Coaching

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I don't think it can be said better than how rathy Aro said it. Coaching sould be allowed only before and after. It's not like they let people help you in chess, why can you do it in smash?

I always thought it was weird that coaching was allowed. I just wanna say that coaching DOES affect the match and there is NO arguing that. People have won, because they were being coached.

That said, I'll explain why you shouldn't be able to coach during a match. Brawl is a game that has a lot to do with strategy. When you play against someone else you are testing your strategic ability and technical ability versus your opponents strategic and technical ability. When I say strategic ability I'm talking about your knowledge of the metagame (especially the matchup at hand), your ability to read your opponent, your abilty to mix up your style, and anything cognitive. If you have someone feeding your matchup knowledge, reading your opponents patterns for you, reminding you to mix up your approaches, etc how is that fair? Not only can they tell you what to do, but they can tell you what your opponent is trying to do. It really isn't a test of two minds against each other is you add a third party.

An example it illustrate my point: You're a diddy player with a coach and you're playing against a metaknight. Everytime the metaknight grabs you, he down throws you and then waits for your reaction. You're used to airdodging immediately to avoid MK's follow ups (upB), but since he's not doing that he just punishes the airdodge, sometimes with another grab putting you in the same position. The MK grabs you at a high percent and plan to now use his upB after down throw knowing you won't airdodge anymore to get the stock, but your coach is well aware of basic conditioning and is able to think clearly since he isn't playing the match. He warns you to airdodge anyway completely defeating the purpose of the MK's conditioning you for most of the match.

Maybe not the best example, but the point should be pretty clear.

So yeah, coaching only between games. I don't think people really care if you do or don't know how to counterpick, etc. Plus tips in between are fine too, because this is time for you to think about what you did wrong anyway and assess what you should do next. Still I could understand an argument for no coaching at any point of the set.

@above post: you make a good point. A ban on coaching would be hard to enforce imo. If it can be enforced it should be. Or at least you can't have someone sitting right next to you telling you what to do next (which happens all the time).

 

[pockyD]

So no one is going to argue?

All i have seen so far as an arguement for coaching to be taken seriously is comparing it to other sports or mixed martial arts.

are you just choosing not to read certain posts?

I don't think it can be said better than how rathy Aro said it. Coaching sould be allowed only before and after. It's not like they let people help you in chess, why can you do it in smash?

in chess, the decision-making is literally the only component of the game and individual moves are not time-sensitive

having an in-game coach in chess is, assuming the coach is at a higher skill level than yourself, in all practicality equal to your opponent playing your coach directly

this is not the case in smash

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

are you just choosing not to read certain posts?



in chess, the decision-making is literally the only component of the game and individual moves are not time-sensitive

having an in-game coach in chess is, assuming the coach is at a higher skill level than yourself, in all practicality equal to your opponent playing your coach directly

this is not the case in smash

Smash is all about Mind Games, just like chess. You have to out smart your opponent, but if you have someone telling you what that person is going to do, it removes the mind games from smash.

 

[Nihonjin]

are you just choosing not to read certain posts?

I could say the same about you.

I've yet to see a single argument address the points I've made in my previous post (and the ones before that).

Feel free to try and justify 2 on 1 though. Go.

 

[pockyD]

Same can be said for you.

I've read all of the posts in this thread, and I've yet to see a single argument address the points I've made in my previous post.

Feel free to try and justify 2 on 1 though. Go.

the simplest answer is that it's NOT 2 on 1 unless the 1-player simply chooses not to have a coach

and in that case, it's their own problem

and to think the coach has an effect equivalent to a whole extra player? interesting straw man

I perceive a normal 1v1 match is more like 0.8 vs 0.8 and a match with a coached player vs a noncoached player being more like 1.0 vs 0.8. I can make up ridiculous numbers and summations too!

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

the simplest answer is that it's NOT 2 on 1 unless the 1-player simply chooses not to have a coach

and in that case, it's their own problem

and to think the coach has an effect equivalent to a whole extra player? interesting straw man

I perceive a normal 1v1 match is more like 0.8 vs 0.8 and a match with a coached player vs a noncoached player being more like 1.0 vs 0.8. I can make up ridiculous numbers and summations too!

It's not that people choose not to have a coach, it's that they don't have one in the first place. They don't have someone who knows their play-style and can see where their weaknesses. Even if a player is provided a coach for a lack of one, he wouldn't know what things to say to that said person.

You can't make up some statistic and expect it to be law. Although it's not 2 players against 1, It's 2 minds against one which can make the match.

 

[pockyD]

It's not that people choose not to have a coach, it's that they don't have one in the first place. They don't have someone who knows their play-style and can see where their weaknesses. Even if a player is provided a coach for a lack of one, he wouldn't know what things to say to that said person.

sounds like that's their problem

make some friends!

if you consider this point from the perspective that coaching 'should' be legal, it's no more a problem than a player complaining that their controller has a busted R button; it's something they could resolve but just choose not to

You can't make up some statistic and expect it to be law. Although it's not 2 players against 1, It's 2 minds against one which can make the match.

who's to say two minds ARE better than one?

what about three minds? four minds?

 

[Animal]

i think ocaching is definitely an american thing. But like i said, the other person can hear what the coach is saying and almost use that 2 his advantage just as much as the person being coached. i dont have a problem with it

 

[Nihonjin]

the simplest answer is that it's NOT 2 on 1 unless the 1-player simply chooses not to have a coach!

and in that case, it's their own problem

Really? So if I go to Apex by myself because my friends don't have the money to travel to the US, I chose not to have a coach?

Dumb arguments are dumb.

and to think the coach has an effect equivalent to a whole extra player? interesting straw man

You're actually the strawmaning here.

I never said that a coach is as effective as having someone fight by your side with an extra character, but that doesn't change the fact that getting help from a player means it's 2 on 1. Or what? Or would you prefer me saying it's 1.5 on 1?

You're not making any sense.

I perceive a normal 1v1 match is more like 0.8 vs 0.8 and a match with a coached player vs a noncoached player being more like 1.0 vs 0.8. I can make up ridiculous numbers and summations too!

This makes no sense. Not to mention that in your example a coach still creates an imbalance just like I said.

i think ocaching is definitely an american thing. But like i said, the other person can hear what the coach is saying and almost use that 2 his advantage just as much as the person being coached. i dont have a problem with it

Except when the coach and player are communicating in a language you don't understand.

sounds like that's their problem

make some friends!

No, it's not their problem, it's our problem.

If you consider this point from the perspective that coaching 'should' be legal, it's no more a problem than a player complaining that their controller has a busted R button; it's something they could resolve but just choose not to

See previous answer.

who's to say two minds ARE better than one?

what about three minds? four minds?

You can't be serious..

 

[Animal]

An american would be willing to coach you for sure. Weren't they helping you vs Hungrybox?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jzEBqUiw#t=0m40s

listen to commentary amsah

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

sounds like that's their problem

make some friends!

if you consider this point from the perspective that coaching 'should' be legal, it's no more a problem than a player complaining that their controller has a busted R button; it's something they could resolve but just choose not to



who's to say two minds ARE better than one?

what about three minds? four minds?

Ok, when you go to court and ask for a lawyer, they provide one for you, they don't say. "Too bad, your too poor to afford a lawyer, now your found guilty no matter what you say."

Typically two average people can outsmart an above average guy. Maybe you'll find a genius who can outsmart them, but typically that is not the case.

 

[jugfingers]

coaching is probably helpful, but its not an unfair advantage.

smells like ****** in this thread.

 

[Armada]

Amsah: I never said that was the same thing i just ask if that will be the next step.

I also say the crowed can have bigger effect.

Coaching should be allowed. If we not can have coaches we need to have "guards" how can guarantee that no one coaching during the matches.

I guess the first person how really start to discuss this was someone how lost a set and try to find a john.

And i guess the most people not wanna ban it because it is ridiculous.

Coaching can be a fun part of the community =).

Coaching ftw.

 

[pockyD]

Really? So if I go to Apex by myself because my friends don't have the money to travel to the US, I chose not to have a coach?

Dumb arguments are dumb.

exactly

people with resources and who prioritize the event get more help. consider why China is an olympic powerhouse while India struggles to get one or two medals per cycle

anyways, this falls under logistical concerns rather than idealism. i think it's important to decide which you'd rather debate

so in a situation where both players have their favored coach available, do you prefer they both use them or neither use them?

You're actually the strawmaning here.

I never said that a coach is as effective as having someone fight by your side with an extra character, but that doesn't change the fact that getting help from a player means it's 2 on 1. Or what? Or would you prefer me saying it's 1.5 on 1?

You're not making any sense.

Sounds like you're not quite sure what straw manning means. I was indeed straw manning, because I was echoing what you were saying. I'm attempting to cater my arguments to what you're saying. If you agree that my point was irrelevant, then you are agreeing that your original point was irrelevant

What if I have a friend run and get me a bottle of water between matches? TWO ON ONE!

What if my friend gives me a massage (massive homo)? TWO ON ONE!

It's important to discern how their actions affect the gameplay; not simply the fact that there are two people sitting there

once again, this is directed specifically at your arguments; you seem to have some trouble following multiple threads of thought at once, so i'll lay it out for you

MY opinion in a vacuum on the matter from the idealist perspective...

1) Coaching helps a player play to their potential.
- This is desirable because as a community, we want everyone to be playing as well as possible in tournament to drive the metagame forward.
2) Coaches only serve to help a player recall what they already know and apply it to the situation. Coaches will not teach new skills on the fly
- This is important because the relative skill level of your coach is largely irrelevant; what matters is how well they understand you and your abilities
3) If you don't know any smashers well enough that they're able to help you, then tough
- If you're good enough anyway, that means you've gotten good by having a great pre-existing understanding of your own limits. In this case, coaching probably won't do you any good anyway
- If you're not good enough anyway, then the lack of a coach has already manifested itself in a much more significant way through the lack of a training partner to drive you to improvement
- If you DID value in-the-moment advice, I'm sure any number of good smashers would be willing to help you out for a few bucks. I personally don't think this is a wise investment since, as I mentioned, I believe the importance of coaching is tapping into your existing skill, but clearly a lot of people think differently. Should a player have to pay? For the most part, top athletes compensate their coaches very well. On the other hand, the coaching ability of your (free) high school coach is pretty much a lottery

Practical concerns exist for both sides
If coaching is allowed...
-The scenario you mentioned; someone traveling far to a tournament without having the benefit of anyone from their community coming with them
-Similar scenario; your coach is currently in a match of their own and thus can't coach you without holding up the tournament

If coaching is NOT allowed...
-Mandating crowd silence/involvement pretty much kills 75% of the fun of a tournament. If you allow the crowd to persist, then it's trivial for a coach to coach via that manner (as we all experience on a regular basis)
-Who can you punish? What if the coach is already eliminated from the tournament? By the time he is punished, the relevant damage has already been done, as the coachee has already received (and likely implemented) the relevant advice. Can you punish the coachee for someone in the crowd shouting ambiguous advice? They have no control over it

I don't have any real thoughts on how to address these issues... but I think enforcement is a whole separate debate from the idealism behind the concept

This makes no sense. Not to mention that in your example a coach still creates an imbalance just like I said.

1.2 vs 1.0 make more sense to you?

the only real point here was that the coach isn't equivalent to a whole extra player in the match.

It's entirely likely that BOTH of us are wrong in this regard; you overestimating the impact of a coach, me underestimating. The question is whether ANY impact the coach has on the match should be perceived as negative. I don't think it should

Ok, when you go to court and ask for a lawyer, they provide one for you, they don't say. "Too bad, your too poor to afford a lawyer, now your found guilty no matter what you say."

When you show up to a boxing match without a coach, do they provide you one too? Not a second, a coach with actual knowledge.

come on, we can take off the wall tangentially related examples all day and jam it into the arguments but at the end of the day, unless you understand the spirit behind the example you're citing, it's meaningless

Typically two average people can outsmart an above average guy. Maybe you'll find a genius who can outsmart them, but typically that is not the case.

no amount of people like you and me putting our heads together is going to get us anywhere close to beating mango

 

[Nihonjin]

An american would be willing to coach you for sure. Weren't they helping you vs Hungrybox?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jzEBqUiw#t=0m40s

listen to commentary amsah

That's me, not everyone would have that luxury.

And no, I didn't hear a thing when I was playing Hbox. I naturally block out crowds and anything other than my opponent's voice and the Melee sounds..:embarrass

coaching is probably helpful, but its not an unfair advantage.

smells like ****** in this thread.

You're contradicting yourself. Any advantage gained over your opponent through a third party is already unfair.

I also say the crowed can have bigger effect.

No, they don't.

Coaching should be allowed. If we not can have coaches we need to have "guards" how can guarantee that no one coaching during the matches.

So we shouldn't make a rule because otherwise we would have to enforce it..?
That's not an argument.

I guess the first person how really start to discuss this was someone how lost a set and try to find a john.

I don't see how "My opponent got help so he beat me" is a John and not just the truth.

And i guess the most people not wanna ban it because it is ridiculous.

Really, why?

Coaching can be a fun part of the community =).

Like free-for-all, Hyrule Temple & Items on very high.


@PockyD

Your post makes me /facepalm to no end, but I'll address it in a bit. I have to go for now.

 

[pockyD]

That's me, not everyone would have that luxury.

And no, I didn't hear a thing when I was playing Hbox. I naturally block out crowds and anything other than my opponent's voice and the Melee sounds..:embarrass

...then it's going to be hard to interpret your stance against coaching as non-selfserving, considering your lack of a need for (or ability to take) coaching

as an aside, do you think you would have done any better if you had a coach of your choice in your ear? how much better?

You're contradicting yourself. Any advantage gained over your opponent through a third party is already unfair.

not if the rules allow for the other player to have a third party in their corner as well

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

This debate is going nowhere, it's not like anything said here would affect the smash community, it's up to the TO to decide if coaching is allowed or not.

 

[Animal]

valid points amsah.

 

[Armada]

Nihonjin:

I know the crowed don´t effect you (or me) but i have heard many people have problems with that (i also say CAN).

I never said that was a argument but that is ridiculous if we need to have guards. Fun when a lot of people have really bad (or can´t English) so that is impossible for them to cheering if they don´t use English if we don´t have a person how can translate

And yes that is a john. The community overall use many kind of johns and this is a good example.

Both players can have a coach so that is justice.

This rule is ridiculous mostly because we need a lot of ridiculous things so everyone know someone not cheats.

ffa suck Hyrule suck items sucks (sounds boring).

Coaching in sports (even melee) is justice if the game is fast enough (not chess that willed be broken).

If the coach (or you) don´t delay the tournament i cant understand why coaching not would be allowed.

 

[pockyD]

@PockyD

Your post makes me /facepalm to no end, but I'll address it in a bit. I have to go for now.

if you'd rather discuss this directly, my AIM = 'horizonflash'

I think there are too many points going on at the same time to properly keep track of

 

[jugfingers]

Amsah: I never said that was the same thing i just ask if that will be the next step.

I also say the crowed can have bigger effect.

Coaching should be allowed. If we not can have coaches we need to have "guards" how can guarantee that no one coaching during the matches.

I guess the first person how really start to discuss this was someone how lost a set and try to find a john.

And i guess the most people not wanna ban it because it is ridiculous.

Coaching can be a fun part of the community =).

Coaching ftw.

Armada knows whats up.

 

[Zodiac]

i think ocaching is definitely an american thing. But like i said, the other person can hear what the coach is saying and almost use that 2 his advantage just as much as the person being coached. i dont have a problem with it

Not really, whenever I coach or am being coached we talk in a hushed tone, due to the noise that usually goes on at tournaments no one can hear us but us, and if its necessary we even move away from the tv to discuss strategy, its pointless if your opponent hears what your coach is saying.

Also, another alternative to this is that coaching is only allowed when BOTH parties have a coach. (The skill of the two coaches wouldn't factored in, it would be a pain to find the right coaches that way) There needs to be some sort of agreed alternative here, because coaching DOES give one player an unfair advantage over the other.

 

[Nihonjin]

exactly

people with resources and who prioritize the event get more help.

So you're against equal opportunity? Good to know.

So in a situation where both players have their favored coach available, do you prefer they both use them or neither use them?

Neither use them. Because you screw up brackets if they use their coaches in some sets while not in others.

Sounds like you're not quite sure what straw manning means. I was indeed straw manning, because I was echoing what you were saying. I'm attempting to cater my arguments to what you're saying. If you agree that my point was irrelevant, then you are agreeing that your original point was irrelevant

You're losing me here, when exactly did I strawman you or anyone in this thread?

What if I have a friend run and get me a bottle of water between matches? TWO ON ONE!

What if my friend gives me a massage (massive homo)? TWO ON ONE!

It's important to discern how their actions affect the gameplay; not simply the fact that there are two people sitting there

This is a bunch of bull.

once again, this is directed specifically at your arguments; you seem to have some trouble following multiple threads of thought at once, so i'll lay it out for you

It's not that I can't follow, just that you make no sense.

MY opinion in a vacuum on the matter from the idealist perspective...

1) Coaching helps a player play to their potential.
- This is desirable because as a community, we want everyone to be playing as well as possible in tournament to drive the metagame forward.

This is simply not true. It pushes players beyond their normal capabilities, not to their limits. Or do you really think people can only play at their best with help of others?

2) Coaches only serve to help a player recall what they already know and apply it to the situation. Coaches will not teach new skills on the fly
- This is important because the relative skill level of your coach is largely irrelevant; what matters is how well they understand you and your abilities

This is again simply not true.

I don't know how to fight against Jiggs, I'm absolutely clueless. If I had PP as my coach, he wouldn't be telling me things I already know, because I don't know anything. Instead he would be teaching me how to play the match up (and possibly some habits of my opponent I didn't pick up on).

3)
- If you're good enough anyway, that means you've gotten good by having a great pre-existing understanding of your own limits.

What the hell are you talking about..

In this case, coaching probably won't do you any good anyway

So...good players can't get coached..?

If coaching is NOT allowed...
-Mandating crowd silence/involvement pretty much kills 75% of the fun of a tournament. If you allow the crowd to persist, then it's trivial for a coach to coach via that manner (as we all experience on a regular basis)

Strawman.

Crowd =/= Coach

-Who can you punish? What if the coach is already eliminated from the tournament?

Then you remove him from the venue until the set is over.

By the time he is punished, the relevant damage has already been done, as the coachee has already received (and likely implemented) the relevant advice.

So because we might not be able to prevent it completely, we shouldn't try at all..?

Can you punish the coachee for someone in the crowd shouting ambiguous advice? They have no control over it

Crowd =/= Coach

the only real point here was that the coach isn't equivalent to a whole extra player in the match.

That doesn't make it any less 2 on 1.

It's entirely likely that BOTH of us are wrong in this regard; you overestimating the impact of a coach, me underestimating. The question is whether ANY impact the coach has on the match should be perceived as negative. I don't think it should

I've seen the effect of coaching myself, I'm not overestimating anything. You on the other hand seem to be arguing from ignorance.

...then it's going to be hard to interpret your stance against coaching as non-selfserving, considering your lack of a need for (or ability to take) coaching

I can naturally block out anything I want, but if I had someone coaching me obviously that person wouldn't be blocked out.

as an aside, do you think you would have done any better if you had a coach of your choice in your ear? how much better?

I would've done better, because I had no idea what to do.

How much better? That depends on how good the coach is. If it was someone who actually knew how to fight Hbox and they were telling me what and what not to do during the match I might have actually won.

not if the rules allow for the other player to have a third party in their corner as well

Then it's still unfair because not all coaches are equal. Which also means that coaches would be the deciding factor between two equally skilled players, fun fun.

 

[pockyD]

So you're against equal opportunity? Good to know.

i'm in no way for equality. there's a reason we as a community encourage byoc, character choice, etc.

all we can ensure is that they play under the same set of rules

Neither use them. Because you screw up brackets if they use their coaches in some sets while not in others.

maybe you misunderstood again; i'm referencing a scenario like any other sport where the coach in question is not a participant in the event

You're losing me here, when exactly did I strawman you or anyone in this thread?

comparing a coach's advantage to an extra player, then asking me if 2 v 1 is really fair?

This is a bunch of bull.

solid argument

It's not that I can't follow, just that you make no sense.

When you can't follow, that's the same as something making no sense from your perspective

as the person in confusion, you can't really make that judgment

This is simply not true. It pushes players beyond their normal capabilities, not to their limits. Or do you really think people can only play at their best with help of others?

I can't really respond to "simply not true"

I do think that some people can only play at their best with the calming influence of a coach, while others can only play at their best if they are completely undisturbed, while yet others aren't greatly affected either way

This is again simply not true.

I can't really respond to "simply not true"

I don't know how to fight against Jiggs, I'm absolutely clueless. If I had PP as my coach, he wouldn't be telling me things I already know, because I don't know anything. Instead he would be teaching me how to play the match up (and possibly some habits of my opponent I didn't pick up on).

well, I'm unconvinced, but I don't know where we can go from here

What the hell are you talking about..

what I mean is, simply, some people don't NEED a coach. Maybe they don't respond to instruction well, maybe they're just that **** good

So...good players can't get coached..?

quite the opposite; good players can be coached, but it would do far more good coming from someone with an understanding of them rather than mystery player B

there's a reason mango asked for hugs at genesis

Strawman.

Crowd =/= Coach

how do you draw the line? how many's a crowd?

Then you remove him from the venue until the set is over.

the damage is already done; the information has already been passed

So because we might not be able to prevent it completely, we shouldn't try at all..?

If you pass a toothless rule, the less honorable/aware players will continue happily coaching and being coached, while the more honorable/aware players will follow the rule and be at a disadvantage. A rule without significant enforcability will only hurt the players you're trying to protect

Crowd =/= Coach

how do you draw the line? how many's a crowd?

edit: to pre-emptively address this since I don't really want to keep slinging giant posts around, most early-bracket matches will have a crowd of 0-5 people, where it's trivial to identify your coach's voice, especially when it's possible/likely that ALL of the crowd is in your corner

That doesn't make it any less 2 on 1.

sure it does

I've seen the effect of coaching myself, I'm not overestimating anything. You on the other hand seem to be arguing from ignorance.

good, we're approaching ad hominems

I can naturally block out anything I want, but if I had someone coaching me obviously that person wouldn't be blocked out.

well there's a reason you block them out to begin with, isn't there?

I would've done better, because I had no idea what to do.

How much better? That depends on how good the coach is. If it was someone who actually knew how to fight Hbox and they were telling me what and what not to do during the match I might have actually won.

then i think 95% of the community would have preferred a match where you maybe got some pointers and put up a decent fight as opposed to what actually happened

Then it's still unfair because not all coaches are equal. Which also means that coaches would be the deciding factor between two equally skilled players, fun fun.

if you take coaching out of the question, what IS the 'deciding factor' between two equally skilled players?

why would a coach be any less legitimate a factor than room temperature or tv size or positioning or even dumb luck?

why does it matter if all coaches are equal? not all players are equal either, not all characters, not all controllers, not even all controller ports

This is the only real part of your perspective that i don't even remotely understand; there's not a single sport that mandates that all participants either never receive coaching or only receive coaching from exactly one 'level' of coach (which, in practice, reduces to one specific coach)

anyway, i'm going to try to walk away now (although i doubt i have the will power), since this multiquoting really doesn't benefit anyone but us

I understand your perspective; You think a coach makes a notable impact (I somewhat agree in most cases) and it's unfair that one person might have an impactful coach while the other doesn't. I disagree that it's unfair and I think that the impact provided by a coach is good for the game. If you're still confused (which I'm sure you are, based on the way you're replying), you can find me on aim.

For the record, I don't think you're "wrong" in any sense (except for, with legalized coaching, the skill of the coaches being presented as unfair, since that makes no sense to me). You're simply against the impact a coach can make whereas I'm for it

 

[da K.I.D.]

1) Coaching helps a player play to their potential.
- This is desirable because as a community, we want everyone to be playing as well as possible in tournament to drive the metagame forward.

I think coaching allows people to play past their current potential. i.e. artificially better than their current skill should allow.

2) Coaches only serve to help a player recall what they already know and apply it to the situation. Coaches will not teach new skills on the fly
- This is important because the relative skill level of your coach is largely irrelevant; what matters is how well they understand you and your abilities

I disagree with this as well. A lot of the time in my region, the main culprit of coaching doesnt necessarily teach new skills during the match (although that can definitely happen) He doesnt help them to recall things they already know, but what HE already knows. Since he had been playing smash for so long hes very quick to pick up on patterns and habits. and he uses that ability to help those that dont have that ability as well honed as him. which can unfairly affect the outcome of an important match.
Example, lets use the people current being spoken about.
Amsah comes to the US for a tourney, and ends up having to play mango. Lets say mango played falco against amsahs shiek. Lets say that throughout the match somebody that frequently plays with mango was shouting out the direction mango would tech every time amsah d-threw him. Normally Amsah would have to rely on quick reflexes and his eyes to get followups from those tech chases, but instead all he has to do is go where the guy who knows mango tells him to go. Because of this, Amsah nets a rather decisive win in a match that normally would have gone either way.

Honest question to you. do you think that is fair and promoting the correct kind of competition?

3) If you don't know any smashers well enough that they're able to help you, then tough
- If you're good enough anyway, that means you've gotten good by having a great pre-existing understanding of your own limits. In this case, coaching probably won't do you any good anyway
- If you're not good enough anyway, then the lack of a coach has already manifested itself in a much more significant way through the lack of a training partner to drive you to improvement
- If you DID value in-the-moment advice, I'm sure any number of good smashers would be willing to help you out for a few bucks. I personally don't think this is a wise investment since, as I mentioned, I believe the importance of coaching is tapping into your existing skill, but clearly a lot of people think differently. Should a player have to pay? For the most part, top athletes compensate their coaches very well. On the other hand, the coaching ability of your (free) high school coach is pretty much a lottery

Why should one person have to pay for a service like that that the other person would get for free?

and like i said above, I dont think coaching only raises your skill to the highest it is inherently but raising it even higher than ones normal limits artificially.

 

[Inui]

Coaching only needs to be banned if Vex Kasrani or Pierce7d are the coaches.

That **** is broken.

 

[quote]

Coaching should be allowed. I'm not going to argue this on grounds that it's unfair or not. It should be allowed because it forwards the development of smash and competetive gaming as a sport. For a lot of people, it's hard to take a game like smash seriously because it doesn't have the competetive backing that other sports do. I mean when people from the generation above us look at this, they all scoff at us seeing as there are no coaches, a league hardly exists, rules are lax in comparison to other sports, and prize money/salaries are dismal in comparison to say football and baseball. Having official regulations for coaching and what not will have a significant impact on the legitimacy of the sport.

I would also like to point out that coaching promotes a higher level of competition. This is a sport right?Anything that's not physically or mentally destrutive that promotes a higher level of competition should be allowed for that simple reason.

 

[Solid Jake]

Oh hey, Inui is back.

Okaeri

 

[Rappster]

i read through the whole tread, and as far as i could see, no one compared smash to chess.

as a chess nerd, i would argue that smash is much more similar to chess than boxing, basketball, bowling, etc.

In chess, a single bit of mid-game advice can turn the tide of an entire match. The same applies for Smash.

coaching should not take place during tournament matches, but any other time would be ok.

The person who made a point about people delaying matches while waiting for their coach is very right as well

 

[Animal]

Armada just owned this thread

strongly disagree. Reread armadas post. If coachjing is banned whats next cheering and crowds?

 

[PB&J]

coaching is the best and should be aloud at all times..its been aloud for so long why try to ban it now..it change alot of the major tourny results plus it makes play better and its not like every player is being coached any way and there will always be someone in the crowd yelling out certain things to watch out for anyway.

its sad that coaching at all times isnt winning but this is the smash community..quick to change rules and ban things that shoudnt be banned

 

[quote]

i read through the whole tread, and as far as i could see, no one compared smash to chess.

as a chess nerd, i would argue that smash is much more similar to chess than boxing, basketball, bowling, etc.

In chess, a single bit of mid-game advice can turn the tide of an entire match. The same applies for Smash.

coaching should not take place during tournament matches, but any other time would be ok.

The person who made a point about people delaying matches while waiting for their coach is very right as well

I would disagree. The real time factor alone sets it far away from chess. In chess, you might have a full 10 seconds to make a decision probably more. In smash, most of the time you have less than a second to make decisions. You can only devote so much brain power to analytics and judgement. In a lot of cases, players won't be able to take in advice until they are losing a stock or have similar downtime. Chess is also a very nonlinear game (not that that's a bad thing) one good move can put you over the top even more so than in smash. In smash, the worst thing that can happen in smash is you lose a stock. In chess, you can win at any point in time if things line up. Also, board position is static, and movement is very limited in chess. Smash is more dynamic in terms of doing things like avoiding the sack and such (sorry it's 2 a.m. and I can't think of a better description). The fact that things aren't set in stone is a big deal and makes in game advice a criminal offense.

The match delay is definitely a problem too, but it's not one that can't be fixed. I can think of a number of solutions, but that's pretty off topic.

 

[HugS™]

MY opinion in a vacuum on the matter from the idealist perspective...

1) Coaching helps a player play to their potential.
- This is desirable because as a community, we want everyone to be playing as well as possible in tournament to drive the metagame forward.
2) Coaches only serve to help a player recall what they already know and apply it to the situation. Coaches will not teach new skills on the fly
- This is important because the relative skill level of your coach is largely irrelevant; what matters is how well they understand you and your abilities
3) If you don't know any smashers well enough that they're able to help you, then tough
- If you're good enough anyway, that means you've gotten good by having a great pre-existing understanding of your own limits. In this case, coaching probably won't do you any good anyway
- If you're not good enough anyway, then the lack of a coach has already manifested itself in a much more significant way through the lack of a training partner to drive you to improvement
- If you DID value in-the-moment advice, I'm sure any number of good smashers would be willing to help you out for a few bucks. I personally don't think this is a wise investment since, as I mentioned, I believe the importance of coaching is tapping into your existing skill, but clearly a lot of people think differently. Should a player have to pay? For the most part, top athletes compensate their coaches very well. On the other hand, the coaching ability of your (free) high school coach is pretty much a lottery

This is all completely correct.

I don't see how Amsah can not only disagree with it, but claim it to be untrue.

You don't teach someone new tricks while in a match. It's a waste of effort. When Lucky played Armada, I coached him the best I could, but lucky's skillset was not at the level necessary to beat armada. As a coach I understood this, and all I could do from that point on was help him play his best. At no point did I consider informing him of new insight on the match up. If he didn't know it already, there's no way my words were going to ingrain it into him mid match. In fact, such coaching would distract him and possibly have him play worse.

****, I usually have trouble adding to a pocky post because he covers most everything.

But anyways, I'll chime in.

The argument against coaching seems to always center around some notion that players become artificially superior to their coach-less selves. If you believe in pocky's analysis, and I do, there is nothing artificial about playing closer to your highest potential.

Having a coach is no different than having a good day, or an "in the zone" match where everything falls into place and clicks. I feel we are constantly striving to become our best selves, and as a higher level becomes easier to achieve, we can find ways to break new limits.

I don't believe coaching should be banned in the way that Hyrule is banned. Where Hyrule is banned, if for one reason, because it prevents players from reaching higher levels and breaking new limits in light of broken strategies.

On the other hand, coaching doesn't prevent the evolution of the metagame, it pushes it forward. Coaching simply helps you reach a higher level in a way that good sleep, healthy eating, stress control, and a good controller can. It's just another way to reach your potential without breaking any non-smash laws. :/ And in realizing these higher levels of performance more easily, you can begin finding ways to surpass the metagame.

If people fear that the lack of availability of quality coaches is a problem, it's just a problem that will fix itself in the same way that a region can eventually fix a "lack of competition" problem. The environment will demand improvement, and with the ability we have to communicate and share information, that improvement will come sooner or later. Socal/Norcal/EC/Florida will be obvious beneficiaries of allowed coaching, and because of the increased skill of these regions, the environment will demand a like improvement of the lesser regions, and it will come.

I haven't addressed Cactuar's point regarding the fact that coaches can reveal habits that a player did not see on his own. This would be an artificial way of becoming better mid match. I don't know how i feel about that yet.

 

[Prawn]

eh i dont really buy the "can tell you where mango is gonna tech the dthrow every time" argument.


anybody who knows that should just be beating mango themselves, like honestly a lot of the top players dont have such concrete habits.

 

[ArcNatural]

eh i dont really buy the "can tell you where mango is gonna tech the dthrow every time" argument.


anybody who knows that should just be beating mango themselves, like honestly a lot of the top players dont have such concrete habits.

You need to look at the example in a more general form.

For example. The coach points out that your opponent buffer spotdodges a lot after techs so you start punishing. Then when your opponent starts buffer rolling instead the coach instantly recognizes and tells you in case you already didn't notice. Please don't make the case against this example explicitly. The point of what he was trying to say is the coaching can speed up the adaptability.

I'm not truly against or for coaching at this point. I am for making some kind of rule so that it isn't left in the air all the time. Most players just don't know how to react to it. Some view it as a negative and others as a positive (ie Armada/Amsah). Having a rule will help solidify what approach most players should be taking (adding coaching to their gameplay, not having a coach).

 

[AXE 09]

This is all completely correct.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I disagree.

Let's say someone is fighting against Taj's Mewtwo. Every time Taj Dthrows him, he always DI's toward him and gets massive damage because of it. If this person has a coach and that coach tells him "always DI away from him when he grabs you", then that person could win the match just from that. Where as if he did not have a coach, he would've lost.

I'm basically saying that coaches can provide information about the opponent's character/playstyle that the player might've not know otherwise. So with a coach, that person can win matches that he would've lost to without one.

Things like this might not be as apparent to the top players, but to lower and mid level players, a coach has a much higher impact on their play and can tell them things during matches that can make them win.

Like Amsah said before, if 2 scrubby players are fighting against each other and I decide to coach one of them, I'm pretty sure that the one that I coach will win (as long as he's willing to listen to me).

Let's say a Peach and a Marth who don't know any advanced techniques are fighting against each other in a tourney match. The Marth loves to Dtilt. If I just whisper in the ear of the Peach player and say "just spam c-stick down", then he'll have a MAJOR advantage and will most likely win the match.

That probably wasn't the best example, but I hope you all know what I'm trying to say.

I just feel that having a coach by your side while you are playing can make you do good things that you wouldn't have done on your own, which means that coaching helps a player to exceed their potential. Using my above example, that Peach player probably wouldn't have Dsmashed him to death if I didn't tell him to do so otherwise.

Yes, I agree that coaching helps push forward the evolution of the metagame, but a tournament match is a whole different thing. I feel that in a tournament match, you are supposed do the best you can with the skills that you have, not by being told what to do by someone better than you (or someone who knows the matchup/opponent's style better). Coaching is supposed to help you prepare you for future tournaments, while tournaments are for testing your own skill.

This is how I feel, anyways.

 

[Prawn]

whats to keep me from just standing in the crowd and screaming the same things, such as

"YO BROSEPH DI THAT DOWNTHROW AWAY FROM HIM YO DONT LET THAT ***** HURT YOU"

as compared to

"di mewtwo's dthrow away or he'll hit you"

example 1 is coaching? or not?

idk the rules that have been proposed are as arbitrary as some of brawl's rules already so i guess it doesnt matter lol, IMO it doesnt have that big of an impact.

 

[swordgard]

Axe, that first example can be taught beforehand, I don't even need coaching for that.

 

[VA]

I don't THINK they allow it in tennis anymore?

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

First of all, I love the fact that this thread was made because I've been dying to express my view points on this and see where everyone else stands with the situation.

I personally feel that "coaching" should not be allowed during the game. Before and after a match is being played, I see nothing wrong with it. But never during a match. It obviously gives a player an unfair advantage; it changes the flow of the match, and can even change the outcome of the match as well. Coaching other players involved in the match is completely fine in my eyes. But if someone is just watching and evaluating, it shouldn't be allowed.

My question is how do you handle coaching when it's taken into account? It's a verbal action from someone who isn't in the match. So how do you handle it if you're not allowing it? In the case of them not participating in the tournament. As far as teams go, obviously that's a different story.