• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

What is the point of Smash DI/SDI?

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Even if you couldn't punish in this instance, how would you ensure the hitstun is correct between hits? I'm sure they compensated for the hitstun to make sure Bayo is relatively safe if you SDI out early, but what about later? Would the hitstun still be the same then? And what about those moves that drag you to the ground with multihits? Would the hitstun be immense there too, or at least more than it should? Even without the specific problem I'm mentioning, it seems like a lot of work to make sure SDI isn't completely broken just to make sure it can make multihit moves seem broken by not linking all the hits.

And the whole reason I bring up what should be done instead of adding SDI is to balance the problematic moves like Bayo's Up-B in other ways. There are so many ways you can make it weaker besides just making people think and feel like the move isn't working as intended and making it inconsistent as a result.
Yea, but those other ways can also butcher the move just as well as SDI could. You're going on a hypothetical and hypothetically, if I were to add 20 frames on end lag, Bayo could now never combo, making the move useless as well. This is why I am trying to reiterate that you shouldn't be talking about SDI as a whole, but about specific examples where you think SDI was not properly balanced.



Just because the developers intend it doesn't make it good. I think that should be obvious to everyone here. Again, I'm not saying SDI should be abolished in all cases, just that it harms more than helps in a lot of the places it is used in.
Again, exactly why they have it set as a specific variable, so that they can fix those specific instances where SDI is doing more harm than good. Obviously no game is perfectly balanced. Landing lag in heavies is way too big and they mostly rely on auto cancel windows, otherwise they can't throw out aerials at all, but that doesn't mean that end lag/landing lag are bad game design concepts as a whole, just that there are some moves/characters where it isn't properly balanced.




The problem comes when you think of why any developer would want to create unreliability as a downside in this specific way. Why not increase DI deviation for that move's launch hitbox rather than the multihit part? At least that part makes sense due to the move being over and fulfilling what it is supposed to do, and fulfills your hypothetical wish for the developers of "possibility of escape". I'm all for extra balancing variables in the code to make moves and their purposes much more varied, but other than niche cases to prevent infinites, when would any developer want a multihit move to visibly cause the player to escape the move long before the move is finished? It's such a ridiculous way to do it considering all the possibilities they already have to create effective nerfs.
If you increase DI as a whole in the game, now you have people surviving until ridiculous amounts. You also have people very easily escaping almost all combos in the game, all to balance a few handful of moves. If what you're saying is have "move specific DI" well, that's exactly what SDI is supposed to be, at least that's what I think they are trying to achieve with it (I might be wrong). If your concern is about how hard/unintuitive SDI is to actually perform, then I agree that it could be made into a simpler input. (Although it couldn't be "just hold a direction" because then everyone will SDI moves without trying and sometimes without wanting to).

You're saying what the move is supposed to do, but in the previous argument I was trying to make a point that I believe that some of those moves are supposed to be inconsistent by design. So in a way, escaping them is part of how they are supposed to work.



I'm pretty sure Yoshi D-Air is still a bit like that in Smash 4, especially if he lands during the escape. Other than that, weren't a lot of multihits in Brawl like this due to SDI being higher overall, especially jab combos? That honestly is a much better admission to how needless the mechanic is overall for multihits if by cutting it so much creates immediately smoother gameplay as a whole.
Yea, but you still had chars like MK, where most of his moves were multi-hits, still obliterating everyone. Tornado was one of the most used moves in the whole game.

Yoshi's D-Air I wouldn't be sure if you can consistently punish it easily after SDIng out of it if Yoshi is moving away from you, I would have to test it (I don't play vs many Yoshi's), but that move is definitely not useless. It creates an immense amount of shield pressure (which I believe is supposed to be it's main purpose), it also serves as a really good lingering hitbox for edge guarding characters returning low. It can also be used in neutral to cover options and control space. The fact that you can't just use it as a straight up attack on top of your opponent in neutral, doesn't mean it doesn't have many other uses.

I would actually argue this is a case where SDI is strictly needed, as that move deals 32% by itself if I am not mistaken. The other argument could be "well, lower it's damage then to 16% and take away SDI" - true, but then it wouldn't be a good shield pressure tool. Although now you could say, "well, raise it's shield damage value" - I guess that's true as well. I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why the move is how it is and doesn't work in another way, but I am trying to make clear that there's a ton of other reasons why decisions are made and that there might be some reasons we aren't aware of or are not thinking of at the moment.




My consensus is that SDI is a "bandaid" (not a perfect fix, but a fix) to design problems that arise in a game that has way too many variables interacting with each other. Any small change to the overall engine can break 1000 other things, so it's easier to add in a mechanic that allows you to fix or create a new kind of interaction than it is to constantly balance all the other variables.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,377
Location
Long Beach,California
Necro'lic Necro'lic , I strongly advise that you look Chiroz Chiroz post. He argued this way more eloquently then I could have.

I’m just gonna say based off of what I read of this post, that from what I understand your desire for SDI are reasonable, however, they are leniar, and don’t deviate outside of the effectiveness of a move besides a move landing all of its hits to achieve maximum damage. There’s nothing wrong with that; that is the goal, but you aren’t going to be landing 100% of the attack’s you throw out, and if you only attach for that reason, you aren’t fooling anyone. Which is why understanding the principles behind why certain moves function the way they do.

Increaasing DI, and nerfing moves instead of implementing one universal function is practical. I mean if the whole village is at one house trying to scew in a light bulb, then who’s building the rest of the village? And personally, I don’t like the idea of needing things, it’s just pandering to the lowest common denomination of an issue. Not to mention it can just make a character / game really ****ing boring. If SDI can fix some problematic, and further resources can be spent building upon the game rather than focus on something inconsequential to the games overall success (multi hit moves landing all hits) then cool. And fixing though modifying SDI works; they did it with Greninja’s Uair from being busted in Smash 3DS to being solid to Smash 4 Wii U.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
654
Necro'lic Necro'lic , I strongly advise that you look Chiroz Chiroz post. He argued this way more eloquently then I could have.

I’m just gonna say based off of what I read of this post, that from what I understand your desire for SDI are reasonable, however, they are leniar, and don’t deviate outside of the effectiveness of a move besides a move landing all of its hits to achieve maximum damage. There’s nothing wrong with that; that is the goal, but you aren’t going to be landing 100% of the attack’s you throw out, and if you only attach for that reason, you aren’t fooling anyone. Which is why understanding the principles behind why certain moves function the way they do.

Increasing DI, and nerfing moves instead of implementing one universal function is practical. I mean if the whole village is at one house trying to scew in a light bulb, then who’s building the rest of the village? And personally, I don’t like the idea of needing things, it’s just pandering to the lowest common denomination of an issue. Not to mention it can just make a character / game really ****ing boring. If SDI can fix some problematic, and further resources can be spent building upon the game rather than focus on something inconsequential to the games overall success (multi hit moves landing all hits) then cool. And fixing though modifying SDI works; they did it with Greninja’s Uair from being busted in Smash 3DS to being solid to Smash 4 Wii U.
You act like dealing with SDI is some monumental goal with your village analogy. You already give an example of them fixing the SDI with a move, and surprise, it involved lowering the value so it becomes less of a factor! And I feel you are trying to make it seem like I'm focusing WAY too much on this one thing when there are bigger fish to fry when the fact is, this is what the thread was about, this is why I posted it, so bringing up other bigger flaws would be simply going off topic. I really don't think this makes or breaks the game as much as you seem to think I do, but it is still an issue nevertheless.

And I'm not sure why you bring up "you aren’t going to be landing 100% of the attack’s you throw out" when this is obvious. I'm not sure how you got this idea of this being my motivation from my arguments. If someone fully misses a multihit move, tough. However, if they do hit it, they deserve the rewards of said hit fully.

Lastly, what do you mean by this?

And personally, I don’t like the idea of needing things, it’s just pandering to the lowest common denomination of an issue. Not to mention it can just make a character / game really ****ing boring.
I'm not understanding what you're getting at here, especially the part saying it makes the game boring. How does having moves function consistently suddenly make the game boring? Does that mean making them work even less consistently to the point of always malfunctioning more exciting? What were you trying to convey here?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to Chiroz Chiroz

Yea, but those other ways can also butcher the move just as well as SDI could. You're going on a hypothetical and hypothetically, if I were to add 20 frames on end lag, Bayo could now never combo, making the move useless as well. This is why I am trying to reiterate that you shouldn't be talking about SDI as a whole, but about specific examples where you think SDI was not properly balanced.
At least the move would be functioning properly every time. The problem with the SDI is also a visible inconsistency problem, and nobody likes having a move that they clearly hit not work to the main function of said move. If you just added 20 frames of endlag to Witch Twist, then the move's function now changes to something that doesn't combo. The developer's intention is still intact if SDI is removed from the move, even if it would be balanced poorly.

This is why I try to bring up the difference between design and balance. People conflate the two a lot. It is hard to know exactly which is which sometimes, but I think the best overall idea is "design in a game dictates how something functions; balance in a game dictates how well it achieves its function". You are bringing up a balance issue when SDI is a design issue. Removing SDI is removing a design problem. Now sure, you can rebalance to compensate for the removal of that design issue, but since design integrity is far more important than balance integrity, whatever rebalance you do, no matter how crazy, will inevitably be more favorable than keeping the design problem in (unless you do something insane).

Again, exactly why they have it set as a specific variable, so that they can fix those specific instances where SDI is doing more harm than good. Obviously no game is perfectly balanced. Landing lag in heavies is way too big and they mostly rely on auto cancel windows, otherwise they can't throw out aerials at all, but that doesn't mean that end lag/landing lag are bad game design concepts as a whole, just that there are some moves/characters where it isn't properly balanced.
I skimmed over the first parts of your post and focused on the bigger paragraph and I didn't even see this. I would've definitely replied to you sooner if I saw this, because once again, you are conflating design and balance. The existence of endlag and landing lag is, imo, an absolute necessity to a platforming fighter's design. SDI, I will still posit, is not, at least not as much as it is used. Bringing up endlag/landing lag on certain moves being imbalanced doesn't change the fact that SDI is a bad design choice, at least most of the time.

Your overall post seems to be "look at the nuance of this" and trust me, I have. I have even admitted that SDI is necessary for certain moves, but it is criminally overused throughout multihit moves when just removing it in those cases can solve at least a few problems.

You're saying what the move is supposed to do, but in the previous argument I was trying to make a point that I believe that some of those moves are supposed to be inconsistent by design. So in a way, escaping them is part of how they are supposed to work.
And I remember saying that making a move inconsistent in this way is a horrible idea for a competitive game.

If you increase DI as a whole in the game, now you have people surviving until ridiculous amounts. You also have people very easily escaping almost all combos in the game, all to balance a few handful of moves. If what you're saying is have "move specific DI" well, that's exactly what SDI is supposed to be, at least that's what I think they are trying to achieve with it (I might be wrong). If your concern is about how hard/unintuitive SDI is to actually perform, then I agree that it could be made into a simpler input. (Although it couldn't be "just hold a direction" because then everyone will SDI moves without trying and sometimes without wanting to).
SDI is not "move specific DI", because DI and SDI are fundamentally different things. And while I would like a simpler input too, it still isn't my point. And note when I said "increase DI deviation", it was only to that one particular move from Bayo, not to all multihits. Please don't try to twist my words into an extreme that I don't actually support.

I would actually argue this is a case where SDI is strictly needed, as that move deals 32% by itself if I am not mistaken. The other argument could be "well, lower it's damage then to 16% and take away SDI" - true, but then it wouldn't be a good shield pressure tool. Although now you could say, "well, raise it's shield damage value" - I guess that's true as well. I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why the move is how it is and doesn't work in another way, but I am trying to make clear that there's a ton of other reasons why decisions are made and that there might be some reasons we aren't aware of or are not thinking of at the moment.
Your train of thought at the beginning of this quote is exactly how you would fix up a move like Yoshi's DAir. And in the end, it still achieves its goal of being good at shield pressure, while also being consistent to hit with! Overall, it is a win.

And even with your apprehension of the interlocking mechanics of the game, I would simply note that, from what I've seen of the mechanics of this game, they are TOO interlocking. For example, a move's damage controls its hitstun, its knockback, and its shield damage and shieldstun. Why? This makes the game so much harder to balance since increasing damage of a move, a pretty simple number change, causes way too many background changes. My point is that even with the caution that these decisions have reasoning behind them, they can still be improved regardless.
 
Last edited:

VeryUncreative

Smash Cadet
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
25
Location
The Great White North
After reading through this thread these are my thoughts:

SDI has no place in Smash 4. Most instances where SDI is the optimal answer is simply due to suboptimal game design. (Witch twist and others.) There are other solutions to each instance and I believe Necro'lic has stated some in other posts. SDI really does not add anything to the game other than to ruin the intended function of a multihit move. The devs should not make the answer to a move an inconsistent relatively obscurish mechanic. Even the infinites can't be SDI d (Mewtwo, Peach.)

I cannot speak for Brawl as I have never seriously played it.

However, SDI is much more interesting and useful in Melee. SDI ing into a wall or floor and teching is a useful tool against the very good low angle moves (Falco DSmash, Marth DTilt). This leads to an RPS type mindgame, as reacting to these moves is impossible, but are punishable if read and SDI is used. But if the opponents reads you're going to SDI, a different move can be used to counter that. As this usally happens as you're offstage in disadvantage, it makes sense that it would be difficult to do. If you fail, you're back in disadvantage probably in a worse position.
Unfortunately, SDI ing is still relatively inconsistent, and completely ruins the multihit moves due to the lack of autolink angles, and can make other more-than-one-hit-moves-but-not-a-crazy-number-of-hits-like-zelda's-Usmash fail, such as the mentioned Fox up air.

My solution would to be this:
+ Make ASDI longer (Remove the inconsistency of regular SDI)
+ Remove SDI (ditto)
+ ASDI now works only if Cstick moves during hitstun (You must read the move. Could also lead to interesting option selects. Prevents buffering. (This could already be the case but I'm not sure.))
+ Prevent moves that do less than 2% damage from being ASDI d. (Keep multihit move's intended purpose, just a number - definitely variable)
- Another option would be to have the ASDI length be proportional to the knockback of the move
+ Add SDI teching back. (Interesting ledge play + another onstage defensive mechanic that is not passive)
+ Moves still have an SDI multiplier (Things like Mario up tilts could still string together)
+ ASDI only works backward - the right angles away from the hit direction for a total of 180° (keeps combos working)

These changes would only work in a game with sufficiently long hitstun, allowing you to react to the next position of the opponent and still have tine to follow up. Perhaps the game would have mildly longer freeze frames, to prevent messing up, but it could be already fine.

One of the things I like about Smash is the fact that if you get hit, you are always in disadvantage, but you can control where that disadvantage is. The opponent has to react to your SDI, DI, and how you teched to follow up. This rids the game of solvability - a moves optimal followup changes depending on what the opponent does and you have react, read, or cover the options. There is strategy still when in disadvantage. Unfortunately, SDI is not consistent enough to warrant doing it while hit - you mess up your very important DI with the stick inputs. If SDI was made consistent in a Smash game I would love it. It adds another layer of disadvantage. If my changes were implemented, the optimal ASDI would not always be away, it would change depending on what move hit you, and where you were hit. Again, this removes solvability and increases player interaction.

As for DI, I like it the way it is, It adds interaction for both players in a combo, rather than one waiting for it to be over. The amount is personally fine, or maybe a tad more. If there was too much more the default angle a move sent would no longer matter.

Feel free to rip open my ideas.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
654
After reading through this thread these are my thoughts:

SDI has no place in Smash 4. Most instances where SDI is the optimal answer is simply due to suboptimal game design. (Witch twist and others.) There are other solutions to each instance and I believe Necro'lic has stated some in other posts. SDI really does not add anything to the game other than to ruin the intended function of a multihit move. The devs should not make the answer to a move an inconsistent relatively obscurish mechanic. Even the infinites can't be SDI d (Mewtwo, Peach.)

I cannot speak for Brawl as I have never seriously played it.

However, SDI is much more interesting and useful in Melee. SDI ing into a wall or floor and teching is a useful tool against the very good low angle moves (Falco DSmash, Marth DTilt). This leads to an RPS type mindgame, as reacting to these moves is impossible, but are punishable if read and SDI is used. But if the opponents reads you're going to SDI, a different move can be used to counter that. As this usally happens as you're offstage in disadvantage, it makes sense that it would be difficult to do. If you fail, you're back in disadvantage probably in a worse position.
Unfortunately, SDI ing is still relatively inconsistent, and completely ruins the multihit moves due to the lack of autolink angles, and can make other more-than-one-hit-moves-but-not-a-crazy-number-of-hits-like-zelda's-Usmash fail, such as the mentioned Fox up air.

My solution would to be this:
+ Make ASDI longer (Remove the inconsistency of regular SDI)
+ Remove SDI (ditto)
+ ASDI now works only if Cstick moves during hitstun (You must read the move. Could also lead to interesting option selects. Prevents buffering. (This could already be the case but I'm not sure.))
+ Prevent moves that do less than 2% damage from being ASDI d. (Keep multihit move's intended purpose, just a number - definitely variable)
- Another option would be to have the ASDI length be proportional to the knockback of the move
+ Add SDI teching back. (Interesting ledge play + another onstage defensive mechanic that is not passive)
+ Moves still have an SDI multiplier (Things like Mario up tilts could still string together)
+ ASDI only works backward - the right angles away from the hit direction for a total of 180° (keeps combos working)

These changes would only work in a game with sufficiently long hitstun, allowing you to react to the next position of the opponent and still have tine to follow up. Perhaps the game would have mildly longer freeze frames, to prevent messing up, but it could be already fine.

One of the things I like about Smash is the fact that if you get hit, you are always in disadvantage, but you can control where that disadvantage is. The opponent has to react to your SDI, DI, and how you teched to follow up. This rids the game of solvability - a moves optimal followup changes depending on what the opponent does and you have react, read, or cover the options. There is strategy still when in disadvantage. Unfortunately, SDI is not consistent enough to warrant doing it while hit - you mess up your very important DI with the stick inputs. If SDI was made consistent in a Smash game I would love it. It adds another layer of disadvantage. If my changes were implemented, the optimal ASDI would not always be away, it would change depending on what move hit you, and where you were hit. Again, this removes solvability and increases player interaction.

As for DI, I like it the way it is, It adds interaction for both players in a combo, rather than one waiting for it to be over. The amount is personally fine, or maybe a tad more. If there was too much more the default angle a move sent would no longer matter.

Feel free to rip open my ideas.
Lol, rip open I will. Or at least I would if they weren't overall on point.

However, while I like the "idea" of your idea (ha), I still think regular old DI would work out fine with the "disadvantage control" thing. It's why I advocate for more DI so strongly (along with increased hitstun), because it makes comboing not just a minigame without player interaction like in so many other fighting games. But as is the general idea of mine throughout this discussion, it's not that I don't see the merit of SDI, but that in a lot of cases, it is more trouble than it's worth, especially when it's less flawed cousin, DI, is right there to use for the same purposes.

Going to your list of changes, I definitely like the control being different from the control stick up to a point. However, imagine SDI being removed, but DI being strong again like in Brawl and Melee. At this point, you can simply hold the control stick for however long you are locked into the move and the DI works fine without having to overcomplicate things with the C-Stick action too. Heck, you can even say that because multihits lock you in hitlag for so long, they have an intrinsic downside of allowing the enemy to plan out their DI much better. And look at that! Multihits have an intrinsic downside that doesn't involve unreliability anymore, but simply allowing the opponent to better plan their method of escape. This is a far better ideal interaction, because again, the multihit move itself is consistent.

As for teching, I still think the teching system needs refinement in a few ways... but I won't talk about it here.
 

VeryUncreative

Smash Cadet
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
25
Location
The Great White North
Lol, rip open I will. Or at least I would if they weren't overall on point.

However, while I like the "idea" of your idea (ha), I still think regular old DI would work out fine with the "disadvantage control" thing. It's why I advocate for more DI so strongly (along with increased hitstun), because it makes comboing not just a minigame without player interaction like in so many other fighting games. But as is the general idea of mine throughout this discussion, it's not that I don't see the merit of SDI, but that in a lot of cases, it is more trouble than it's worth, especially when it's less flawed cousin, DI, is right there to use for the same purposes.

Going to your list of changes, I definitely like the control being different from the control stick up to a point. However, imagine SDI being removed, but DI being strong again like in Brawl and Melee. At this point, you can simply hold the control stick for however long you are locked into the move and the DI works fine without having to overcomplicate things with the C-Stick action too. Heck, you can even say that because multihits lock you in hitlag for so long, they have an intrinsic downside of allowing the enemy to plan out their DI much better. And look at that! Multihits have an intrinsic downside that doesn't involve unreliability anymore, but simply allowing the opponent to better plan their method of escape. This is a far better ideal interaction, because again, the multihit move itself is consistent.

As for teching, I still think the teching system needs refinement in a few ways... but I won't talk about it here.
I'm hesitant to completely remove SDI. In Smash 4, it had one main purpose - to escape multihit moves. We both agree that should not be the case. I'm worried though, that by removing it we are getting rid of a great mechanic that just needs some tweaking or re-purposing to shine. I hate the idea of escaping a move; I love the idea of shifting your position slightly while in freeze frames.

Your answer to this would probably again be it's more trouble than it's worth. While I understand that, depth comes from the meta evolving. and the meta only evolves if solutions are found to the current best tactics. I worry that by removing it and not just tweaking it so SDI is consistent and useful, we are removing the solutions to yet unknown tactics. If we didn't learn to SDI Smash 4 Meta Knight's uair, they never would have found the cool dair strings off the side blastzone. I'm sure if Smash 4 doesn't die after Ultimate comes, we would start SDI ing that as well, and Meta Knight's meta (lol) would evolve to a new combo. The thing about SDI is it's meant to be hard - if it wasn't, and it was easy and no trouble at all, then those combos would be pointless. If there was no SDI, those combos would never evolve. The trouble is what keeps the meta from stagnating.

SDI is not at all necessary to a well designed smash game. You can completely ignore it even at higher levels of play. However, it add just that one layer to combos to keep them ever evolving.

You say DI has the same purposes as SDI. That is true, they both have a purpose in breaking out of combos. However, the difference lies in how well they can do it. SDI ing is hard and reactionary and supplemented with DI you can escape many combos; DI is easy, can be buffered, and is optimal to always use, though it doesn't usually escape true combos.

My ideas for changing SDI retain the difficulty of SDI, while adding consistency, and re-introducing an interesting mechanic. The difficulty is no longer physical, it is timing.

I guess my point is because SDI is hard and great supplemented with DI, it's only done to escape the truly perilous combos. Sure, that's bad design, but if SDI is made consistent with practice and the combo it escapes is hard, the combo isn't too OP.

I keep my opinion from the first post. SDI is a mechanic to reign in amazing combos, but was just implemented badly.

I have a question for you. Since you would do away with SDI, would you change DI any more than making it change the direction more? Would you bring back vectoring?
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,512
I have a question for you. Since you would do away with SDI, would you change DI any more than making it change the direction more? Would you bring back vectoring?
Vectoring wasn't even a mechanic in the first place. The mechanic you think of is Launch Speed Influence (LSI). It only works like this: holding up increases knockback, and holding down decreases knockback. Not holding with or against knockback, but purely up or down. Yes, it is dumb.

I personally want DI and LSI to work in relation to the knockback angle: holding the stick parallel to knockback increases it while holding the stick opposite to knockback decreases it. Holding the stick perpendicular to knockback maximizes the angle deviation that DI provides. Both are combined so that it varies how much the angle or knockback is changed depending on the victims stick position.
 

VeryUncreative

Smash Cadet
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
25
Location
The Great White North
Vectoring wasn't even a mechanic in the first place. The mechanic you think of is Launch Speed Influence (LSI). It only works like this: holding up increases knockback, and holding down decreases knockback. Not holding with or against knockback, but purely up or down. Yes, it is dumb.

I personally want DI and LSI to work in relation to the knockback angle: holding the stick parallel to knockback increases it while holding the stick opposite to knockback decreases it. Holding the stick perpendicular to knockback maximizes the angle deviation that DI provides. Both are combined so that it varies how much the angle or knockback is changed depending on the victims stick position.
Huh, I didn't know about LSI. Having two mechanics on the same stick seem pointlessly overcomplicated. It's not a horrible mechanic though, as instinctively holding in after being knocked away, and holding out while being comboed would never put you in a worse position. (Unless you're being spiked, in which case you're probably dead anyway.) Strangely enough, the devs replaced it with an even more complicated system; they removed LSI from prominently vertical knockback moves. I don't see why they didn't just keep DI or do something like what you suggested.

I'm sure the devs had a reason. They may be dumb, but they're not stupid. I'm probably missing something like it was the lesser of two evils.

SDI, DI, and LSI on one stick lol. Did they want to ruin our left thumbs?
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,512
Huh, I didn't know about LSI. Having two mechanics on the same stick seem pointlessly overcomplicated. It's not a horrible mechanic though, as instinctively holding in after being knocked away, and holding out while being comboed would never put you in a worse position. (Unless you're being spiked, in which case you're probably dead anyway.) Strangely enough, the devs replaced it with an even more complicated system; they removed LSI from prominently vertical knockback moves. I don't see why they didn't just keep DI or do something like what you suggested.

I'm sure the devs had a reason. They may be dumb, but they're not stupid. I'm probably missing something like it was the lesser of two evils.

SDI, DI, and LSI on one stick lol. Did they want to ruin our left thumbs?
I assume the reason they designed LSI the way they did is because holding the stick purely up or down makes things easier on the victim. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of finding out the launch angle and seems intuitive.

But now that I think about it, Ultimate's new training mode has those trajectory lines. Maybe they could revamp DI and LSI to work parallel to the launch angle since training is going to remove the guesswork entirely.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,512
You know something? I don't understand why the SDI multiplier has to be used on every multi-hit move. Wouldn't just be enough for rapid jabs to have small SDI, single-hitter attacks to have large SDI, and for multi-hitters to have no SDI on the initial hits only to have large SDI on the last hit? I'm starting to think that SDI is just a good mechanic that's used in such an awful, awful way that punishes too many moves.
 

Necro'lic

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
654
You know something? I don't understand why the SDI multiplier has to be used on every multi-hit move. Wouldn't just be enough for rapid jabs to have small SDI, single-hitter attacks to have large SDI, and for multi-hitters to have no SDI on the initial hits only to have large SDI on the last hit? I'm starting to think that SDI is just a good mechanic that's used in such an awful, awful way that punishes too many moves.
This was literally my thought process throughout this thread lol.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,512
This was literally my thought process throughout this thread lol.
It feels like in 64 and Melee, SDI absolutely was a bad mechanic since it neutered multihitters with impunity. The SDI multiplier turned it into a good mechanic, but they're somehow trying to keep 64 and Melee's design philosophy regarding it.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,377
Location
Long Beach,California
It feels like in 64 and Melee, SDI absolutely was a bad mechanic since it neutered multihitters with impunity. The SDI multiplier turned it into a good mechanic, but they're somehow trying to keep 64 and Melee's design philosophy regarding it.
What do you propose would be a good way to use it? I’m very interested honestly.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,512
What do you propose would be a good way to use it? I’m very interested honestly.
Pretty much what I said earlier:

Wouldn't just be enough for rapid jabs to have small SDI, single-hitter attacks to have large SDI, and for multi-hitters to have no SDI on the initial hits only to have large SDI on the last hit? I'm starting to think that SDI is just a good mechanic that's used in such an awful, awful way that punishes too many moves.
This way, this allows good interplay between the attacker and opponent in a combo, gives the victim a skill-based way to slightly change their direction when being launched, and doesn't neuter the reliability multi-hit attacks while still giving the victim a fair chance.
 
Top Bottom