Ban coaching

[trash?]

Afterwards, in order to prevent in-game coaching, players should be forced to wear headphones that receive the game-audio, at least at big tournaments.
No possible way to coach mid-match, while still allowing help.

but then that falls into a completely different problem: there's still people who play off of what's called "the sound game". some players intentionally have a button that does nothing for this very reason, so they can hit it from time to time and see if the opponent is using those button presses as a cue. this is something asian regions do a lot, that's just a notch in their metagame and can be easily used against them

 

[<π]

My last post was sarcastic, but I guess it got the point across.

Coaching should be legal between matches with a time limit of 30-60 seconds depending on the size of the event.
Afterwards, in order to prevent in-game coaching, players should be forced to wear headphones that receive the game-audio, at least at big tournaments.
No possible way to coach mid-match, while still allowing help.

Smash Just got E-Sports!

Every tourney I got to I'm going to take my phone out, place it right next to the TV, set it to twitch and ghost the match I'm playing. That way my opponent and I both get twice the information, so the set will be twice as good. Who needs coaches for a hype set!

 

[Comprehend13]

Counterpicking should be concurrent with coaching. The point of limiting coaching time is to expedite the matches. If coaching increases the amount of time needed to choose a counterpick stage, then it should be very short.

 

[Mithost]

why does every smashboards thread turn into an argument

 

[Phaazoid]

Sorry, I thought you were attempting to twist my argument. No hard feelings.

It's cool. I understand how easy it is to get emotionally pulled into an argument. Especially one that could potentially have a large effect on the future of the smash tournament scene. And I'd be lying if I said it never happened to me.

I don't disagree behind the ideology of banning coaching. I was just trying to show that there is a lot more underlying complexity to the issue than is immediately apparent, and trying to ban something without proper understanding of that complexity will have negative impacts.

 

[Juushichi]

@ N Nihonjin -senpai, can you notice me please?

I brought up and tagged you in a real scenario that actually happened. How do you propose that we ban this and many other situations brought up in this thread in order to ban coaching properly?

I think it has been covered by the OP that you think it should be banned. I think if you believe that it should be done, that there should be a feasible, reasonable way to enforce the rule. Just like how we globally enforce wobbling, hand warmers and the stalling clause.

Otherwise, I guess we can have the same result with this as wobbling, hand warmers and the stalling clause. : ) Which I think is about as effective and serious as this:

 

[broho]

This entire argument is based on assumptions and fallacies:

1) "When competing in a tournament it’s obvious that contestants should only rely on their own abilities in order to win."

Obvious to who? Why is it obvious? There are plenty of people who think coaching is perfectly fine. It's not obvious at all that players should have to rely only on themselves.

2) "I don’t think there is any person who thinks it should be legal to pass your controller to a friend and have him win a match for you. Well, I’m here to argue that coaching is the mental equivalent of handing your controller to someone else."

This is false equivalency. Getting tips from a coach =/= mentally handing over the controller. The mental decisions which truly influence the outcome of the match are made in real time during the gameplay, and those decisions are still made solely by the player. Good coaching helps the player to make the right decision in those moments.

3) "To understand why that is we must first answer a simple question. What makes a good player?"

This is begging the question. The OP is not actually asking what makes a good player, but is instead presenting a circular argument about skill to prove the assumption he's beginning with: coaching is bad.

4) "When you coach someone during a game, you’re helping them adapt. If people did this during chess it would be obvious why it’s a problem. Chess is a game of decision making. It’s a mental contest, so if someone’s helping you with decisions, they are playing for you.

Though execution is clearly an important factor in Smash, decision making is also a crucial part of the game. So if someone is helping you in that aspect, they are playing for you. It's essentially 2 vs 1 at that point."

See #2 above. Also applicable to the steroid comparison.

5) "For it to be fair, every player would have to register with their coach before the start of the tournament. Coaches cannot enter singles. One coach per player and vice versa. This is impractical if not outright impossible given the structure of our community."

This is an ambiguity fallacy. Why should coaches have to register? What would that accomplish exactly? Why shouldn't coaches be allowed to play in the tournament? The OP has said this needs to happen, but doesn't say why it needs to at all.

5) "Even if coaching could’ve been done in a fair and balanced way, it would still be a move away from the skillset that we as a community value and want to test -- execution, adaptability, and mental fortitude. Devaluing adaptability is a step backwards."

How does coaching devalue adaptability? The coach may point something out, but in the end the player either makes the adjustment or doesn't in actual gameplay. There are still dozens of tiny adjustments being made in-mat1ch that coaching can't account for. Adaptability is exactly the same whether there's coaching or not.

Coaching should allowed because there really are no compelling arguments against it. These discussions almost always boil down to the fact that people opposed to it don't like it, but that's not a sufficient reason to ban the practice. As for the people who say that it takes too long and drags out the tournament, is it really that much worse than the hand warmers and button checks which players do as well?

1) In some professional sports such as tennis which is in fact very similar to 1v1 Smash in an analytical sense, coaching is not allowed under any circumstances while on court which includes washroom breaks. It is entirely up to whoever is playing to determine which changes/adjustments need to be made. It is much easier to see these habits and areas of improvement, etc. if you are not the one under pressure playing.

2) I agree to some extent, but the point is that the competitiveness/mindset should come from yourself as opposed to using a coach as your "crutch". Your response contradicts when you discuss coaching not having as big of an impact. You need to choose a stance versus swinging based on convenience.

3) I don't think you understand what a circular argument is... It makes sense that his arguments support his point of view (kind of the purpose of making arguments) and he gets extra credit for anticipating some responses and answering accordingly.

4) I do not like saying this, because I prefer to break down the argument before rebutting it, but this is just plain wrong. As I pointed out, you are contradicting yourself for starters, but in games such as chess or Smash, letting someone else choose your gameplan during a match is essentially like having a partner. One of the things that makes "smart" players so successful is just that versus their tech skill. Players such as M2K are examples of this as they do not have the best tech skill (M2K has really good tech skill, but I would say that there are a number of other players who are better at it) and are not making these ridiculous combo videos, but have such a good grasp of the game that they just know how to win. You are essentially cutting out a large part of that part of the equation if you allow coaching.

5) This should be obvious in that if a coach is playing, they cannot coach a player at the same time (cannot be at two places at once) - if one player has a coach while the other does not for this reason or that they are coaching another player, it is unfair. By locking pairs together, it ensures that the coach will always be available for that player and that all players who want a coach will have one.

5) Adaptability is based on knowledge/understanding and as I mentioned in #4, many players are great because they have that ability to combine decent tech skill with the experience/knowledge to adapt - so yes, coaching devalues a player's ability to adapt.

 

[Mithost]

Just curious, can we currently enforce many of the rules we already have in place? This is a genuine curiosity from a tournament goer to the TOs in this thread, not trying to argue. If someone pauses in a match and quickly unpauses to make someone SD, how do you guys enforce that (outside of turning off pause, of course) assuming a TO or another staff member wasn't present? How do you enforce the "no coaching during a game" rule that is already common place? What is different between enforcing these rules and the rule we are currently talking about here?

 

[trash?]

a crapshoot, effectively. it's like I said with the stalling rule, beyond a handful of obvious situations (pound stalling under FD, luigi ladders in doubles) it's all very subjective, and very much up to the TO's discretion, which is why most rulesets will just have "the TO can DQ you at any time" to cover themselves for such a case

the only time I know accidental pauses can be easily enforced is EVO and that's because last I remember it's not up to player input at all, the person who didn't pause has to take the win and that's that

most of the arguments against these bits are all "we'll get to that when we get to that" and that's a very procrastinating mindset

 

[<π]

Even at Evo I saw multiple pauses on stream and no one was DQed. Because no one cared... Just like no one cares about this. there are over 160 people viewing this thread now but its been the same 10 people posting this whole time. Even if coaching is an issue I don't think it is a big enough one to warrant a ban and all the other consequences that would have to go alone with enforcing it.

 

[Cookiemonsta]

It still isn't always fair for both players to have a coach. If your opponents coach is Cactuar and your personal coach is ****ing "IplayforLolz27", thats not fair either. Who's to say who's better at coaching? You might get some terrible advice from anyone...js.

 

[EnIgma24]

In all case the player decide himself if he follows the advices or not as cookiemonsta said some could give bad advises since coaching is pretty much theory about what you see so removing it won't be a problem either at this point maybe but to change the rule all have to check if removing that issue won't make bigger ones i guess.

 

[Conda]

Agreed! I also don't like it when the commentators are within earshot of the the players and can hear the live commentary, it can be a distractor. Commentators should always be conscious of this.

When we commentators say things like "He should really watch his spacing if he's going to survive another stock" or "He's gotta DI out of that down throw" or "He's playing really defensively, but that's not gonna work against his opponent", you're indirectly coaching the players if they can hear you.

Be conscious of this and don't commentate so close to the players.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

You know what I think would be awesome, Coaching in teams. Especially now with all the high level sponsored players, in 2v2 their sponsors should get a coach because that is so intense and coaching 2 people in the > 5 minutes it takes to decide a match is a god damn good skill to have.

 

[LydianAlchemist]

Regarding armada. Just because he doesn't like coaching doesn't mean he's gonna put himself at a disadvantage especially if the opponent has a coach as well.

For instance I don't like items on but if my friends insist on having them on I'll still use them. I'm not gonna toss a poke ball off stage on principle.

EDIT: Unless I'm stylin'

 

[Deleted member]

Is coaching in doubles a thing? If it is, should it get banned too? I agree with banning coaching in singles, but I don't mind it in doubles, but I don't know if that's a thing or not. Doubles make smash a team sport (at least it's supposed to) so coaching adds to the team aspect of doubles.

 

[TSM ZeRo]

The idea of coaches for a tournament, and for them to register for a tournament, sounds actually awesome to me. A new job opportunity in the Smash community. Why not? Sports have coaches during breaks/between games.

 

[| Big D |]

It depends on what you want to test.

Ideally with coaching, the winner is determined by the better combination of coach/player.

Ideally without coaching, the winner is determined by the better player.

So whether you ban coaching or not depends if you want to find the best player or the best combination of coach/player.

Obviously the skill of the player contributes the most to that combination, but you can't argue that coaching doesn't alter the outcome.

 

[Sarth]

I think people need to stop being salty about losing. All I see this argument as is a giant excuse for people who couldn't get the job done and they need to find some reason as to why, rather than accepting the lost.

I wrestled throughout middle-school/high school at the state caliber level, and when I lost I never blamed it on my coach or the other kid's coach. I sucked it up, accepted my loss, and used it as fuel to get better. I use the same mind-set for Smash.

The fact that miniscule stuff like this is being debated is just limiting this community from being the professional esport everyone wants it to be. Be mature, own up to your losses regardless of coaching or no coaching, and get better.

 

[Nihonjin]

But what if I had texted Ally personally?

Comes down to what I said previously. From the moment they start stage striking until they shake hands there should be no direct communication with the players unless except among themselves. In other words, once the set starts, no phones. You're competing.

It's the same when you take exams at school isn't it? You're allowed to study before the exams, up until the point that you actually start taking one. At that point, you can't ask anyone else for help.

What if Ally took notes on Zhime ahead of time and reviewed them (as many SF/Marvel players now practice, actually) between matches? Is this a bad thing?

Nope, what you do during your private time is entirely up to you.

SHOULD you police this?

No.

How do you police this in either case?

See first response.

 

[jayeldeee]

I thought this was common sense to not coach or tell someone anything during a tournament. Apparently not.

 

[Nihonjin]

Just curious, can we currently enforce many of the rules we already have in place? This is a genuine curiosity from a tournament goer to the TOs in this thread, not trying to argue. If someone pauses in a match and quickly unpauses to make someone SD, how do you guys enforce that (outside of turning off pause, of course) assuming a TO or another staff member wasn't present? How do you enforce the "no coaching during a game" rule that is already common place? What is different between enforcing these rules and the rule we are currently talking about here?

There is no differnece, which is why it's such a horrible argument from their side.

We already have hard to enforce rules in place because they're necessary. Even if we couldn't enforce a rule at all, officially making it against the rules discourages its use. Which is ultimately what we're aiming for.

There will always be people who (try to) break the rules or abuse loop holes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

coaching will be as easily enforced as the "no stalling" rule that seems to pop up from time to time

which is to say, not at all because it's so subjective that the TO has a better chance of always screwing it up than not

a crapshoot, effectively. it's like I said with the stalling rule, beyond a handful of obvious situations (pound stalling under FD, luigi ladders in doubles) it's all very subjective, and very much up to the TO's discretion, which is why most rulesets will just have "the TO can DQ you at any time" to cover themselves for such a case

So you're saying we should not have an official ban on stalling? It should be perfectly tournament legal to get a percentage lead with Jiggs and Rising Pound under the stage for 8 minutes?

I'd love for you to honestly answer that question.

Is coaching in doubles a thing? If it is, should it get banned too? I agree with banning coaching in singles, but I don't mind it in doubles, but I don't know if that's a thing or not. Doubles make smash a team sport (at least it's supposed to) so coaching adds to the team aspect of doubles.

I don't mind it in doubles at all, so long as your team partner is the one coaching you and vice versa. It's a team effort after all as you've pointed out yourself.

 

[polypuff]

As long as nobody is getting an unfair advantage during a match that the other player doesn't have, then everything's fine.

 

[Zylo]

As long as nobody is getting an unfair advantage during a match that the other player doesn't have, then everything's fine.

One of the main arguments presented throughout the thread had been that coaching is an unfair advantage.

 

[Flippy Flippersen]

I'm confused about what kind of coaching is actually what amsah wanted banned since people are argueing about so many different kinds of coaching. I understand it's not crowd support but is it coaching during the actual game, coaching in between rounds or both? In between matches seems easy enough to call out since it requires the second round to start later and during the actual games it should be pretty easy to spot someone leaning in a player or if he's not hear him.


I'm personally not against coaching as long as it's quick. I've been coached once (started in januari) which was when I didn't have a main yet and quickly asked my friend what to play, I still lost. On low level I don't think it matters cause no low level player realistically has the chance/expectations to win. On high level I don't think a quick you should do x more is enough to make the difference. So for this a "don't stall in between games" should be plenty. As for ingame advice this is easy enough to call people out on. It's easy to ask them to stop it. I wouldn't really put some instant dq on it just a warning and if it keeps happening then put some negative penalty on it.

I'm not against coaching in between games (as long as it's short) I am against coaching during games. Moreso for being a distraction than for his amazing insights.

 

[YoPoYo9100]

I agree with the OP for the most part, I am in no way against coaching as
a whole, but I am against coaching during play and during sets.

 

[ElectricCitrus]

I feel that coaching in between matches or sets or whenever their is downtime is a great thing, especially if the coaches have to register for the tournament and are bound to their player the whole time. It adds another layer of what people can do to get involved in the scene, and if a player retires from playing they can still find relevance by coaching a new generation of smashers.

 

[Comeback Kid]

It seems a good distinction was made mid-thread between people giving you unsolicited advice mid-match/set and the player asking for advice from a fellow player.

One is unintentional help and the other is help your actively seeking to cover your weaknesses.

But it seems that point got lost in a discussion about crowds yelling things, logical fallacies that weren't logical fallacies and all kinds of ways people may be able to hypothetically break the rules.

 

[Jessup124]

I agree with the OP for the most part, I am in no way against coaching as
a whole, but I am against coaching during play and during sets.

But the OP is NOT , repeat NOT against coaching as a whole! He is only against it DURING PLAY AND DURING SETS.

 

[Scamp]

I think that the effects of coaching have been greatly exaggerated. Not a single person in this thread has given a firsthand account of how coaching has helped them during a match, and only one person has provided an example of when it helped their opponent.

How many people arguing against coaching in this thread have actually been coached.?

 

[Zylo]

I think that the effects of coaching have been greatly exaggerated. Not a single person in this thread has given a firsthand account of how coaching has helped them during a match, and only one person has provided an example of when it helped their opponent.

How many people arguing against coaching in this thread have actually been coached.?

During one of my first tournaments I went down 1-0 in a set against a luigi as marth. A guy I didn't know too too well talked to me for about 2 minutes about the matchup and my opponent's habits. He told me things I was doing wrong that I was getting punished for. He also told me what stages to pick. I would not have known or picked up on any of this by myself due to my inexperience, but I went on to bring it back and win, and I do not believe I would have without his coaching. So there's a first hand example.

 

[Espy Rose]

Coaching during a set? No thanks. That's the time where the decisions taken should, ideally, be up to the interactions between player and player, not coaches or audience (though the latter will happen from time to time; there's nothing we can really do to regulate something like that unless it can be proven to be intentionally damaging to the integrity of the match).

Coaching after each game in a set is something I'm actually okay with, given that there are restrictions on how long they can coach the players. Sets take forever to transition between games because of how much time players use to get advice and decide their counterpicks based on that, plus character availability of their opponent. So long as there's a time limit to the combination of getting coached, and counterpicking level, then it's a good tactic that doesn't cross over any lines.

My two cents, is all.

 

[Scamp]

During one of my first tournaments I went down 1-0 in a set against a luigi as marth. A guy I didn't know too too well talked to me for about 2 minutes about the matchup and my opponent's habits. He told me things I was doing wrong that I was getting punished for. He also told me what stages to pick. I would not have known or picked up on any of this by myself due to my inexperience, but I went on to bring it back and win, and I do not believe I would have without his coaching. So there's a first hand example.

Thank you for your first-hand example, but I think this shows a reason not to ban coaching. Some guy you barely even know is willing to help out a new, inexperienced player? I don't think we should take away the ability to do that.

I think for a rule to be added such as the one proposed in this thread it needs to be a significant problem. Certainly mid-set coaching might influence a match, but it looks to be a minor advantage at best (or perhaps a major one to an inexperienced player, but we should be providing help to these players). As a TO, I simply don't see the problem. Along with more first-hand accounts I would like to hear of some evidence that coaching in the middle of a set strongly influenced a significant match. Otherwise, along with not being worth the trouble to enforce I also think that this kind of rule would make the game less enjoyable to play.

 

[FlamingForce]

Thank you for your first-hand example, but I think this shows a reason not to ban coaching. Some guy you barely even know is willing to help out a new, inexperienced player? I don't think we should take away the ability to do that.

Nobody ever said there was a problem with that, just that there's a problem with this happening in the middle of a set. There's plenty of time to receive critique and helpful tips from guys you barely know after you lost your set due to your own inexperience and shortcomings, as you should.

 

[YoPoYo9100]

But the OP is NOT , repeat NOT against coaching as a whole! He is only against it DURING PLAY AND DURING SETS.

Thats what I thought I was agreeing with, let me make myself clear. I believe that coaching OUTSIDE of play and sets is great thing. What I don't think is fair is if someone coaches a player DURING play or DURING sets. Clear things up?

 

[Scamp]

Nobody ever said there was a problem with that, just that there's a problem with this happening in the middle of a set. There's plenty of time to receive critique and helpful tips from guys you barely know after you lost your set due to your own inexperience and shortcomings, as you should.

Again, that's not really a problem. Or it's a very minor problem that isn't worth making a constrictive rule over.

 

[FlamingForce]

Again, that's not really a problem. Or it's a very minor problem that isn't worth making a constrictive rule over.

Well I'd say that's a hasty conclusion to jump to, someone jumping in and making the difference between someone winning or losing a set is nothing minor. Especially since the story in question doesn't talk of anything similar happening for the other player.
An unfair advantage is far from minor and most definitely something to make a constrictive rule over.

 

[Jessup124]

Thats what I thought I was agreeing with, let me make myself clear. I believe that coaching OUTSIDE of play and sets is great thing. What I don't think is fair is if someone coaches a player DURING play or DURING sets. Clear things up?

Ok but Earlier you said you partially agreed with the OP, I'm curious to know which parts you didn't agree with ?

 

[Dakpo]

I think if anything, a rule should be implemented stating something along the lines of "If, before the set begins, either player requests that coaching be banned for the set, the request cannot be denied by the other player, and neither player can be coached for the duration of the set". This way both players can be coached if it's not a problem to them.
.

OMG YES, this is the perfect solution. A player must request coaching be banned BEFORE the set starts.

 

[YoPoYo9100]

Ok but Earlier you said you partially agreed with the OP, I'm curious to know which parts you didn't agree with ?

I agree with all of the OP, sorry if i misspoke. lol.