Ban coaching

[infomon]

What happens in other sports is wholly irrelevant to what TOs should decide is good for smash.

 

[trash?]

and what's good for smash is not the whinings of players who need something to john for their loss, so they blame it on the fact that someone said something to your opponent once

you are why everyone else considers smash's comp community to be laughable

 

[Jessup124]

I agree with OP, coaching DURING A SET should be banned.

 

[Nihonjin]

let's ban coaches from boxing while we're at it, clearly they're hurting the metagame. actually, let's just ban coaches from every single sport and competitive game, because having a second opinion is CHEATING and WRONG and I HATE IT

If you're not going to address the arguments, why bother posting? Other sports are irrelevant.

I don't see how a player getting advice from a coach after their set is over and they are waiting for their next one is that bad.

It's not.

In the second situation you merely have a second party giving you advice for what you could possibly improve on/watch out for in your next set. Whether you apply those is up to you.

Pretty much. So long as you're not in the middle of a tournament set what you do with your free time is entirely up to you.
But from the moment you start stage striking to when you shake hands at the end, you should be on your own.

Then I guess I want you to be more specific. Having three to five minutes of pow-wow time with your coach between every match of this best-of-five set? I get that being detrimental (more for time reasons than thinking it'll have any real impact on the match, but still, I agree with the important part that it needs to stop). Me sitting next to my buddy in finals going "Hey, do x less/more," seems perfectly fine.

Both shouldn't happen.

If your friend should do X more/less, then he'll have to come up with it himself. If you tell him and he wins because of that, you've just screwed over his opponent, since he was actually winning until you interfered.

I just don't want people getting yelled at for acting like human beings to one another and talking/giving offhand advice.

Following the rule set is also part of acting like a human. It's not that hard to save your advice for after the set is finished. You tell your buddy what they could've, maybe even should've done to win, without influencing the outcome of the set they're playing.

Also, if we're banning coaches, I want to ban headphones. Maybe some people can't afford headphones, so it isn't fair they get to block out noise/listen to music while some don't. /sarcasm /iknowthisisn'tanargument /jokes

I'm glad you're not serious.

 

[trash?]

"you're johning because someone figured out a single flaw and you can't handle that, when any other player is good enough to where a single flaw is nothing and at worst can be easily covered up" is my argument, if you haven't been paying attention

I'm calling you the scrubbest scrub to ever scrub, get good

 

[Twewy]

The only logical solution is to ban it entirely.

 

[Accelerator]

Absolutely agree.

 

[C_Mill24]

I never liked coaching to begin with. If you don't know how to adapt during a match (which is something I tend to struggle with), that's something you need to learn how to do. Coaching I won't say is like hand holding, but it feels like the player needing coaching, when they win the set, it seems like they had a little bit of outside help.

I agree with banning coaching during a set.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Hm... This fits too much inline with say shout-outs from the crowd as well as a player shouting out-loud to try dropping an Ice Climber chain grab lol If you would be against some coaching in a set, then I cannot see a person saying that the crowd shouting non-nonsensically comments is not also an external factor. In which case should be banned as well. But, the thing is I doubt anyone would be pro-ban coaching mid-match and trying to silence the people watching at the same time.

To me, coaching would be an attempt at a positive influence to say a players moral or decision making process. The same thing for the crowd shouting out as well can negative or positively affect a player's moral and decision making. I find it hard to believe that they are not virtually the same thing and accept any counter arguments against this rational.

 

[Engo]

"you're johning because someone figured out a single flaw and you can't handle that, when any other player is good enough to where a single flaw is nothing and at worst can be easily covered up" is my argument, if you haven't been paying attention

I'm calling you the scrubbest scrub to ever scrub, get good

First of all according to your hypothetical he's a scrub but let's congratulate the other player who discovered that fatal weakness in the other player's game, right? Oh wait he didn't do it his coach did it for him and if he hadn't then the other player would not have won. The most deciding factor of the match came not from your opponent but from their coach. That sounds like 2v1 to me.

Second of all do you have any idea who you're talking to? This guy was the best player in Europe and has beaten Armada,Jman, and other legendary players before. I hate to use ad hominems but if you're gonna use one this ignorantly let me ask you who are you compared to amsah?

 

[trash?]

m2k johns just as much as he is right now, not much of an argument with skill level. it's an excuse, your mangos and hungryboxes can beat you perfectly fine without a coach

 

[Engo]

yet to actually address the argument. no one cares about your opinions on players.

If the fatal weakness is found not by the opponent but by his coach then it's basically a 2v1 is it not? That player would not have won other wise.Why doesn't the player have the skill to do it on his own? It sounds like 2v1. It's 1v1 tournament is it not?

 

[trash?]

I don't see that as a problem, because it's tiny, the crowd could do just as much as a coach could. it's so insignificant, because a coach can't magically make you a good enough player to win again, they can point out one or two things and if your opponent is competent enough, they should be thinking ahead and bait you. it's a john, as much as it being cold outside is a john; anything can technically count as affecting you, but unless you were just barely winning and this excuse meant just enough, it's an excuse nonetheless and could be easily evened out with even slightly more effort

I'd like to see even one example where a coaching was the difference between someone losing horribly and winning handily, mostly from here to the FGC I hear complaints and no examples of it mattering

e: throwing this out there also: other sports matter. ESPECIALLY BOXING like the entire point of coaches in boxing is for them to tell you any holes in your opponent and to give you a strategy. that is their single purpose out there, to try and drop an argument you don't like as "irrelevant" isn't helping you

 

[Engo]

But why should your opponent have to play not only against you but also whatever adjustments your coach told you to make? Again this sounds like a 2v1 situation not a 1v1. Why are we allowing a 2v1 situation in a 1v1 tournament? It's not just something "affecting your play" it's someone directly telling you what to do to make you play better in the middle of a tournament set. This game is not just execution. It's mental too and you're putting one mind versus two. That is not supposed to happen in ONE v ONE tournament. it's not a matter of saying "well that coach didn't help him that much anyway" it's a matter of asking why are we allowing a 2v1 situation in the first place?

In regards to the crowd, it's not like someone in the crowd can yell out any significant analysis/advice in a loud room full of cheering spectators. Even if they could both players could hear the advice.

 

[TheNewbLu]

Support staff in e-sports is not a new concept,though it may be new to smash. If you ever watch any sort of high level competitive game where the player/team has outside people helping them learn/improve/whatever those people are not allowed to sit next to their players while they play. I personally don't care about this at all i just thought i would point this out. (not to mention sometimes players play in soundproof booths)
See: League of Legends,DotA 2,CS ,etc.

 

[ElectricCitrus]

How is it a 2v1 though? Is the coach physically picking up a controller? No, he/she is just giving tips and advice. If the opponent is actually decent they'll be listening in and adjust what they are doing to try and screw with the coach. That's not 2v1 it's just more adaptation needing to be done.

The person getting coached would have to adapt to what the coach is saying and the opponent would need to adapt to that also. It's not like coach's are whispering in the ears of the players. Everyone can hear them. Everyone can adapt.

 

[Piisuke]

Reading through this topic is hilarious. The pro arguments I have seen so far are:

1. It happens in X sport, so why not here?
2. It happens in other FGC games, so why not here?
3. I don't understand how they can have an affect
4. Go get a coach yourself
5. You can't stop people shouting from the public, so why ban coaches?

You can't stop people shouting from the public, so why ban coaches?

You can't stop people shouting, in general, during tournament play. However, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Simply because people are shouting from the crowd, doesn't mean that coaches are ok. What happens in a crowd has nothing to do with coaches whom sit next to you and is a completely seperate issue, of which Armada and M2K have talked about recently.

Go get a coach yourself

So, I have actually seen this comment a lot more, both on FB and here, than I'd like to have seen.
So, it has become a game of "who you know" all of a sudden? If I was buddies with Nihonjin, but John Doe wasn't, it's JD's fault for not having someone like Nihonjin, or Marc as a friend? What kind of logic is that? Not everyone has the same kind of resources and not everyone is sponsored by Curse, etc.

It happens in X sport, so why not here? / It happens in other FGC games, so why not here?

These two are really the same question, just phrased differently. Boxing, wrestling and tennis are some of the sports thrown out there.

First of all, just because it happens in other sports, does that mean it needs to happen in Smash? Why is that even used as an argument? Heck, on-court coaches in Tennis are banned anyway, apart from women's tennis, so do people even know their sports?
Aside from that Federer recently has come out and said he's against it.
Somebody else used wrestling as an argument where the coach talks you through the entire match. If that is actually true, wrestling is even worse of a sport than I thought it was. Why doesn't the coach wrestle instead then?

Aside from that, because it happens in actual sports, does that mean it needs to happen here?

And on that note, just because it happens in other FGC communities, does that mean we have to blindly follow suit? Doesn't the Smash community take pride in the fact they have stood the test of time? Did what we did without copying from other FGC communities? So why are now suddenly stealing their ideas?

Do people also realize that matches in other FGC communities are relatively shorter? A max of 99 seconds, two rounds, best of 3/5 is a lot shorter than a 4 stock best of 3 match with a time limit of EIGHT MINUTES. We already have button warmers (Leffen used a whopping three minutes at Evo 14), why even make things last longer?

Also, did people not watch CEO? The only thing that was worse was MLG's adverts.

I don't understand how they can have an affect

I don't even know how can argue against this, but here goes anyway:

Chris G vs Justin Wong Evolution 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73fcZo4fq6o I'd recommend watching the whole video, simply because it is awesome, but Justin asks for help a couple of times during that set. More key, when he did, he won that round and switched the momentum instantly.

Hee San Woo vs AS Reynold Evolution 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73fcZo4fq6o As Reynold gets advice several times throughout the GF set and he obviously benefited from it.

Louffy vs Bonchant Evolution 2014
http://www.twitch.tv/srkevo1/c/4659360 GF starts at around the 1:57 mark. However, he gets advice throughout the entire losers bracket, however, it was most key during the GF set, as he was getting help from UK's Ryan Hart who's a Sagat player himself.

How is it a 2v1 though? Is the coach physically picking up a controller? No, he/she is just giving tips and advice. If the opponent is actually decent they'll be listening in and adjust what they are doing to try and screw with the coach. That's not 2v1 it's just more adaptation needing to be done.

The person getting coached would have to adapt to what the coach is saying and the opponent would need to adapt to that also. It's not like coach's are whispering in the ears of the players. Everyone can hear them. Everyone can adapt.

How is it not? Did you not read the topic? So if you made the same mistake every single time without knowing and you were then told by your coach you were doing this, would you still do it?
Or what if your coach told you your opponent did the same thing over and over and you now realized and can punish your opponent for it? How is it not 2v1? Just because he physically doesn't have a controller in his hands it is not advantage you? Get real.

 

[Nihonjin]

Hm... This fits too much inline with say shout-outs from the crowd as well as a player shouting out-loud to try dropping an Ice Climber chain grab lol If you would be against some coaching in a set, then I cannot see a person saying that the crowd shouting non-nonsensically comments is not also an external factor. In which case should be banned as well. But, the thing is I doubt anyone would be pro-ban coaching mid-match and trying to silence the people watching at the same time.

Crowds are a separate issue. It's a similar, but separate topic. As requested in my first post, I'd like to avoid derailing this specific discussion to one about the crowd.

To me, coaching would be an attempt at a positive influence to say a players moral or decision making process. The same thing for the crowd shouting out as well can negative or positively affect a player's moral and decision making. I find it hard to believe that they are not virtually the same thing and accept any counter arguments against this rational.

Being distracted or affected by noise isn't the same thing as receiving tailored advice on how to defeat your opponent.

A good player stays focussed and doesn't let the crowd affect his game. (I personally don't hear them at all, too busy playing to be distracted by noise). Others, knowing that they'd be bothered by it, use earplugs. That's fine too. There's nothing you can do to not be affected by coaching though. If a coach dissects your game, you're affected by it, it's that simple. Whether or not it'll cost you the match is a different issue. But you can't compare it to coaching.

Support staff in e-sports is not a new concept,though it may be new to smash. If you ever watch any sort of high level competitive game where the player/team has outside people helping them learn/improve/whatever those people are not allowed to sit next to their players while they play. I personally don't care about this at all i just thought i would point this out. (not to mention sometimes players play in soundproof booths)
See: League of Legends,DotA 2,CS ,etc.

We don't have a support staff, that's the whole point. It's random friends that happen to be there that help players. It's not a team effort, it's an opportunistic third party helping out one player.

How is it a 2v1 though? Is the coach physically picking up a controller? No, he/she is just giving tips and advice. If the opponent is actually decent they'll be listening in and adjust what they are doing to try and screw with the coach. That's not 2v1 it's just more adaptation needing to be done.

I already explained why it's a 2 on 1 in the opening post.

The person getting coached would have to adapt to what the coach is saying and the opponent would need to adapt to that also. It's not like coach's are whispering in the ears of the players. Everyone can hear them. Everyone can adapt.

They actually do whisper in their players ear.. Besides, good luck trying to figure out what I mean when I coach someone in Dutch, Surinamese or Japanese..

 

[strawhats]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread other than to joyfully say Amsah sama!!!!! Glad you're back...was hoping you would go to EVO (you v aMSa still didn't happen smh u were both at RoF too) but maybe next year. Hope to see you in the states again.

 

[ShredderN64]

It's been said, but we are not trying to ban play analysis and things that are part of the game, we're just saying during sets there should not be any external interaction. It's perfectly fine before and after sets, but it's not fair to have two people thinking for one player. If you want to work together, play doubles.

 

[THK]

Chris G vs Justin Wong Evolution 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73fcZo4fq6o I'd recommend watching the whole video, simply because it is awesome, but Justin asks for help a couple of times during that set. More key, when he did, he won that round and switched the momentum instantly.

Hee San Woo vs AS Reynold Evolution 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73fcZo4fq6o As Reynold gets advice several times throughout the GF set and he obviously benefited from it.

Louffy vs Bonchant Evolution 2014
http://www.twitch.tv/srkevo1/c/4659360 GF starts at around the 1:57 mark. However, he gets advice throughout the entire losers bracket, however, it was most key during the GF set, as he was getting help from UK's Ryan Hart who's a Sagat player himself.

I'd just want to point out any coaching Reynald gets is just telling him to stop messing around and take this seriously, cause that's just the type of guy he is.

Personally, I have no problem with motivators such as that. A friend telling you to calm down (KBrad vs Infiltration at SCR 2014. PR Rog was only telling KBrad to relax and not get angry) or concentrate or stop messing around isn't hurtful imo. Some people just have emotional quirks they can't shake no matter what they do personally (Floe choking at tournaments cause of the sheer amount of people making him nervous).

Actual match advice shouldn't be a thing, or if we're going to have it, have it not be DURING a match (cause let's face it, it's up to the PLAYER to realize what's going wrong) and in between matches you limit that stuff cause what happened at CEO was ridiculous, we already waste enough time with counterpicking and warmups as is.

 

[o-Serin-o]

Lol I feel like it's only kids in this thread who are tryna point out every little comparison without realizing the real life situations that occur from this.

EDIT:

Lemme make this as clear as possible without over-thinking absolutely everything like everybody has tried to do in this thread (mainly the folks who are for coaching.)

You not gonna stop a crowd from getting involved in a match by yelling and hyping **** up, but when the card are laid out, you can't have someone walking around the table telling you "Yo, homeboy got three aces in his hand, you should prolly fold ya hand, b."

Play the hands ya dealt and see what gets played when it gets played. It's really not hard to comprehend.

 

[Overswarm]

The ideas to allow or to ban coaching are both logically consistent. There's no correct answer, it's a matter of preference as both are perfectly fine schools of thought.

If you're going to allow it, what do you get?

• Better matches - people can be told "Hey, you're always DIing his d-throw up and towards him and he gets a free knee. Try down and away." and simple mistakes like that can be destroyed. Likewise, strong punishes from "He always rolls when he's nervous" and other tidbits.
• Better players - You improve much faster in this regard, especially at top level play where improving is basically noticing something and implementing it immediately.
• Stronger community bonding and involvement stories - so-and-so mid-level player is Mew2King's coach makes mid-level player feel good. This is more important than you'd think. Prog has been celebrated as a commentator and an all around cool dude. His smash skill is virtually nonexistent compared to the people he spent the weekend commentating, yet everyone loves Prog! This is because he had an outlet in which to envelop himself within the community and help push us all up. These opportunities for low and mid level players (especially as they get older) are very important. Sooner or later you ask yourself "Is this worth my time? Should I try something else?", and unless you find an outlet like TOing, coaching, commentating, making videos, etc., you'll often find players fizzle out.
• The ability to allow other communications - because if you ban coaching, what do you do if you see someone talking to his friend and he says "I was just saying 'good luck man'"? You'd have to get rid of all of it to be sure.

If you're going to remove it, what do you get?

• More isolated skill testing - Mango vs. Hungrybox will be Mango vs. Hungrybox, not Mango Nation vs. Hungrybox Brigade. This in itself isn't inherently 'better', but if you put yourself in the position of a player who is consistently punishing an opponent's spot dodge and then suddenly someone tells him "STOP SPOT DODGING" and he listens, who is it that you're fighting?
• More established boundaries between players - Yelling hype stuff from the crowd is all fine and good, but if you ban coaching you also get rid of people being up and close to the players. If someone asks, you say "you might be coaching". As someone who has been on stage at MLG, in grand finals of regional tournaments, and trying hard in losers bracket 6 hours from home where I knew hardly anyone there, I can tell you this: people are a huge distraction, to everyone, even when they aren't talking to you. Getting rid of the loud friend of your opponent screaming in your ear while you play = good.
• A stronger community emphasis on reading your opponent - The Smash community, the Melee community ESPECIALLY, is really bad about projecting what they think is "true skill". They'll laugh at scrubs that call the c-stick cheap, but then throw a fit if wobbling or camping out the timer is in the grand finals. This inconsistency exists partially because the ruleset has been so static while at the same time being particularly vague about why it exists (as its mostly patchwork). When you see a rule like "no coaching" and someone asks "Why no coaching?" you can say "It allows more isolated skill testing; you're fighting your opponent, not your opponent and his crew's combined knowledge. YOU have to read your opponent, YOU have to know the matchup, YOU have to realize when you're making mistakes." and this sets a mental precedent that 'reading your opponent is what a good player does'. If that's a skill you want to emphasize, this is a good rule! If you're more of the mind that it's just two people playing together and they can use any information at hand? Not so much.

So now we know what we get.

If you're a fan of "Anything goes, we just want the best match possible from the best players. That means people can commentate and coach if it improves the game! It's better for the game, better for the community. Besides, coaching is only for small mistakes and edges; you won't beat Mew2King at your 5th tournament just because someone says 'he's looking for a grab at 0%!'"....

You are for coaching.

If you're a fan of "It's two players, one-on-one. No interference during the set. They both prepared equally for this and other people shouldn't be allowed to give edges to them at the finish line. It's also not fair to players like Armada who might not have friends nearby who can coach due to his large travel times."....

You are against coaching.


Problems with banning coaching:

• How do you enforce it? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was coaching random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do? Do you put a guy at every station to watch for it? Just give them a warning AFTER they broke the rule and say "we're watching you" but not have the manpower to do it?
• What is the punishment? "A warning"? What does that accomplish, as the game will already be altered? Do you DQ that player who gave the advice? What if they're already out? Do you DQ the player who they gave the advice TO? What if they didn't want it and it was just given to them? Do you ban the player who gave the advice? What if it's the grand finals and they're about to leave anyway, and this helps their ride home win? This is super tricky.
• What do you do about questionable situations? When I was working with MLG to write articles on Smash, I got to judge a match between Ken and Azen at MLG New York. Ken's family was there with him and they were not speaking English. I speak only one language and it wasn't that one. Were they coaching? Do you say "Sorry, no foreign languages allowed"? What if someone leans in and whispers in a player's ear to say "good luck buddy, you can do it", but you don't know what they said? Do you punish them for that?
• How do you define coaching? Is "You can do it man" a psychological boost that helps his spirits enough to pull through and win considered 'coaching'? What about the infamous Husband shout of "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife when Wife was playing a close match against a Ganon?
• Are you willing to punish top players that are in the top 4? Imagine Mango, PPMD, Armada, and Hungrybox all in the top 4. Not hard! Now imagine Hungrybox goes up to PPMD and coaches him during his game iwth Armada despite the rules being otherwise. Hungrybox is in the Grand Finals of EVO. Do you punish Hungrybox, effectively ruining the tournament, or do you just let it slide because he's in the grand finals and it'd be a hype deflation if he was DQed? If you aren't willing to DQ, ban, or otherwise punish a player for breaking this rule in a situation like the one above, you aren't willing to have the rule in place.

Personally, if I were to ban coaching, I'd ban coaching for large events only where you can assign judges and pool captains to where you have observers and I would DQ both players in the grand finals if I have to, but completely allow it in local events to prevent headaches and to allow players to improve faster.

But the above list should be enough for you guys to determine what you value in an articulate manner.

Just remember, if you can't punish someone in the grand finals the same way you'd punish someone in WB R1, you don't want the rule.

 

[o-Serin-o]

Stuff I agreed on.

I agree.

However, I do think it'd be pretty manageable to enforce if time-constraints are an issue.

 

[Overswarm]

I agree.

However, I do think it'd be pretty manageable to enforce if time-constraints are an issue.

As someone who has helped organize dozens of tournaments and attended way more:

Probably not. XD

 

[o-Serin-o]

As someone who has helped organize dozens of tournaments and attended way more:

Probably not. XD

An overseer keeping track of what goes on between the down-time of a game isn't doable? He doesn't have to pay mind to crowd noise, but just be aware of time if coaching were to be continued?

Not a TO, just genuinely curious.

 

[Overswarm]

An overseer keeping track of what goes on between the down-time of a game isn't doable? He doesn't have to pay mind to crowd noise, but just be aware of time if coaching were to be continued?

Not a TO, just genuinely curious.

If you have a 32 man tournament (small, but full bracket) you have 16 setups playing 16 matchups (all potentially 3 games), and the timing of the start/end isn't even synced. You have 48 games to observe and would need a minimum of 16 people observing each setup to catch coaching as it occurs.

Stopping one set? Super easy. Stopping EVERY set? Not easy.

If you say 'no coaching on the setup #1, all other setups we can't enforce" then setup #1 is a disadvantage.

 

[Juushichi]

Even then, it seems like it might be a headache to regulate? Even between majors this can be a problem.

Can you do this sort of thing (or would you want to) at KoC? I think Juggleguy's series might be able to do this... but what about at Genesis... APEX, BEAST, etc, etc. Logistically, I don't think that it's consistently possible. Let's be real, people can't even agree on WOBBLING. And this is a lot more arbitrary than that.

Aaaand ninja'd by OS.

Addition: I will never ban coaching at my events, as small as they are.

---

One big thing that I like from @ Overswarm 's post:

Stronger community bonding and involvement stories - so-and-so mid-level player is Mew2King's coach makes mid-level player feel good. This is more important than you'd think. Prog has been celebrated as a commentator and an all around cool dude. His smash skill is virtually nonexistent compared to the people he spent the weekend commentating, yet everyone loves Prog! This is because he had an outlet in which to envelop himself within the community and help push us all up. These opportunities for low and mid level players (especially as they get older) are very important. Sooner or later you ask yourself "Is this worth my time? Should I try something else?", and unless you find an outlet like TOing, coaching, commentating, making videos, etc., you'll often find players fizzle out.

This exactly is actually part of what I've noticed made some experiences for me. An example that I remember was Seibrik at APEX 2010 (I think) coaching up on stage. In addition, his involvement in the scene (more factors are added to this ofc) is one of many reasons that Florida Brawl/PM, can't speak for Melee is so close and so strong. It was super cool to see FL root for FL at APEX 2013 which I attended. NEOH Melee (or at the very least PGH) does something similar, as does AZ.. as does Norcal (for Marvel). Hell, we even saw what the bolded did if you follow SF4 at all. EC and their crew got blown up by WNF and the WC because of the team/community bonding and what not.

This is something I feel like we should encourage for the same reasons.

 

[Mithost]

Overswarm's post explains it really well. I'm against coaching in tournaments for the reasons explained in this thread. I lost sets I should have won because a friend of my opponent spent 2 minutes explaining the matchup, how to counter my plays, what habits of his I've picked up on, and even what stages to counterpick to. If we went into game 2 without his help, it was most likely guaranteed that he was going to continue his habits and I'd be able to continue capitalizing on them. I've also seen/heard about other people losing matches the same way. I still could have won that match, but I had to basically relearn and read new habits and behavior from him while he knew exactly what would counter my play.

For rule enforcement, I think coaching would be one of the easiest rules in our ruleset to enforce, assuming we take a gentleman's agreement approach to it. If your opponent has someone talking to them between matches and you either can't understand/hear them (language/whispering) or you know they are talking about the game, you have the right call for a judge/TO.

When you compare it to the other rules in the ruleset, this rule isn't any harder to enforce. It's just like if someone breaks DSR, activates the 'stalling' rule, or otherwise breaks a rule of the tournament that isn't instantly noticeable by looking at the screen after someone reports it. Player 1 believes that Player 2 broke a rule that helped him win the game or set. Player 1 asks his opponent to stay where he is and keep the game how it is while he locates the TO to report the rule. The TO listens to both sides of the story and possibly consults any spectators for their rendition of it, then the TO makes a decision. In the case of someone coaching, it can be simple. Was a spectator sitting irregularly close to the player? Did anyone catch a spectator talking to him in-between games?

There is also something to be said about just putting "No Coaching" on the rules regardless of regulation at the average tournament. As it stands right now, a player can go to MLG or EVO with the entire Top 5 sitting around him during all of his matches, and have each and every one of them collaborate with each other to provide that player extremely tailored advice about the match, player habits, and potential character/stage/strategy choices in between games. Sure, the player won't be able to win against everyone and take the tournament. However, as long as they have a general understanding of the game and some experience with one or two decent characters, they will for sure get out of their pools and put a dent in the bracket where they otherwise would have went 0-2.

If we put "No-Coaching" on the ruleset, any player who goes against the Top 5's coachee can simply say "No Coaching" and then they would have to stay quiet (outside of cheering, obviously) where they otherwise would be instructing him. I believe this is what we want to achieve.

 

[Remo]

I feel like this.

If you need a player to tell you how to beat X Character for 2-3 minutes right in the middle of a set, then you obviously have personal work you need to do. It was your job to study match-ups and practice. Not your coach. This game is Player-to-Player fighting and should be left that way as far as DURING sets go. I'm against coaching during sets. After sets doesn't matter. As long as it doesn't hold up any other matches. Sitting there for almost three minutes (WizZy in PM) is a bit ridiculous for a game that's already long as it is.

 

[GaretHax]

This is real isn't it? There are people trying to objectify the impact of advice given between matches of smash? A game that regularly sees 4-stocks and obscene comebacks, even in competition between top-level players? You really think your buddy pointing out three rolls Armada tech-chased last set is going to save you? Coaching is neither a good or a bad part of this game and its' community. And whether it even has a meaningful impact on high-level play is pretty questionable, but it HAS been a part of this game and the community for longer than a fair number of smashers have been playing. To do away with it now on non-empiric arguments, based almost entirely of personal opinions, conjecture, and self-assured theory crafting would be pretty foolish. I can't really say whether I'm for or against it myself because, frankly, I don't think it makes a damn bit of a difference in the matches that actually matter, and accomplishes nothing besides bringing the community a bit closer together. An important thing to note would be the obscene insistence of fact in the arguments of those in favor of banning it, for having nothing besides conjecture and opinion you guys seem to be pretty confident in the validity of your claims.

 

[Kaeldiar]

I think coaching is a good thing. It's pretty minimal in it's current state, anyway. The present rule of "between games only" is sufficient enough. I don't see coaching as a problem

EDIT: (Just adding some stuff) Under tournament pressure and in the heat of the moment, it's good to have someone by your side who can tell you to calm down and remember to space b-airs or follow up your throws with an f-smash or whatever. Our minds can sort of cease to remember all those good habits sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with someone giving us a few pointers in-between games.

 

[Deafy]

I disagree with this thread. Coaching has been part of every game and will always be.

 

[Piisuke]

I disagree with this thread. Coaching has been part of every game and will always be.

Coaching prior and after your Best of 3/5? Yes. In between? Nope. And fact is, this doesn't count for every game either. Straw man.

 

[Marc]

@ Marc - I definitely agree that coaching makes a difference, but I'm saying that being coached is not the same thing as turning over mental control of the game to the coach. And your right that it's not natural for someone to talk you through a set, but that in and of itself isn't enough of a reason to stop coaching. To ask for a practice to be banned, the person asking for the ban carries the burden of proof, and to me, the arguments presented here don't meet that burden.

I don't know if it can be considered a practice one way or the other. Many events at the very least disallow coaching during games, but people rarely take full advantage of it when it's allowed or there is no ruling on it.

Everything about being a new player is harder. Not only do you have less access to strong coaches, but less access to strong trainer partners, less match up experience, less... everything. If you want a good coach work hard and go get one, just like you practice to get tech skill or travel to practice with good people.
I've never liked arguments that equate to, "this guy has an advantage and I don't" when the disadvantage is defined by lack of commitment and work and it can be overcome with more commitment and harder work.

Do you think this is a desirable situation? I get that new players are already at a disadvantage for various reasons, so why stack the deck against them even more? A fighting game community is a meritocracy and as such, I prefer external advantages to be kept to a minimum. I acknowledge that an assertive person will be able to get into the scene that much quicker, but I feel like the treshold for hitting up a player for practice is significantly lower than asking them to coach you through a tournament. While I will play just about anyone, I can not say the same for coaching, but rest assured that if my younger sister were to enter a tournament with coaching allowed, no low level space animal would get past "her" edge guarding.

My biggest argument against coaching bans are how impossible it would be to regulate. If a spectator yells from the crowd "He always rolls on stage!" should he be escorted out of the venue? Should I get a free stock? how do you regulate and then enforce a ban like this?

Something being hard to regulate doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Collusion and bracket manipulation are hard to regulate as well, but high profile events have still enforced punishment for these things. Realistically it won't be easy to manage the crowd, but in practice it's not quite the same anyway. If the crowd is small you can easily pick out a person actually saying helpful things and in a large crowd they will typically be drowned out.

Several people have made the argument that coaching makes for better matches (true, potentially) and better players, but I disagree with the latter. If you want to help players, they are better served by you sitting down with them and reviewing their matches play by play. Pointing out habits is the most effective short term coaching, but what lesson is in that? What do you learn when someone tells you to go in or retreat? You might learn in the sense that you pick up on effective decision-making, but usually someone is simply feeding you answers that you won't have time to reflect on as you are playing a tournament match.

 

[Overswarm]

Coaching prior and after your Best of 3/5? Yes. In between? Nope. And fact is, this doesn't count for every game either. Straw man.

Actually, yes. Coaching in-between games of a set has been a consistent aspect of Smash. It has also been a mainstay in other similar one-on-one events, including Boxing and Chess. Many team sports revolve entirely around coaches creating a gameplan and the players job is to execute it.

Something being hard to regulate doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Collusion and bracket manipulation are hard to regulate as well, but high profile events have still enforced punishment for these things.

Yes it does.

If you cannot regulate something, you are participating in arbitrary enforcement. That is unfair.

Collusion and bracket manipulation are not hard to regulate. They're hard to spot, but not hard to regulate.

 

[Nihonjin]

Problems with banning coaching:

• How do you enforce it? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was coaching random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do? Do you put a guy at every station to watch for it? Just give them a warning AFTER they broke the rule and say "we're watching you" but not have the manpower to do it?

How do you enforce the no stalling rule? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was rising pound stalling random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do?

You're creating a problem where there is none. When we establish rules and we're clear about them, people tend to follow them. How to enforce it when people break the rule is a bridge we'll cross when we get there. It shouldn't prevent us from implementing rules we believe to be necessary.

• What is the punishment? "A warning"? What does that accomplish, as the game will already be altered? Do you DQ that player who gave the advice? What if they're already out? Do you DQ the player who they gave the advice TO? What if they didn't want it and it was just given to them? Do you ban the player who gave the advice? What if it's the grand finals and they're about to leave anyway, and this helps their ride home win? This is super tricky.

We'll have to figure out what's appropriate.

• What do you do about questionable situations? When I was working with MLG to write articles on Smash, I got to judge a match between Ken and Azen at MLG New York. Ken's family was there with him and they were not speaking English. I speak only one language and it wasn't that one. Were they coaching? Do you say "Sorry, no foreign languages allowed"? What if someone leans in and whispers in a player's ear to say "good luck buddy, you can do it", but you don't know what they said? Do you punish them for that?

Simply do not allowing direct communication between third parties & players from the moment they start stage striking till they shake hands afterwards.

There's no room for ambiguity in that case.

• How do you define coaching? Is "You can do it man" a psychological boost that helps his spirits enough to pull through and win considered 'coaching'? What about the infamous Husband shout of "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife when Wife was playing a close match against a Ganon?

I already addressed this in the opening post. Crowds are a separate issue we can talk about some other time.

I'm talking about when people sit next, stand next to or or walk up to players. Then analyze habits and tactics in order to give detailed and specific instructions on how to beat their current opponent.

• Are you willing to punish top players that are in the top 4? Imagine Mango, PPMD, Armada, and Hungrybox all in the top 4. Not hard! Now imagine Hungrybox goes up to PPMD and coaches him during his game iwth Armada despite the rules being otherwise. Hungrybox is in the Grand Finals of EVO. Do you punish Hungrybox, effectively ruining the tournament, or do you just let it slide because he's in the grand finals and it'd be a hype deflation if he was DQed? If you aren't willing to DQ, ban, or otherwise punish a player for breaking this rule in a situation like the one above, you aren't willing to have the rule in place.

Yes. Why wouldn't the rules apply to everyone? How is this even a question?

Yes it does.

If you cannot regulate something, you are participating in arbitrary enforcement. That is unfair.

"We cannot stop all crime, therefore we shouldn't have laws."

Again, just establishing a rule against coaching works as a deterrent.

 

[Marc]

Yes it does.

If you cannot regulate something, you are participating in arbitrary enforcement. That is unfair.

Collusion and bracket manipulation are not hard to regulate. They're hard to spot, but not hard to regulate.

My point was that you shouldn't give up on dealing with undesirable practices just because it's not easy. This was mainly in the context of controlling what the crowd says, of which I already stated that that's not very realistic. That said, some things will always be on a case by case basis as rulesets don't cover everything that can happen at an event, mainly outside of the game.

 

[Overswarm]

How do you enforce the no stalling rule? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was rising pound stalling random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do?

You call a TO during the set as its going on. The "no stalling" rule doesn't mean 'camping', it means literally stalling infinitely in a way you can't be stopped (peach bomber, jigglypuff's rising pound under battlefield, infinite luigi ladder, etc.); calling a TO over stops the action itself and generally results in a warning. Further actions along this vein result in being DQed.

You're creating a problem where there is none. When we establish rules and we're clear about them, people tend to follow them. How to enforce it when people break the rule is a bridge we'll cross when we get there. It shouldn't prevent us from implementing rules we believe to be necessary.

I played Brawl. You're wrong.

We'll have to figure out what's appropriate.

Before the rule is set in place, yes.

Simply do not allowing direct communication between third parties & players from the moment they start stage striking till they shake hands afterwards. There's no room for ambiguity in that case.

Man from crowd yells "ALL THIS GUY DOES IS GRAB, HE SUCKS". He's being goofy and antagonistic, trying to get a laugh. It helps the opponent who is getting grabbed a lot. This man in the crowd isn't in the game anymore. In fact, he's not entered into the smash community; he's here for Street Fighter.

Wat do.

I already addressed this in the opening post. Crowds are a separate issue we can talk about some other time.

I'm talking about when people sit next or stand (or walk up) to players and analyze habits and tactics in order to give detailed and specific instructions on how to beat their current opponent.

So coaching is allowed as long as you're in the crowd? Got it.

Yes. Why wouldn't the rules apply to everyone? How is this even a question?

Because the rules don't apply to everyone. Seriously, they don't. I've seen players hold up tournaments for 45 minutes WITH THE BLACK MAGE RULE IN PLACE because no one wants to DQ Mew2King. I've seen players pause mid-match by accident and not lose a stock because "that'd be dumb, and this guy is my friend".

The rules absolutely do not apply to everyone and they never have. If you are a top player in a local tournament, at least outside of the midwest, you get away with murder.


I've run enough tournaments to know the "pie in the sky" attitude of "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" doesn't work.

If you have a desire to ban coaching but don't have the manpower or the rules to do it, you don't want to implement the rule. I'd love to be able to make rules and say "it'll all work out", but they don't. Someone always pushes the boundaries, someone always tests the waters, someone always makes a mistake. Those three people need to be treated the exact same and for that you need guidelines set in advance.

 

[Red Rice]

I would definitely like to hear what the top 10 players have to say about this