Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Thats why I said you get 1 minute MAX. Either your coach is there, or you pick a random one from the crowd if you really want one, or you suck it up and move on :D.
one minute won't kill anyone!! just make a rule for locals, that it has to be winners quarters or semis for there to be minute wait for the coach or something.
I think coaching adds an interesting aspect. it already happens between games. (Sometimes for 5 minutes even) It'd be interesting to see what happens when good player + good coach play good player + good coach
What if a mentally handicapped player who is playing, take Flava Flav for instance, happens to need a coach to help him play. Are you going to tell him he can't play because of his disability, or is coaching acceptable in this situation?
I would believe that coaching would be acceptable under this circumstance.
Thats why I said you get 1 minute MAX. Either your coach is there, or you pick a random one from the crowd if you really want one, or you suck it up and move on :D.
one minute won't kill anyone!! just make a rule for locals, that it has to be winners quarters or semis for there to be minute wait for the coach or something.
I think coaching adds an interesting aspect. it already happens between games. (Sometimes for 5 minutes even) It'd be interesting to see what happens when good player + good coach play good player + good coach
so thats 1 minute at the start, then 5 minutes between the games, now matches are extended by 11 minutes... AND they're still not fair as there's no way in which to ensure both players get a coach...
consider the warrior philosophy of Goku, which is to always search for a stronger opponent and relish in finding opponents who are stronger than you.
playing against people +their coach or coaches, is increasing the difficulty of your competition there is more pressure to be as unpredictable and sharp as possible, or else your patterns will be quickly recognized and exploited.
the argument that it is unfair(your argument) is the argument of someone soft like a down pillow.
But we're not warriors. We are smash players, looking to play and compete on a equally fair level, while improving at the same time. If one can improve without such pressure, or difficulties, why bother? And who is to say which method will help one improve more?
I was stuck in the same kind of teamplay for years, doing very random when it comes to results.
Now after having things pointed out during tourneymatches (for example, why going offensive in certain situation, instead of playing passive) during tourneymatches has helped me alot, both how to think as a team, priority when it comes to edgeguard/rescue teammate with more.
And with that we are improving more now in teams then ever, coached matches or not, we play better overall(more stability!!!) which is a real gain for me and keeps me motivated to keep playing. Wasn´t too motivated for teams but that motivation has gone up due to this improvement.
Had a longer post but maybe saves the rest for later. Amsah, can you define a winner? (this isn´t irrelevant)
consider the warrior philosophy of Goku, which is to always search for a stronger opponent and relish in finding opponents who are stronger than you.
playing against people +their coach or coaches, is increasing the difficulty of your competition there is more pressure to be as unpredictable and sharp as possible, or else your patterns will be quickly recognized and exploited.
I was stuck in the same kind of teamplay for years, doing very random when it comes to results.
Now after having things pointed out during tourneymatches (for example, why going offensive in certain situation, instead of playing passive) during tourneymatches has helped me alot, both how to think as a team, priority when it comes to edgeguard/rescue teammate with more.
And with that we are improving more now in teams then ever, coached matches or not, we play better overall(more stability!!!) which is a real gain for me and keeps me motivated to keep playing. Wasn´t too motivated for teams but that motivation has gone up due to this improvement. if you forget mid match its just a pressure issue, which you've got to learn to deal with, or the one match when your coach can't help you'll get *****, as you havn't really learn't anything
you can be taught alterations to your play style, but not mid tournament match... You should go to a tournament knowing everything you need to know, if you don't then you should practise more..
Had a longer post but maybe saves the rest for later. Amsah, can you define a winner? (this isn´t irrelevant)
But we're not warriors. We are smash players, looking to play and compete on a equally fair level, while improving at the same time. If one can improve without such pressure, or difficulties, why bother? And who is to say which method will help one improve more?
I subscribed to this thread a while ago and now that I'm actually at home. I'll explain my argument as to why coaching should be allowed in tournaments under certain guidelines.
First, we much ask the question, what is fair to the opponent.
Even in the beginning of a match, striking a player's best stage by the sense of their character is unfair to their opponent, slimming their chances of winning before the game even begins. When an opponent loses a match, they are allowed to counterpick a stage that exploits your weaknesses as well as expands on their strengths, this is unfair to you.
Why don't we ban counter picking or stage bans then? Because fact of the matter is, without them, a lot of characters have eternally unfair (or unlikely for a better word) chances of winning, and their gameplay is based off of their stage choices. The whole system in itself is fair because both players can be in both scenarios, depending on how the entire set is setup. It is up to the player to take advantage of what the ruleset gives them, which is fair.
Now what does all of this have to do with coaching?
Simple, both players can be coached, and have a designated coacher. To use the excuse "some people don't like being coached; it's not fair", is a horrible argument. Both players are allowed the opportunity, and it's up to the player to use it to their advantage. That's like saying "some people just don't like counterpicking dumb stages like rainbow cruise on their opponents; it's unfair because of their character", well that's why people lose sets. The should've and could've is underestimated by what they actually did. You can believe in this mindset of being fair and having morals all you want, however it only shortens your ability to win, because I'm sure that your opponent in a setting where neither of you have an emotional connection, will counter pick you, ban some of your best stages, and use coaching to his or her advantage.
On a shorter extent, not coaching also shortens you and your opponents ability to learn. Yes that's right, learn.
The competitive setting is the best setting to learn how to play a game, and get better at playing it. Many players tend to not notice their mistakes on their own; they also tend not to know how to punish their opponents efficiently because your mind naturally tell you that you're doing the best option (example: rolling into your opponent and up-smashing can be easily punished, however if you feel it's the best option in your mind, you will continuously do it). Consequently, players lose matches because of their mindset of being fair throughout the entire game cloaking their choice of what's smart.
[collapse=random story if you're willing to read]I specifically remember a time where I was coaching a Wario main against a GnW player in friendlies. I watched the Wario's matches from before, and he lost three matches in a row to the GnW, all of them quite handily. I sat and watched him lose his first stock; both of them were at high percent. I asked him.
"Why did you approach him when you had the percentage lead?" he responded saying
"I don't know".
I told him even though you're losing, camp your opponent, his only mindset is to rack damage and kill you, use that to your advantage and just punish him.
He two stocked him with low percent.
He turned and told me "thanks dude, you should walk around with me and tell me what I'm doing wrong". After he left, I went to his opponent and told him exactly what I was telling the Wario main. He understood exactly what he was doing wrong and thanked me for telling him his mistake.
That following tournament even with me not around, the Wario main placed much better than previous tournaments. His opponent who was handily beaten, ended up getting out of pools for the first time in a relatively large tournament, and beat a PR member, although the GnW was an unknown player by Georgia's standards.
I don't directly want to take credit for their progressive success, however the match where the Wario main won, and his opponent understood his mistakes, still proves my point.[/collapse]
Coaching not only helps the person who's being coached, but indirectly helps the opponent learn his mistakes. Coaching is just another option that you can use to your advantage to help you win. It's not unfair, it's smart. Counter picking efficiently is smart, banning stages is smart, counter picking characters is smart, coaching is just like that.
Of course, in a play to win setting, you don't have to always tell your opponent what's being done wrong in the end of a set, however it's recommended. In the end, coaching helps players learn, and it's just as simple as correctly counter picking stages and banning stages in a set to improve your win conditions.
However, even though I agree with coaching, I think that there should be a ruleset for coaching.
You have to have a designated coach at the beginning of the tournament; they are included with your sign-up. If he didn't walk up with you to sign-up, you don't have a coach.
Coaching is like a team effort, they both have to be there in order for the game to begin. Coaching takes the same disqualification settings as teammates, however the punishment for the coach not being available is that the player loses the stock/match/set. (in the situation that the coach simply will not come back, the player will have to play without a coach at all).
Tios have to have the name of the Coach for the player, and will include that name with the player in bracket (so both the player and coach will be called to a station).
The coach must be as far away from the opponent's chair as possible to prevent distraction, the coach being heard, or any other problems.
The coach may interact with his player, however cannot touch his player's controller.
playing against people +their coach or coaches, is increasing the difficulty of your competition there is more pressure to be as unpredictable and sharp as possible, or else your patterns will be quickly recognized and exploited.
I was stuck in the same kind of teamplay for years, doing very random when it comes to results.
Now after having things pointed out during tourneymatches (for example, why going offensive in certain situation, instead of playing passive) during tourneymatches has helped me alot, both how to think as a team, priority when it comes to edgeguard/rescue teammate with more.
Even in the beginning of a match, striking a player's best stage by the sense of their character is unfair to their opponent, slimming their chances of winning before the game even begins. When an opponent loses a match, they are allowed to counterpick a stage that exploits your weaknesses as well as expands on their strengths, this is unfair to you.
By your definition of unfair, hitting your opponent is unfair as well because it put's them at a disadvantage percentage wise.
The whole point is to beat your opponent while staying within the set rules of the game. So banning or counter picking stages and counter picking characters is just completely fair.
It would be unfair if you somehow convinced your opponent you're allowed to ban a stage when you're not.
Simple, both players can be coached, and have a designated coacher. To use the excuse "some people don't like being coached; is not fair"; it is a horrible argument..
Both players are allowed the opportunity, and it's up to the player to use it to their advantage. That's like saying "some people just don't like counterpicking dumb stages like rainbow cruise on their opponents; it's unfair because of their character", well that's why people lose sets, the should've and could've is underestimated by what they actually did. You can believe in this mindset of being fair and having morals all you want, however it only shortens your ability to win, because I'm sure that your opponent in a setting where neither of you have an emotional connection, will counter pick you, ban some of your best stages, and use coaching to his advantage.
I'll tell you why this is not at all like coaching.
1) All coaches are not equal.
Before you say, well characters aren't equal either
2) Both players cannot have the same coach
If I have the best coaches in the world as my friends and they're willing to coach you, while your only available coach is my grandmother, that puts you at an extreme disadvantage before the match even starts, and there's nothing you can do about it.
So to compare it to characters, imagine my character selection screen has Sheik, Fox, Jiggs, Marth, Falco, Peach, C.Falcon and IC's available.
While your available characters are limited to Pichu and Kirby.
Good luck winning.
[collapse=random story if you're willing to read]I specifically remember a time where I was coaching a Wario main against a GnW player in friendlies. I watched his matches from before, and he lost three matches in a row to him, all of them quite handily. I sat and watched him lose his first stock; both of them were at high percent. I asked him.
"Why did you approach him when you had the percentage lead?" he responded saying
"I don't know".
I told him even though you're losing, camp your opponent, his only mindset is to rack damage and kill you, use that to your advantage and just punish him.
He two stocked him with low percent.
He turned and told me "thanks dude, you should walk around with me and tell me what I'm doing wrong". After he left, I went to his opponent and told him exactly what I was telling Neo_X. He understood exactly what he was doing wrong and thanked me for coaching him.
That following tournament even with me not around, Neo_X placed much better than previous tournaments. His opponent who was handily beaten, ended up getting out of pools for the first time in a relatively large tournament, and beat a PR member, although he was unknown.
I don't directly want to take credit for their progressive success, however the match where Neo_X won, and his opponent understood his mistakes, still proves my point.[/collapse]
No one is against coaching during friendlies. If you told him that during a tournament match though, you screwed over his opponent and won the match for him.
First, we much ask the question, what is fair to the opponent.
Even in the beginning of a match, striking a player's best stage by the sense of their character is unfair to their opponent, slimming their chances of winning before the game even begins. When an opponent loses a match, they are allowed to counterpick a stage that exploits your weaknesses as well as expands on their strengths, this is unfair to you.
there are no situations when one player is incapable of counter-picking or stage striking, if you ban thier best stage, then they should ban yours.. this is down to the player's knowledge of match-ups etc.. if he doesn't know, its his loss, knowledge of match-ups is just as important as anything else (see Axe vs JMan maybe? (melee))
Why don't we ban counter picking or stage bans then? Because fact of the matter is, without them, a lot of characters can't win, and their gameplay is based off of their stage choices. The whole system in itself is fair because both players can be in both scenarios, depending on how the entire game is setup. It is up to the player to take advantage of what the ruleset gives them, which is fair.
Simple, both players can be coached, and have a designated coacher. To use the excuse "some people don't like being coached; it's not fair" is a horrible argument.
How? Surely it isn't fair? how is this a horrible arguement.. Explain.???
Both players are allowed the opportunity, and it's up to the player to use it to their advantage. That's like saying "some people just don't like counterpicking dumb stages like rainbow cruise on their opponents; it's unfair because of their character" well you can believe in this mindset all you want, however it only shortens your ability to win, and also shortens your opponents ability to learn. Yes that's right, learn.
Well if you're deluded, or ignorant of factors that can make you better, its your loss. And No, you won't learn, if you take this mindset. But this still has nothing to do with coaching. Both players can counter-pick, if they chose not to they're dumb..
The competitive setting is the best setting to learn how to play the game, and get better at playing. Many players tend to not notice their mistakes, and lose matches because of their mindset of being fair throughout the entire game.
lolwut? no its nowhere near the best place to learn the game don't be silly.. Hey look! you're rushed pressured, scared...
[collapse=random story if you're willing to read]I specifically remember a time where I was coaching a Wario main against a GnW player in friendlies. I watched his matches from before, and he lost three matches in a row to him, all of them quite handily. I sat and watched him lose his first stock; both of them were at high percent. I asked him.
"Why did you approach him when you had the percentage lead?" he responded saying
"I don't know".
I told him even though you're losing, camp your opponent, his only mindset is to rack damage and kill you, use that to your advantage and just punish him.
He two stocked him with low percent.
He turned and told me "thanks dude, you should walk around with me and tell me what I'm doing wrong". After he left, I went to his opponent and told him exactly what I was telling Neo_X. He understood exactly what he was doing wrong and thanked me for coaching him.
That following tournament even with me not around, Neo_X placed much better than previous tournaments. His opponent who was handily beaten, ended up getting out of pools for the first time in a relatively large tournament, and beat a PR member, although he was unknown.
I don't directly want to take credit for their progressive success, however the match where Neo_X won, and his opponent understood his mistakes, still proves my point.[/collapse]
Coaching not only helps the person who's being coached, but indirectly helps the opponent learn his mistakes.
Of course, in a play to win setting, you don't have to always tell your opponent what's being done wrong in the set, however it's recommended. In the end, coaching helps players learn, and it's just as simple as correctly counter picking stages and banning stages in a set to improve your win conditions.
It doesn't let them really learn.. A quick example, I used to have a habit of rolling inward form the edge, i got punished so many times for it as i could see what i was doing wrong, but if you are just told not to do it you don't really learn
I'm going for the Amsah mulitquote.. <33 (no homo) - just not fast enough :@
I hate when people coach the player with the upperhand. This always happens with me. I use Link and it just frustrates me when people coach the opponent who is either a better player or uses a better character character.
The whole point is to beat your opponent at any cost while staying within the set rules of the game. So banning or counter picking stages and counter picking characters is just completely fair.
So, if coaching was to be added to the ruleset, that would also be completely fair as well correct? Rules change all the time, you're saying here that as long as you stay within the ruleset of the game, you're being fair. What if a rule was entirely biased like
"if you're from canada and you come to america, you automatically lose one match in the set"
Is that fair since you're beating the opponent by means of the ruleset?
It would be unfair if you somehow convinced your opponent you're allowed to ban a stage when you're not.
You forgot one thing as well, not all players are equally skilled. As a matter of fact, no player can be considered even (because of MUs, characters, stages, etc.) . Since that is the case, you have to find a way to out smart an opponent who is more skilled than you, or be prepared for a lesser skilled player using cps, character cps, and bans to limit your skills. Having the same 'skilled' coach doesn't really matter, being a skilled player doesn't make you a good coach, it's your sync with the player.
If I have the best coaches in the world as my friends and they're willing to coach you, while your only available coach is my grandmother, that puts you at an extreme disadvantage before the match even starts, and there's nothing you can do about it.
What makes a good coach a good coach? You say what if. But is that even possible? Probably not. Would I ever bring my grandmother to a tournament? More than likely not.
But anyways, back to the question. What makes a good coach? Their qualifications? If m2k was to be next to me telling me melee advice, I wouldn't be @ m2k's skill because of his coaching. Infact, I would still be a melee scrub, and I wouldn't be able to do what he's telling me to. However if Dogysamich was to be by my side, I would feel much better being coached by him because I personally know him, and he knows what type of things I do in tournament.
So to compare it to characters, imagine my character selection screen has Sheik, Fox, Jiggs, Marth, Falco, Peach, C.Falcon and IC's available.
While your available characters are limited to Pichu and Kirby.
What if you didn't know **** to beans about any of those characters, and couldn't control them, and I've mained Pichu for a couple of years? Pichu : Fox isn't even that bad of a MU . But seriously, this point is really silly in my opinion. You're using the outliers of the tier list to prove your point? Sounds like you're reaching to make yourself right.
No one is against coaching during friendlies. If you told him that during a tournament match though, you screwed over his opponent and won the match for him.
oh noes, how unfair. The player I coach still has to implement my teachings, which can definitely NOT happen. Please stop using outliers of arguments in order to support yourself
there are no situations when one player is incapable of counter-picking or stage striking, if you ban thier best stage, then they should ban yours.. this is down to the player's knowledge of match-ups etc.. if he doesn't know, its his loss, knowledge of match-ups is just as important as anything else (see Axe vs JMan maybe? (melee))
You are correct about this. However it's up to the player to use it to his advantage. In the end, the game itself is what's done by each controller: by each player. The coach is merely a voice, usually a voice among many others. When a person roots on a player, or trash talks an opponent, isn't that considered coaching by the same perspective?
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you don't have the ability to do it. It doesn't mean that you don't have the ability to get a coach to coach you. If you feel you can do it without it, it's your own ***. If you feel you can win with only neutrals, and lose because you don't know a good cp, that's your own *** correct?
Well if you're deluded, or ignorant of factors that can make you better, its your loss. And No, you won't learn, if you take this mindset. But this still has nothing to do with coaching. Both players can counter-pick, if they chose not to they're dumb..
It's a good way to get your mind in the game, to constantly make the best decisions. The best way to learn something competitively is to put money on the line.
It doesn't let them really learn.. A quick example, I used to have a habit of rolling inward form the edge, i got punished so many times for it as i could see what i was doing wrong, but if you are just told not to do it you don't really learn
Think about a habit you have in a total of three matches, that makes you lose the match. Usually I remember things I'm taught if I have an connection to that person. (whether I just like the person, they are family, etc.) But my own personal experience has nothing to do with your example so I'm going to stop here.
i'm agog= I'm desperate to find out (in this case, why you talked for 2 paragraphs about things that are totally unrelated, they saying you would relate it somehow yet you still dont
So, if coaching was to be added to the ruleset, that would also be completely fair as well correct? Rules change all the time, you're saying here that as long as you stay within the ruleset of the game, you're being fair. What if a rule was entirely biased like
"if you're from canada and you come to america, you automatically lose one match in the set"
Is that fair since you're beating the opponent by means of the ruleset?
I actually meant the rules of the game, as in SSBM. Picking characters, picking stages, etc opposed to unplugging controllers, turning off TV's, punching your opponent in real life and coaching.
But yes, the win would be within the rules and fair, the rule itself is unfair though because it purposely gives one player an edge over the other for absolutely no reason (like coaching), which is something we wouldn't and shouldn't allow.
This point has no really weight, we're not talking about deceiving here. We're talking about coaching.
No, we're talking about fair and unfair. And you used stage striking as an example, so I gave you an example where it would be unfair.
You forgot one thing as well, not all players are equally skilled. As a matter of fact, no player can be considered even (because of MUs, characters, stages, etc.) . Since that is the case, you have to find a way to out smart an opponent who is more skilled than you, or be prepared for a lesser skilled player using cps, character cps, and bans to limit your skills.
No, it's the coach's ability to point out your and your opponents habits and mistakes.
What makes a good coach a good coach? You say what if. But is that even possible? Probably not. Would I ever bring my grandmother to a tournament? More than likely not.
It's a hypothetical situation, just answer the question. You're dancing around it like a politician.
But anyways, back to the question. What makes a good coach? Their qualifications? If m2k was to be next to me telling me melee advice, I wouldn't be @ m2k's skill because of his coaching. Infact, I would still be a melee scrub, and I wouldn't be able to do what he's telling me to. However if Dogysamich was to be by my side, I would feel much better being coached by him because I personally know him, and he knows what type of things I do in tournament.
What if you didn't know **** to beans about any of those characters, and couldn't control them, and I've mained Pichu for a couple of years? Pichu : Fox isn't even that bad of a MU . But seriously, this point is really silly in my opinion. You're using the outliers of the tier list to prove your point? Sounds like you're reaching to make yourself right.
You seem to be under the impression that being coached somehow requires an intimate relationship between the coach and coachee, that's simply not true.
So no, my example is spot on. Some people are simply better coaches than others. And if I have all the good coaches available to me, while you only have some Halo professional who knows nothing about smash available to you you, then I'm at an advantage and I didn't do a single thing.
oh noes, how unfair. The player I coach still has to implement my teachings
Implementing teachings isn't the hard part, it's realizing your flaws that's the problem.
If you tell someone not to go to the edge, it's not hard at all to simply stay away from it. But for him to actually realize it's a bad idea to go to the edge is a lesson learned by losing a stock. If you teach that to someone mid match, you've ruined their opponents strategy and it took your coachee zero effort.
You are correct about this. However it's up to the player to use it to his advantage. In the end, the game itself is what's done by each controller: by each player. The coach is merely a voice
You just said that the game is what is done by each player... so why should there be coaches, matches should be player vs player..
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you don't have the ability to do it. It doesn't mean that you don't have the ability to get a coach to coach you.
What if you can't get a coach? You said this was a horrible answer but failed to justify why...
If you feel you can do it without it, it's your own ***. If you feel you can win with only neutrals, and lose because you don't know a good cp, that's your own *** correct?
If they chose not to get a coach to catch their opponents mistakes, they're dumb and they deserve to lose
wait.. what? Using your same logic against you? I would never!
It's a good way to get your mind in the game, to constantly make the best decisions. The best way to learn something competitively is to put money on the line.
If you recognise this habit you should do something about it, if you don't its your bad, mindgames or whatever you wan't to call it are just as important, if not more so, than techskill Would you let someone do the controller movements for another player?
this thread reminds me of FC diamond with the split monitors for teams and later singles.
there was mad coaching going on then on both sides. cuz u couldn't really see or hear the other player.
It was really weird playing someone without them sitting next to you. I pick up on body language and stuff subconsciously i think and it was weird not having that
I think I'm only going to respond to nihonjin this time, he's giving the best conversation.
I actually meant the rules of the game, as in SSBM. Picking characters, picking stages, etc opposed to unplugging controllers, turning off TV's, punching your opponent in real life and coaching.
But yes, the win would be within the rules and fair, the rule itself is unfair though because it purposely gives one player an edge over the other for absolutely no reason (like coaching), which is something we wouldn't and shouldn't allow.
So, this is going on the assumption that your coach, will undoubtedly catch your flaw, you will react, AND punish accordingly right? In a perfect scenario, that's busted as ****. However your coach can actually hurt you just as much as he can help you. It really has no reason to be disallowed.
No, it's the coach's ability to point out your and your opponents habits and mistakes.
once again, no. Pointing out the mistakes is fine, hell, the player themselves can easily point out their mistake in the aftermath. But can you point out the areas where you're ABOUT to make the mistake, AND make them not do it?
Usually no.
It's a hypothetical situation, just answer the question. You're dancing around it like a politician.
IF you had a bunch of coaches, you could only use one throughout the entire tournament or else you'd be disqualified, so the rest of your coaches are available.
This is completely and utterly irrelevant.
You seem to be under the impression that being coached somehow requires an intimate relationship between the coach and coachee, that's simply not true.
Let's say I had an amazing coach, who used terms that I didn't know (let's say I didn't know how to n-air oos, or things of that sort). I wouldn't be able to take his advice efficiently.
Implementing teachings isn't the hard part, it's realizing your flaws that's the problem.
Like I said, usually you can, it's a matter of finding the flaw BEFORE it happens. Generally speaking coaches can't do that, it's a matter of the player doing it themselves. So the only time the player can really get advice is during the cool time (respawn platform) which isn't that bad.
If you tell someone not to go to the edge, it's not hard at all to simply stay away from it. But for him to actually realize it's a bad idea to go to the edge is a lesson learned by losing a stock. If you teach that to someone mid match, you've ruined their opponents strategy and it took your coachee zero effort
"So, this is going on the assumption that your coach, will undoubtedly catch your flaw, you will react, AND punish accordingly right? In a perfect scenario, that's busted as ****. However your coach can actually hurt you just as much as he can help you. It really has no reason to be disallowed."
During a Tournament match, a stranger may come in and unplug a random controller. this could benefit you, or it could benefit your opponent but because of this. "It really has no reason to be disallowed."
Nope not at all. Doing this ones is more than enough to affect an entire match.
In a perfect scenario, that's busted as ****. However your coach can actually hurt you just as much as he can help you. It really has no reason to be disallowed.
This is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that there's a third party purposely interfering in a one on one fight (for better or for worse).
But can you point out the areas where you're ABOUT to make the mistake, AND make them not do it?
IF you had a bunch of coaches, you could only use one throughout the entire tournament or else you'd be disqualified, so the rest of your coaches are available.
My point is, if I have the best coach in the world available to me while you only have the worst coach in the world available to you, I have an advantage for just being who I am.
Do you think that's fair, balanced and something that should be allowed in a competitive scene?
Let's say I had an amazing coach, who used terms that I didn't know (let's say I didn't know how to n-air oos, or things of that sort). I wouldn't be able to take his advice efficiently.
True, but how about a slightly more realistic example? Because terms aren't really an issue.
Like I said, usually you can, it's a matter of finding the flaw BEFORE it happens. Generally speaking coaches can't do that, it's a matter of the player doing it themselves. So the only time the player can really get advice is during the cool time (respawn platform) which isn't that bad.
You're again, completely and utterly wrong on all of this. I've seen coaches do this and it's exactly why I'm against it. If they couldn't we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Besides, there's not always as much haste as you seem to imply. If the opponent's camping on the ledge, the coach has more than enough time to explain how to approach and punish that person (while on their own they might've simply rushed there and die).
your example makes your point look valid. I could use an example just like that, however I'm too lazy to point it out.
During a Tournament match, a stranger may come in and unplug a random controller. this could benefit you, or it could benefit your opponent but because of this. "It really has no reason to be disallowed."
at the beginning of this thread I voted that it would be ok between games, but after reading some of what amsah said and thinking about mid-set coaching, the main example I can think of is asking somebody else what stage to ban/counterpick.
originally I had no problem with this. but after thinking about what amsah said about being a one on one competition and using all the skills that you have prior to the match to take you as far as possible, I think this kind of coaching should be done away with as well
originally I had no problem with this. but after thinking about what amsah said about being a one on one competition and using all the skills that you have prior to the match to take you as far as possible, I think this kind of coaching should be done away with as well
Sure, but it doesn´t fit my playstyle to get into the opponents heads in friendlies, since it´ll help them deal with it in tournamentmatches. More then playing around in friendlies :/
We agree on one part there, but I would like to add a few things: A player who like challenges, allways wants to improve, even though already being the best player, and last, a player who beats his opponents convincingly that makes the opponents frustrated and have a hard time getting to beat the player.
The whole point is to beat your opponent while staying within the set rules of the game. So banning or counter picking stages and counter picking characters is just completely fair.
I thought about it a little. I think it should be banned completely.
Counterpicking is tactical decision making based on your character, your opponent's character, your playing style and your opponent's playing style. You put the pro's and cons against each other and pick a stage you think works in your favor.
If your coach sees certain patterns in your (opponents) style that you didn't notice, he might pick a completely different stage against them than you would, if your opponent then ends up losing to that counter pick (and would've completely destroyed you on the stage you had in mind), then your coach is directly responsible for your win.
So no, coaching should be allow before the first match of a set and afterwards, but not during. Not even in between matches.
but it doesn´t fit my playstyle to get into the opponents heads in friendlies, since it´ll help them deal with it in tournamentmatches. More then playing around in friendlies :/
In the wobbling debate we were arguing whether or not it's unfair to the point that it breaks the game. Similar to the discussions that most likely took place when we decided to ban Items, certain stages and stalling techniques.
That's not messing with the rules, it's creating them in an attempt to try and keep this game as fair and balanced as it can be.
Also, I've changed my views on wobbling since then, but that's besides the point.
![Эикельманн [РУС]](/data/avatars/l/153/153661.jpg?1415225120){kind=avatar}
