-Philip Coast Philip-
Smash Ace
I put a poll into this thread, the options available aren't related to the leading post ~ Shaya
This thread is to discuss the name for the mechanics behind "moving your character in the air" between Melee/Brawl and Smash 4. My main arguments and select arguments made by other posters will be included in this post.
The point is that there's a concern to distinguish mechanics between the games. Will Smashers be confused by the mixing of old terminology with new mechanics? Will giving this new mechanic a new name be beneficial for the community as a whole? I argue that it will not.
If we are to call the Smash 4 mechanic "vectoring" based solely on how the game interprets the action of moving the control stick, then by that logic we should call "airdodging" something like "airsliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee. More importantly, it's hasty to invent new terms when legacy terms capture the essence of the action perfectly enough (looking at you hurtbubbles (sorry Kadano ). "Directional influence" does not describe the underlying mechanic used by the game but the overt input as performed by the player to interact with this mechanic. Thus, the term "directional influence" is adequate, accurate, and ubiquitous.
The most important takeaway of Strong Bad's post is his prediction/conclusion that combos will take on a different form of execution based on this new mechanic. His efforts have been beneficial for recognizing this distinction.
Counter 1: Does Directional Influence only refer to the "direction" of the trajectory?
The argument that directional influence only refers to the "direction" of the trajectory falls apart. Vectoring refers to addition and subtraction from the trajectory, while the mechanic described in Strong Bad's post above
Counter 2: "Will using "DI" across games cause confusion for gamers new and old?"
The argument that different "DI" across games will confusion is a slippery slope, at best, and I think very misleading, at worst. Again I bring to your attention the air-dodging argument: Shall we call air-dodging "air-sliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee? And yet everyone understands that "air-dodging" and "air-sliding" are the same thing, because everyone understands that Brawl doesn't allow you to air-dodge in a direction.
Again, "direction." Not "air-vectoring." > >
The conflation here stems from the unintuitive complexity of Melee or Brawl's DI mechanic, as compared to the intuitive simplicity of Smash 4's mechanic. Just because Melee is confusing doesn't mean that people will be confused when they learn that Smash 4's mechanic is different than Melee or Brawl's.
To really underline it again, the key argument I'm making here is that we're naming the action, and not the mechanic behind it. We didn't call it L-canceling for Smash 64 we called it Z-canceling because we used Z. We didn't call it lag-canceling (at first) for Melee because L-canceling described the action everyone was doing - using the L-button. Likewise, we distinguish from "auto-canceling" because that canceling doesn't require pressing a button - it's automatic. Or in the case of Peach, it comes from her float (which would be a type of auto-cancel, in this case).
Looking through Strong Bad's thread I see that at least a few of you do not immediately understand this though so I will make an extra example.
Let's take something simple like the action of shutting a door. Now, some doors only shut horizontally, like most car doors, while some doors only shut vertically, like the DeLorean. So if we tried to apply a "shutting" action onto a door, some doors will only respond in a vertical way as opposed to a horizontal direction of movement. But we don't distinguish between a horizontal and a vertical motion of shutting - like, HS or VS - we just call it "shutting the door." This is exactly the case for a term like DI, which describes the action and not how the game responds to that action with its underlying mechanic.
Selections of other poster's arguments are below.
Conda's post is good I think.
TL? wrote out some additional thoughts.
This thread is to discuss the name for the mechanics behind "moving your character in the air" between Melee/Brawl and Smash 4. My main arguments and select arguments made by other posters will be included in this post.
The point is that there's a concern to distinguish mechanics between the games. Will Smashers be confused by the mixing of old terminology with new mechanics? Will giving this new mechanic a new name be beneficial for the community as a whole? I argue that it will not.
If we are to call the Smash 4 mechanic "vectoring" based solely on how the game interprets the action of moving the control stick, then by that logic we should call "airdodging" something like "airsliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee. More importantly, it's hasty to invent new terms when legacy terms capture the essence of the action perfectly enough (looking at you hurtbubbles (sorry Kadano ). "Directional influence" does not describe the underlying mechanic used by the game but the overt input as performed by the player to interact with this mechanic. Thus, the term "directional influence" is adequate, accurate, and ubiquitous.
The most important takeaway of Strong Bad's post is his prediction/conclusion that combos will take on a different form of execution based on this new mechanic. His efforts have been beneficial for recognizing this distinction.
I made a quick graphic to help explain this to people (especially those unfamiliar with vectors).
Hope it helps =x
And as jokingly put for simplicity,We tested this based on feel. We had a general feeling of what percents moves ceased to combo; Sheik's D-throw would stop comboing at (some percent, varies on victim) without any vectoring, and they would visually go a specific distance. After implementing vectoring, not only would we go that much distance, but would be able to act sooner than if we were simply at that percentage. It'd also be really strange to suffer less hitstun if you vectored against knockback.
Unlike with trajectory DI, with Vectoring, you are unable to alter the distribution of KB. Despite going left or right, the vertical component of KB remains unchanged, simply a new component of horizontal momentum is added.
Graphic by @Teneban shows the differences between Vectoring/Vector Influence and Directional Influence.
Note how in the right portion of the graphic, the range of directional influence creates an arc, while in the left graphic, it's purely a square. This is because Directional Influence rotates vectors. Vectoring (or Vector Influence, or whatever you want to call it) adds an additional vector, uninhibited by the original trajectory of the attack.
Counter 1: Does Directional Influence only refer to the "direction" of the trajectory?
The argument that directional influence only refers to the "direction" of the trajectory falls apart. Vectoring refers to addition and subtraction from the trajectory, while the mechanic described in Strong Bad's post above
says that DI uses rotational vectoring to calculate its trajectory. Here, it is stated that both mechanics involve vectors, but that one refers to additive vectors while the other is rotational. Thus, "directional" cannot refer to the fact that you can only influence the direction of your trajectory and not the distance of your trajectory in Melee DI, but instead refers to the fact that you're moving the control stick in a direction to influence where your character goes after being hit.This is because Directional Influence rotates vectors. Vectoring (or Vector Influence, or whatever you want to call it) adds an additional vector, uninhibited by the original trajectory of the attack.
By the logic that we should call it "vectoring," then it would be right to retroactively name Melee DI "rotationaling" or "Angular Influence."First and foremost, thank you for your work on this and for providing a clear and well-written post on the matter. This information is very helpful early in the public's hands.
On the matter of the naming: the name for Directional Influence should not be changed simply because the mechanics are somewhat different. I could see if it was an entirely new mechanic that was being discussed, but not simply because the designers decided to modify DI's execution.
For those who think this is an entirely different mechanic, I will let the definition speak for itself.
"Directional influence, abbreviated DI, is the control the receiver of an attack has over his or her trajectory."
- SmashWiki
"Pressing a direction while getting hit to change the trajectory of one's flight."
- StrategyWiki
"Directional Influence is when you aim for the direction you want to go when being launched."
- Smashpedia
"Directional Influence (DI): Will alter your trajectory to help you survive better."
- AlphaZealot via Smashboards
Counter 2: "Will using "DI" across games cause confusion for gamers new and old?"
The argument that different "DI" across games will confusion is a slippery slope, at best, and I think very misleading, at worst. Again I bring to your attention the air-dodging argument: Shall we call air-dodging "air-sliding" because the mechanic is different in Brawl than it is in Melee? And yet everyone understands that "air-dodging" and "air-sliding" are the same thing, because everyone understands that Brawl doesn't allow you to air-dodge in a direction.
Again, "direction." Not "air-vectoring." > >
The conflation here stems from the unintuitive complexity of Melee or Brawl's DI mechanic, as compared to the intuitive simplicity of Smash 4's mechanic. Just because Melee is confusing doesn't mean that people will be confused when they learn that Smash 4's mechanic is different than Melee or Brawl's.
To really underline it again, the key argument I'm making here is that we're naming the action, and not the mechanic behind it. We didn't call it L-canceling for Smash 64 we called it Z-canceling because we used Z. We didn't call it lag-canceling (at first) for Melee because L-canceling described the action everyone was doing - using the L-button. Likewise, we distinguish from "auto-canceling" because that canceling doesn't require pressing a button - it's automatic. Or in the case of Peach, it comes from her float (which would be a type of auto-cancel, in this case).
Looking through Strong Bad's thread I see that at least a few of you do not immediately understand this though so I will make an extra example.
Let's take something simple like the action of shutting a door. Now, some doors only shut horizontally, like most car doors, while some doors only shut vertically, like the DeLorean. So if we tried to apply a "shutting" action onto a door, some doors will only respond in a vertical way as opposed to a horizontal direction of movement. But we don't distinguish between a horizontal and a vertical motion of shutting - like, HS or VS - we just call it "shutting the door." This is exactly the case for a term like DI, which describes the action and not how the game responds to that action with its underlying mechanic.
Selections of other poster's arguments are below.
I don't consider myself stagnant: if the vast majority of the community decides to call it "VI" then it will be referred to as VI. Cohesive understanding in our community is stronger than weak understanding of individual items, so while it may be "silly" it still serves its purpose and we move on with it. Excellent example with SF.. . .
Opinion time though: Calling this something other than DI is silly.
You're still "influencing" your "direction" when you're hit. The mechanic is handled differently in this game, but the idea of holding a direction is still there.
As an example from another game series, SF2 and SF3/4 all have links, but they're handled differently in SF2 than they are in SF3/4. We still call them links though because the general idea is the same.
. . .
To be fair, you're still influencing the direction of something, so I don't see why we still couldn't just call it DI and clarify that it's just different in this game than the past ones. If this is truly what's going on, then it's the only thing there to take DI's place anyway.
. . .
"VI" is still a form of directional influence, therefore there is nothing inaccurate about simply calling this mechanic DI.
. . .
Exactly. The developers changed the mechanics of DI - this is supposed to be replacing the old directional influence. Thus DI is still fitting.
It would be allowed to be retroactively named this then, yes.My question is, why didn't we call melee DI something different, with Vectoring in the title? ie "rotational vectoring"?
It seemed intuitive to me that the constituents of trajectory were not new but the math used to handle them would be. I can't easily express my understanding of Melee's trajectory mechanic, but Smash 4's mechanic is intuitive. Also, the math does matter, but does not necessarily need to be reflected in our terminology.Vectoring implies that the game is just now using vectors. No, vectors have been used for all of the games, but rotated instead of added.
. . .
But vectors themselves aren't new, which makes "Vectoring" a term that's just trying to sound cool.
These are the feelings I get as well.Imo, when it comes to naming, we're getting caught in the 'this is a new technical mechanic, let's name it something mechanical and technical" trap.
This is more or less my argument.. . .
edit: IMO, DI should be a blanket term for ALL post-knockback position-altering in smash bros. This new thing, whatever it's going to be called, is more like a subspecies of DI exclusive to smash 4.
I wrote my argument before I saw your post, just to let you know. Good example.We didn't have to call Airdodges different things in Brawl, even though they worked very differently than in melee.
People can be told once and then be expected to remember, with all of everything else we pick up in Smash this seems miniscule in comparison.. . .
Some mechanics work different in other games of a series, it doesn't mean said mechanic gets a new term. Anyone who truly is interested in playing multiple iterations of Smash is likely very keenly aware at that point that some mechanics probably differ, and it's up to them to do that research to inform themselves of the details.
Hm.This does not mean we need to call the mechanic 'vectoring', as it is obscure, uninformative, and lacks any conveyance whatsoever. We can do better.
Saying "you add a vector" is not conveyance. It's like saying "thermodynamics is thermodynamics" Vector is not a good word to use for the name of the AT, simply put. This is not meant to be combative, it is meant to be constructive. The smash community has a history of choosing accurate and conveying names for its ATs, let's not stop now.
. . .
We have to stand back and not get as attached to the scientific name. This is something scientists have to do often, but is a worthwhile endeavour.
Agreed, but some naming discussion is good too, if not inevitable at some point, heh.There is also no shame in accepting "DI" as the word to use when talking about influencing knockback properties in Smash. It does not have to mean we are talking about "specifically direction-altering inputs", but "DI" has become a word of its own now, which may need to have more wide application in the Smash community. It's a good thing to have an eloquent and characteristic vocabulary develop, and we shouldn't think too OCD-ishly technical about naming.
. . .
Indeed it seems at least LoL players are using the term "proc" to describe any triggered on-hit attacks and not just "programmed random occurences." I mean 'random' is literally in the acronym right there... heh.. . .
"Aggro" is a word used in every MMO, even if the MMO doesnt technically have the traditional aggro mechanic.
There can be Melee DI and Smash 4 DI. We'll call it DI, but it's clear its different between both games. That's how you'll differentiate between them.
. . .
We do have some exceptions, yes. DACUS was silly, heh.Yes. It's like DACUS - Dash attack cancel up smash. A silly name, but it didn't try to be anything flashy or cool. It was accurate, dorky, but had conveyance.
Specifically, I think "vectoring" is poor because its categorically separate than what DI refers to. I actually don't know how we got the name wavedash, but it came off as goofy to me at first.. . .
"Vectoring" exercises bad naming practises and isn't useful. Fighting games name their technical mechanics something non-technical sounding - that's the whole point of naming them. We may as well call Dodging "L-input attack cancelling" and Spot Dodging "hitbox -liminating"
But we don't, we call them interesting and easy-to-grasp terms. A Short-Hop isn't called a "fractional jump", it is Short-Hop." And thank the gods we didn't name "wavedash" something technical-sounding and goofy.
I actually attribute this to the community's handling of their response. Too much it seemed that people seemed to pointing to the fact that it had a 'special name' in the game - that's not the point. A simple game design argument suffices: 'Ask me, else the game crash, what kind of response would be programmed into the game for air-dodging into the ground, a slide, or a full stop? It was an already-designed aspect of the game itself; it's not possible for it to be a glitch.'Wavedash sounds super goofy/technical, actually.
If we'd called L-cancelling "Soft landing" like Nintendo does, and called Wavedashing "airdodge slide", I'm almost sure we wouldn't get half as many casuals who get caught up in calling them glitches.
Very early on a player once told me I had good DI, and this was before I even knew what DI was. Then I heard about DI and started doing it wrong. Then someone corrected me and I had to relearn it a third time. Indeed, this new mechanic is intuitive.I'm willing to bet money that DI was changed to vector addition because this is INSTINCTIVELY what most players do when they're hit if they don't know how past DI works. If they're smacked out, they want to get back to the stage, so what direction do they hold? The direction towards the stage. If they're being truly combed, they hold the control stick in the direction they want to go to avoid the next hit.
This is definitely designed to be more intuitive than figuring out what angle the player needs to hold to use old DI. This is also how I thought old DI worked before I realized DI was a thing instead of just hoping that I could hold the control stick hard enough to not get KOed like holding down the B button when catching a Pokemon as a good luck ritual. I'm totally for this.
Conda's post is good I think.
TL? wrote out some additional thoughts.
Last edited by a moderator: