repeating yourself and refuse to address any of the arguments being made. This is a waste of time.