Coaching

[VA]

It should be allowed in teams, like in sports you can talk to yuor partner in the match.

In singles I think if it's just a few words like "do X thing" then you can give a warning, but in depth coaching could have more serious consequences.

Tennis players like Jelena Jankovic look to their coaches a lot during matches, but are usually not officially dealt with. It's tricky.

 

[Mota]

In a match, the player being coached has to divide their attention to their coach, process what they said and somehow apply it to the current match that instant.
Which may or may not work.
Also the other player can take advantage of the advice of the other players coach to mindgame, change tactics, play the complete opposite.

Coaching is fine.

 

[Nihonjin]

Armada just owned this thread

No he didn't. Coaching is not the same as cheering.

coaching is the best and should be aloud at all times..its been aloud for so long why try to ban it now..

This isn't an argument.

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.

But this is exactly what coaching is and what I'm against. And only a small part of it.

What you're talking about seems to be something equivalent to a peptalk midgame. I have no problems with that.

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

Luckily we're not all fighting Mango. Though I can't accurately call all his techs, I can call it right 90% of the time against people who made it to 3rd round of pools at Pound.

But who cares? It's a bad example. The point is that a coach can point out your opponents habits and your habits being exploited by your opponent to give you an edge.

Anybody who knows that should just be beating mango themselves

False. Playing someone =/= watching them play
Even if someone was able to point out all of someones habits as a coach, that doesn't mean they'd be able to spot and capitalize on those habits when actually playing against that person.

like honestly a lot of the top players dont have such concrete habits.

We do, they're just less out in the open and we change them as soon as we realize it.

*truth*

Axe is right..:embarrass

In a match, the player being coached has to divide their attention to their coach, process what they said and somehow apply it to the current match that instant.

Which isn't hard at all.

Which may or may not work.

Which means they'll either perform over or under their current level.
How is that a good thing again..?

Also the other player can take advantage of the advice of the other players coach to mindgame, change tactics, play the complete opposite.

I'd love to see you take advantage of a coach's advice when he's talking in a language you don't understand.

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

That wasn't the point.

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.

If someone's caught coaching, remove the coach from the players side and warn them. If they continue, remove them from the venue until the set is over. If they continue, they get kicked out of the venue permanently.

This is a separate issue though.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

It should be allowed in teams, like in sports you can talk to yuor partner in the match.

In singles I think if it's just a few words like "do X thing" then you can give a warning, but in depth coaching could have more serious consequences.

Tennis players like Jelena Jankovic look to their coaches a lot during matches, but are usually not officially dealt with. It's tricky.

This is where you're wrong. I once wanted to go into coaching for football. That's what I wanted to do with my life. Seeing as how competitive I am.

The difference here is that, sports are a horrible comparision. During sports you're being coached to the player directly without the opposing team knowing what's coming, either. Sports also have teams whereas, Brawl has Singles and Doubles. Which is by yourself or only with one other.

I don't view coaching as being fine. It still gives that unfair advantage and awareness. Instead of comparing to sports in reality, compare it to a sports video game. Such as Madden for instance. Say there's only 50 seconds left in the game, and you haven't used all your timeouts yet. Then someone says "Use a timeout!" because they're helping to "coach" you. Whereas, you would have been the player to not use a timeout had they not said that, or been aware of the clock after it's far too late for a comeback. (Lack of) Awareness is categorized as skill in my book. You lack that, it's just another flaw for you to correct.

 

[X1-12]

I'm actually partly against this now I come to think more about it..

Part of a player's skill is his ability to recognise habits and to be able to adapt.. but coaches help players do this, so if people rely on coaches A) they don't learn to adapt etc, they may just rely on their coach. and B) tournaments should be player vs player, not more, no less

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I'm actually partly against this now I come to think more about it..

Part of a player's skill is his ability to recognise habits and to be able to adapt.. but coaches help players do this, so if people rely on coaches A) they don't learn to adapt etc, they may just rely on their coach. and B) tournaments should be player vs player, not more, no less

I agree with you, and I'm glad you see it the way I do. But this is only a small thing compared to my entire thinking method.

 

[VA]

This is where you're wrong. I once wanted to go into coaching for football. That's what I wanted to do with my life. Seeing as how competitive I am.

The difference here is that, sports are a horrible comparision. During sports you're being coached to the player directly without the opposing team knowing what's coming, either. Sports also have teams whereas, Brawl has Singles and Doubles. Which is by yourself or only with one other.

I don't view coaching as being fine. It still gives that unfair advantage and awareness. Instead of comparing to sports in reality, compare it to a sports video game. Such as Madden for instance. Say there's only 50 seconds left in the game, and you haven't used all your timeouts yet. Then someone says "Use a timeout!" because they're helping to "coach" you. Whereas, you would have been the player to not use a timeout had they not said that, or been aware of the clock after it's far too late for a comeback. (Lack of) Awareness is categorized as skill in my book. You lack that, it's just another flaw for you to correct.

Umm I think you misunderstood what I was saying there.

Tennis is what I was comparing it to, not SPORT in general. As I'd agree that different team sizes has a big impact on coaching. Tennis is either singles or doubles.

If we're taking smash as seriously as sport I think tennis is a good place to look for coaching rules. The players (last time I checked) were not allowed coaches to come down court side for direct advice. Occasionally players like JJ would look up to her coach for advice, which the commentators would remark upon saying it's not really fair. I'm not sure how I feel about the odd nod to your coach. Like I said that could be dealt with by warnings, REAL intensive words of strategic advice on things that players have not picked up is actually pretty much cheating.

I used to play MTG pretty seriously. Once my best friend had made it to the finals of a tournament. He and his opponent were in what seemed to be a deadlock. I noticed there was something in play that he was not aware of. I chose not to tell him even though we were gay enough to have a secret langauge when I was that age and I could have just done that. The game ended in a draw, I told him after the set was over and he was like oh **** yeah I didn't see that. The game is between two or four players, involving anymore doesn't really seem right.

 

[MJG]

I am just astonished at pockyD right now lol...

Anyways...In regards to this topic, I have coached a friend before, been coached by a friend and have been in a match where my opponent had a coach. In my honest opinion, I don't think that a coach is really fair because this game is in fact about mind games and skill (Aside from all the gay stuff that happens in brawl), not what a friend or some random bystander points out that you, or your opponent, did not see or point out during the match. Some people during a match don't catch certain patterns that their opponents portray throughout the match while their coach will more than likely see this and for the coach to be able to tell them what the opponent is doing is SOLELY the coach pointing this out and is unfair to the opponent.

Example: A few tourneys ago, my friends olimar was playing this diddy player on frigate and he decided to keep using diddys bananas against him even though he would get punished for it most of the time. Instead of throwing the banana back at diddy, I told him that he should just spam Side B, throw the banana up and punish the diddy accordingly.

Another example is when I played lain at the same tourney. After looking at the situation, I really didn't need a coach for that MU because it is a pretty "by-the-book" MU but my friend saw noticeable patterns in when the ICs were landing on stage that I didn't see at all and was able to pick up on it later on because of this. I still lost the set (lain is too good) but it still wasn't fair too lain at all.

I would say that a coach is ok to have before/in-between matches/and after matches though for CPs and things of that nature. But all in all, after experiencing being coached against, coaching for a friend and being coached during a match, its not something that I like to see at tournements.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Umm I think you misunderstood what I was saying there.

Tennis is what I was comparing it to, not SPORT in general. As I'd agree that different team sizes has a big impact on coaching. Tennis is either singles or doubles.

If we're taking smash as seriously as sport I think tennis is a good place to look for coaching rules. The players (last time I checked) were not allowed coaches to come down court side for direct advice. Occasionally players like JJ would look up to her coach for advice, which the commentators would remark upon saying it's not really fair. I'm not sure how I feel about the odd nod to your coach. Like I said that could be dealt with by warnings, REAL intensive words of strategic advice on things that players have not picked up is actually pretty much cheating.

I used to play MTG pretty seriously. Once my best friend had made it to the finals of a tournament. He and his opponent were in what seemed to be a deadlock. I noticed there was something in play that he was not aware of. I chose not to tell him even though we were gay enough to have a secret langauge when I was that age and I could have just done that. The game ended in a draw, I told him after the set was over and he was like oh **** yeah I didn't see that. The game is between two or four players, involving anymore doesn't really seem right.

Nothing wrong with a little disagreement and friendly debate. haha.

The way I see it, is a player lacking awareness and being distracted (whether they want to or not) is just unfair in my eyes. If a player isn't alert or aware of something, that's an unfair advantage. As well as tips, tricks and methods.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I am just astonished at pockyD right now lol...

Anyways...In regards to this topic, I have coached a friend before, been coached by a friend and have been in a match where my opponent had a coach. In my honest opinion, I don't think that a coach is really fair because this game is in fact about mind games and skill (Aside from all the gay stuff that happens in brawl). Some people during a match don't catch certain patterns that their opponents portray throughout the match while their coach will more than likely see this and for the coach to be able to tell them what the opponent is doing is SOLELY the coach pointing this out and is unfair to the opponent.

I would say that a coach is ok to have before/in-between matches/and after matches though for CPs and things of that nature. But all in all, after experiencing being coached against, coaching for a friend and being coached during a match, its not something that I like to see at tournements.

I couldn't have explained this any better than you did. I'm at a loss of words for this topic, but I can tell you that I agree with you 100% and have been in each of these situations before.

 

[Pi]

I'm pretty disappointing by the anti-coach arguments.
Why do you even play this game if not to get better, to make money?
Go play metaknight.

I just can't imagine the mindset one would need to have in order to be upset that they were beaten by their opponent exploiting habits they portrayed. Even if those habits were pointed out to their opponent by an observer.

 

[HugS™]

Can you imagine how far the metagame would advance if we were all exposed to each others little tricks, and the game was no longer about what you know, but what you can do with what you know?

 

[VA]

Yeah but why does it have to be in game? Not in between.

 

[pockyD]

if you're allowing for coaching, what would be the major difference?

edit: (between in-game and between-games)

 

[Pi]

Can you imagine how far the metagame would advance if we were all exposed to each others little tricks, and the game was no longer about what you know, but what you can do with what you know?

Lol after 10 years people are still tricking each other, how ****ing deep is melee

 

[VA]

well I suppose that's the crucial point really.

the course of the current game can change with in-game coaching. the course of the set can change with in-between game coaching. I'm not really sure where I stand but I think it's fair to say that coaching has a large influence on the outcome of a set.

its up to the community to decide on whether they believe it's fair or not for this to be put into regulatory effect. I guess this is the role of SBR.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

well I suppose that's the crucial point really.

the course of the current game can change with in-game coaching. the course of the set can change with in-between game coaching. I'm not really sure where I stand but I think it's fair to say that coaching has a large influence on the outcome of a set.

its up to the community to decide on whether they believe it's fair or not for this to be put into regulatory effect. I guess this is the role of SBR.

Basically, and to decide whether or not it's fair, we need to understand each other and discuss it maturely.

 

[MacD]

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.

My question is, what is coaching if it's not pointing out things that the player didn't notice on his own?

Maybe the player didn't realize the weakness to his opponents approach or that he techs certain ways all the time or always rolls a certain time/way. Maybe the player is getting ***** for something they are doing and the coach tells the player to stop doing it. Aren't these all things the player didn't realize on his own? If he realized those things, wouldn't he have already changed his game accordingly?

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

My question is, what is coaching if it's not pointing out things that the player didn't notice on his own?

Maybe the player didn't realize the weakness to his opponents approach or that he techs certain ways all the time or always rolls a certain time/way. Maybe the player is getting ***** for something they are doing and the coach tells the player to stop doing it. Aren't these all things the player didn't realize on his own? If he realized those things, wouldn't he have already changed his game accordingly?

It shouldn't be allowed though, personally. If an observer notices something that the player failed to recognize, that's on the player. Having a biased sided impact over another should not be allowed. What reasons would the player have not noticed the flaw? Lack of awareness, focusing on the game rather than not watching, etc.? Observing and playing are two completely different things. Everytime I watch a match things go through my mind that wouldn't go through my mind at all had I been playing.

 

[Aniolas]

The first thing for you who want to ban coaching is to define what coaching is.
Where is the line between cheering for someone and coach them?

It's not easy to draw a line, and when it comes to people who speaks different language, how will you
be able to uphold the rule?

The purpose:
I understand where you come from, that someone with a coach can preform better than he would without a coach. I agree, that can be true. But say that we should ban coaching, and say that we did that 1 year ago. At Genesis, it was several hundred people cheering for Mango in the Grand Final, and only me and Tonberry cheering/coaching for Armada. Do you think that it would be fair if Armada didn't have anyone?

In this case I can assure you that Armada rather had two friends coaching him, than neither one of Armada and Mango had a coach, but Mango had the crowd.

I hear you Amsah, I understand your point. But don't you agree with me about the Genesis example, and should we then have a rule with a lot of exceptions? Like, coaching is only allowed if both agree?

A rule should be simple, always in use with a clear purpose which should be fullfilled with the rule.
And I don't think that this is.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

The first thing for you who want to ban coaching is to define what coaching is.
Where is the line between cheering for someone and coach them?

It's not easy to draw a line, and when it comes to people who speaks different language, how will you
be able to uphold the rule?

The purpose:
I understand where you come from, that someone with a coach can preform better than he would without a coach. I agree, that can be true. But say that we should ban coaching, and say that we did that 1 year ago. At Genesis, it was several hundred people cheering for Mango in the Grand Final, and only me and Tonberry cheering/coaching for Armada. Do you think that it would be fair if Armada didn't have anyone?

In this case I can assure you that Armada rather had two friends coaching him, than neither one of Armada and Mango had a coach, but Mango had the crowd.

I hear you Amsah, I understand your point. But don't you agree with me about the Genesis example, and should we then have a rule with a lot of exceptions? Like, coaching is only allowed if both agree?

A rule should be simple, always in use with a clear purpose which should be fullfilled with the rule.
And I don't think that this is.

The line is when you start giving advice, tips, hints, and tricks. Cheering is one thing. Assisting is another.

 

[pockyD]

that's not a real line

 

[john!]

I dislike coaching but I think it should be allowed, for no other reason than enforceability. There's nothing stopping people from shouting stuff out during a match that can help another player. Telling people they can't do that is impossible to enforce. Even a rule preventing something like whispering in the player's ear wouldn't work, because there are other ways around it... people speaking different languages, for instance. To me this thread is a nonissue because banning coaching would be impossible in practice.

 

[Overswarm]

Just to point this out if no one has heard this story here:

Wife (Peach) vs. Some guy (Zelda) [I recall Rainbow Cruise but aren't sure at all]

Wife is getting wrecked

Husband yells from the crowd "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S GANON"

Wife wrecks opponent


Sometimes it really IS that simple.

 

[Nihonjin]

I'm pretty disappointing by the anti-coach arguments.
Why do you even play this game if not to get better, to make money?

You get better during practice, friendlies, you use what you've learned during tournaments.
If you can only win with someone else's assistance then you shouldn't be winning at all.

I just can't imagine the mindset one would need to have in order to be upset that they were beaten by their opponent exploiting habits they portrayed. Even if those habits were pointed out to their opponent by an observer.

I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bull****. What you don't seem to understand is that there are no perfect strategies. Things work because people don't know how to deal with them/get tricked. You will always have flaws and habits for people to point out regardless of how good you are. If someone tells your opponent how to beat a strategy he didn't know how to beat, then you didn't really lose to your opponent, but the person who helped him.

An example, my strategy against Jman wasn't perfect. He could've easily forced me off the edge and even killed me had he known the major flaw in my strategy, but he didn't so it worked. Do you honestly think it's fair if let's say Zgetto told him how to beat my ledge stall and he won the match because of that? If that happened, I didn't get outsmarted by Jman, but by Zgetto, who I wasn't even playing against. How would you justify that, really?

if you're allowing for coaching, what would be the major difference?

edit: (between in-game and between-games)

We already covered this on AIM.

that's not a real line

Then lines don't exist.

I dislike coaching but I think it should be allowed, for no other reason than enforceability. There's nothing stopping people from shouting stuff out during a match that can help another player. Telling people they can't do that is impossible to enforce. Even a rule preventing something like whispering in the player's ear wouldn't work, because there are other ways around it... people speaking different languages, for instance. To me this thread is a nonissue because banning coaching would be impossible in practice.

That's not the point of this thread. Let's first decide if we're in favor or against it. Enforcing it is a separate issue.

It's not easy to draw a line, and when it comes to people who speaks different language, how will you
be able to uphold the rule?

That's irrelevant at the moment.

Do you think that it would be fair if Armada didn't have anyone?

Yes. You can learn to not be affected by a crowd cheering against you.

I hear you Amsah, I understand your point. But don't you agree with me about the Genesis example, and should we then have a rule with a lot of exceptions? Like, coaching is only allowed if both agree?

The reason why I don't want coaches even if both players agree is because you don't just play one person. If you play with your coach one match and without your coach the other match, you're significantly weaker against the opponent you fought without a coach. It's unfair.

 

[Animal]

im putting everyone in this thread in timeout. ****s getting heated

 

[dextasmurf]

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.

He's a fool if he keeps getting punished for doing that then...at a pro level u gotta read people that are reading you and change ur style accordingly.

 

[Nihonjin]

He's a fool if he keeps getting punished for doing that then...at a pro level u gotta read people that are reading you and change ur style accordingly.

Yes he is, so he should lose. And not win because someone is pointing out his stupidity midmatch.

 

[VA]

aren't you good vs jiggz tho amsah?

 

[Nihonjin]

Not really..lol
And it was just an example anyway.

 

[VA]

hmmm . . .

 

[MacD]

Yes he is, so he should lose. And not win because someone is pointing out his stupidity midmatch.

this is basically how i feel

And that's why i asked that question (mainly towards hugs) since he was undetermined with how he felt about someone new info mid match, but isn't that the point of coaching, to point out what someone isn't noticing.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

Def should be allowed. I use the hell of of the 5 Minute coaching break for your CP. You're crazy not to.

also I think coaching should be allowed or I think some shenanigans would go down about people just yelling at the match and one player calling it coaching.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Like I said before. There's a large distinction between "assisting" and "watching" I stand where I've been standing with saying it should not be allowed.

 

[jugfingers]

I bet a lot of people feel like this


"I don't care if coaching is allowed because I rilly don't care if someone I play has a coach I'm just gonna beast on them anyways."

or

"I don't care if coaching is banned because I don't need a coach I'm a beast"

if you don't feel the same sentiment then your a slopping wet *****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by6kJpXbnDo

 

[Pi]

I bet a lot of people feel like this


"I don't care if coaching is allowed because I rilly don't care if someone I play has a coach I'm just gonna beast on them anyways."

or

"I don't care if coaching is banned because I don't need a coach I'm a beast"

if you don't feel the same sentiment then your a slopping wet *****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by6kJpXbnDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZiGVROxrY

 

[Smasher89]

Ban coaching, then I can get someone to coach an opponent I dont want to face to get that player disqualified. Seriously such a rule can only be like abused...

And if the player coaching should get disqualified for being a coach, it just has to be a player that has went out from the bracket and got a few good advices from the player wanting to disqualify someone to tell the player...

 

[Nihonjin]

^What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Marc]

A good TO will definitely be able to enforce rules against coaching to at least a certain extent. If someone tries to pull **** like Smasher89 suggested the coach can simply be removed from the venue or get himself DQ'ed for upcoming events.

I've both won and lost close matches because of coaching, although I don't think anyone is arguing the impact it can have. Since people seem to like analogies so much: I don't think chess players are coached during matches. Smash to me feels closer to chess than to baseball or whatever you guys play.

 

[Smasher89]

^What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

It´s kinda meant to "make no sence", since theres not anything yet that have proved it would work (separate rooms would work, but not practicly).

Prove me it will work to ban with writing a rule which can without problem be enforced and followed with no reason to discuss it. Where the rule cannot be abused.
Also keep this in mind:

Language barriers (lika Aniolas for example mentioned) and crowds makes it harder, also if cheering is allowed, what says that "come on Armada" isnt a codeword for take the ledge..
.
Towards and away are 2 of maybe a few words needed to get the message through(as in the Tajexample), which can easily be switched out for something else like "Nice DI" or "Do an Armada combo"...