Coaching

[t3h Icy]

Apex Grand Finals was basically Hungrybox's body with Seibrik's mind vs Armada.

 

[ajp_anton]

Someone I see coaching as (Intel's) Hyperthreading. It's a single CPU core where you can fit in a second thread whenever the first one is stalled.
When the actual player is choking or doesn't know what to do, another mind comes in to do some work. This second mind has an indirect link to the controller, so it plays mostly on mindgames and not techskill, but it can pick up on things that needs to be done more often and things to be avoided.

tl;dr: Coaching isn't 1vs1.

 

[The Star King]

I also wish people would stop referencing others sports as evidence that coaches add to competition. Main stream sports are hardly organized to maximize competitiveness. Teams are built to be as even as possible. Coaches are virtually required because there are large numbers of players, and a franchise that relied on the players cooperating on every decision (should we challenge the play? should we put so-and-so in the game? etc.) is doomed to fail.

Especially since in the most significant 1v1 sport, tennis, coaching mid-match is actually BANNED (IDK about other ones). Yeah, in most team sports it's not, but that's because one side is just that - a team.

 

[Niko45]

Coaching should be banned. It's very impactful to have a second set of eyes watching you play without the responsibility of actually having to play. They can see things you are not seeing. Players should be judged on their ability to recognize and adapt to situations presented to them, and coaching marginalizes this skill. It also extends the match outside of the two individual players. Having the better coach could create an outcome that would not have happened otherwise. It should be player vs player and that's it.

 

[Metal Reeper]

I believe coaching should be banned. I really want to see player vs player. Not player and mind 1 vs player and mind 2. The MBR should have a rule for this. I also don't seen any other community having coaches (I could be wrong) and if I am write it really does make our community look a little sad, in the sense that we can't fight for ourselves. If coaching should be legal is should be only before or after a set, kind of like boxing.I also agree with Niko about changing outcomes. Im sure outcomes have already changed because of this.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Amsah bodied that old thread so hard. You can't really argue against coaching being banned.

 

[ajp_anton]

I read like 10/16 pages of that thread, but I'm getting tired so I'll just add my thoughts on what the situation was at that point. Don't know if minds were changed after that...

Basically the situation was that the pro-coachers' (that weren't idiots) main argument was that it's the same as cheering, which we can't really ban away anyway.

If a coach tells me to "stop rolling", and that advice helps me, then the coach made me play better.
If my girlfriend shows up and I push myself to play at my best because I don't want to look bad in front of her and realize I should stop rolling by myself, then she's not really responsible because I came up with it myself..

The desire to stop rolling came from a coach.
The desire to play better (which may have been to stop rolling) came from your girlfriend.
If the coach didn't tell you stop rolling you would keep getting punished.
If your girlfriend didn't inspire you to stop rolling you would keep getting punished.

The difference is that the tournament is about "who plays best", not "who rolls the least". To remind someone that he needs to win isn't the same as reminding someone HOW to win.

A crowd cheering for you can only do so much. Its maximum effect is to take you to *your* maximum level, but no more. This can also be achieved by training yourself mentally, ignore the crowd, etc.
A coach can help you play above your own abilities, something you shouldn't be able to do no matter how much the crowd is on your side.

 

[Sensei Seibrik]

i'm not reading this whole thing, but the only reason i think coaching should be encouraged is cause i think when top players work together (coaching) in a 1v1 match, it advances MU's and the metagame muuuuch faster than if the players go solo tho whole way.


the better player/coach combination will win, which is just a new strategy people have to implement. what's important i think is the metagame of any given game improves as much/as fast as possible.

 

[Bones0]

When you allow coaching, it isn't even the same game anymore though. Adaption and pattern reading are huge skills that are no longer tested when you add coaches to help out. It'd be like suggesting modded controllers be used because they would advance the metagame when it is really just a crutch.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

mahone, this exact thread has already been done roughly a year ago, it went on 50+ pages(40ppp..) and amsah was representing the no-coaching side. He had amazing arguments, hell I was on the side of coaching until i was proven wrong, but ultimately nothing happened.

All that needs to happen is CACTUAR goes to the ruleset and makes a rule for coaching, like a 30 second limit inbetween matches, no coaching DURING matches, but hey i guess that's the debate. point is we need an actual mod or admin or anything to do something or else it's just the community fighting for 50+ pages pointlessly.


also i guarantee this ******** point will be brought up once again which is that 'if you don't allow coaching, the crowd can't talk', which is ********, getting coached personally IN YOUR EAR is much different than trying to hear coaching from like 20 different people, the price is right style.

 

[Dr Peepee]

i'm not reading this whole thing, but the only reason i think coaching should be encouraged is cause i think when top players work together (coaching) in a 1v1 match, it advances MU's and the metagame muuuuch faster than if the players go solo tho whole way.


the better player/coach combination will win, which is just a new strategy people have to implement. what's important i think is the metagame of any given game improves as much/as fast as possible.

metagame advancement should not be considered above core tournament values. In fact, metagame advancement is something that should naturally happen regardless of coaching. The rate at which the metagame speeds up is more likely to come from the degree of competition in a given tournament and therefore encourage each player to push their own abilities, as well as their individual character(s) farther.

when someone enters a tournament, they enter on their own. To aid in the adaptation of a tournament player is essentially lessening the amount of situations or habits required to be observed by the tournament player. What are fighting game players trained to do, if not adapt and observe and react? If a coach is observing and telling a player how to adapt, then the player merely is reacting to what the coach is calmly telling them, thus eliminating the majority of the work/skills(like ability to focus and adapt under pressure) a player needs in order to be successful. Even if both players have effective coaches, this does not change how much less ability tournaments demand from players. Demanding less tournament ability from players does not make sense because top players should be capable of adapting and reading and observing under pressure against other top players. Reducing the basic player skillset required to win makes for less impressive top players, and I could even suggest that those players that are left to cultivate their adaptation skills further for success would end up furthering the metagame more quickly once they reach a certain level and can do so faster than if a coach was helping them(assuming no choking or other distractions from gameplay).



this is all for coaching during matches though. in between matches, coaching is more of giving suggestions than helping the player adapt and observe in the moment, although I wouldn't mind removing that aid as well.

 

[ajp_anton]

Coaching because it gives higher level matches is the same as banning Armada and HBox from playing Puff vs YLink because the crowd won't be as entertained.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

metagame advancement should not be considered above core tournament values. In fact, metagame advancement is something that should naturally happen regardless of coaching. The rate at which the metagame speeds up is more likely to come from the degree of competition in a given tournament and therefore encourage each player to push their own abilities, as well as their individual character(s) farther.

when someone enters a tournament, they enter on their own. To aid in the adaptation of a tournament player is essentially lessening the amount of situations or habits required to be observed by the tournament player. What are fighting game players trained to do, if not adapt and observe and react? If a coach is observing and telling a player how to adapt, then the player merely is reacting to what the coach is calmly telling them, thus eliminating the majority of the work/skills(like ability to focus and adapt under pressure) a player needs in order to be successful. Even if both players have effective coaches, this does not change how much less ability tournaments demand from players. Demanding less tournament ability from players does not make sense because top players should be capable of adapting and reading and observing under pressure against other top players. Reducing the basic player skillset required to win makes for less impressive top players, and I could even suggest that those players that are left to cultivate their adaptation skills further for success would end up furthering the metagame more quickly once they reach a certain level and can do so faster than if a coach was helping them(assuming no choking or other distractions from gameplay).



this is all for coaching during matches though. in between matches, coaching is more of giving suggestions than helping the player adapt and observe in the moment, although I wouldn't mind removing that aid as well.

This is the post representing Not-coaching. Srsly. If you have any disagreements here on out, base it off this. This is what i was gonna post, but 100x more detailed


otherwise it's just random people vs random people arguing all day.

 

[Charlesz]

ICG texted me to say that coaching should be legal.


****.

 

[Beat!]

Well, he's banned for a reason




Did he stop using that Samuspoop account or something

 

[JesusSmashesPuffs]

The only point I can see being made for pro-coaching is in specific regards to moral support. I understand that this is essentially unregulatable and banning coaching altogether would be a more efficient solution, but theoretically, should having a coach to say things like "Calm down" or "You can do this" be allowed? I haven't finished the other thread yet, but I know Amsah personally felt this was the same as technical coaching and should be banned.

 

[Cactuar]

A big part of the coaching issue comes down to individual responsibility.

I have been a support for players (M2K) in saying things like "calm down" over and over, and it does affect the match, but only in the sense that the player feels more comfortable and plays closer to their natural ability.

I have also been a coach before. I've actively pointed out effective strategies to use against opponents who are superior to the individual I was coaching and guided them to victory. This directly affects the match by giving my player more options offensively, and improves their defense against the opponent's strategy.

To try and say that these two are similar is, simply put, stupid. I stopped coaching years ago after realizing how significant the influence really could be when you have a highly knowledgeable coach. It is simply unfair. Even in a situation where both sides have an equally skilled coach, the game is no longer about proving who is better between two players. Singles should only be about you as an individual.


There comes a point where members of the community should have enough respect for the game and for both players involved in playing to know that they should shut the **** up. Actively harassing an opponent is not acceptable behavior. Shouting encouragement for your friend is okay and recommended, as it helps keep confidence high and allows your friend to play better, not make the opponent play worse. We should not have to police crowds for inappropriate bull****.

 

[Mahone]

mahone, this exact thread has already been done roughly a year ago, it went on 50+ pages(40ppp..) and amsah was representing the no-coaching side. He had amazing arguments, hell I was on the side of coaching until i was proven wrong, but ultimately nothing happened.

All that needs to happen is CACTUAR goes to the ruleset and makes a rule for coaching, like a 30 second limit inbetween matches, no coaching DURING matches, but hey i guess that's the debate. point is we need an actual mod or admin or anything to do something or else it's just the community fighting for 50+ pages pointlessly.


also i guarantee this ******** point will be brought up once again which is that 'if you don't allow coaching, the crowd can't talk', which is ********, getting coached personally IN YOUR EAR is much different than trying to hear coaching from like 20 different people, the price is right style.

Ya i remember that thread... i think i posted in it a lot...

I just wanted to bring it up again, because back then it seemed like nothing got resolved, but honestly it didn't matter because i had never seen coaching actually supported and used at a huge tournament...

After apex i think it's important to clarify all the rules that go along with coaching if you are going to make it legal, but you are definitely right, people need to get backroom members to hear their arguments so this thread doesn't just end up being people arguing for no reason.

@cactuar: I really think that someone telling you to "calm down", or "you got this" should be legal and isn't coaching at all... i do that all the time when my friends lose a match, but there is no way of knowing what someone is saying if they are right next to the player, so i think the crowd should just be separated from the players and you can just yell "you got this" the same way you would cheer.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

A big part of the coaching issue comes down to individual responsibility.

I have been a support for players (M2K) in saying things like "calm down" over and over, and it does affect the match, but only in the sense that the player feels more comfortable and plays closer to their natural ability.

I have also been a coach before. I've actively pointed out effective strategies to use against opponents who are superior to the individual I was coaching and guided them to victory. This directly affects the match by giving my player more options offensively, and improves their defense against the opponent's strategy.

To try and say that these two are similar is, simply put, stupid. I stopped coaching years ago after realizing how significant the influence really could be when you have a highly knowledgeable coach. It is simply unfair. Even in a situation where both sides have an equally skilled coach, the game is no longer about proving who is better between two players. Singles should only be about you as an individual.


There comes a point where members of the community should have enough respect for the game and for both players involved in playing to know that they should shut the **** up. Actively harassing an opponent is not acceptable behavior. Shouting encouragement for your friend is okay and recommended, as it helps keep confidence high and allows your friend to play better, not make the opponent play worse. We should not have to police crowds for inappropriate bull****.

Both you and pp agree on the coaching. We obviously can't get every professional in here for debate, but we gotta move forward, how?

Do a quick debate in the MBR or something. I honestly don't see any pro's going against this.

 

[Cactuar]

@Mahone: I agree. It only becomes difficult to monitor when people are allowed to be too close to the players. This isn't always possible at locals and such due to space constraints.

 

[Mahone]

Ya, at locals **** is gonna happen anyway cuz it's a casual environment and its usually unorganized, i just want there to be a clear ruleset for the next national

 

[DanteFox]

Seems like a kneejerk reaction imo. How would you enforce such a rule. The coach will simply step back into the crowd and start yelling their advice from the back in which case the only way to stop that is to silence the whole crowd. Just set a time limit for coaching in between matches.

when someone enters a tournament, they enter on their own. To aid in the adaptation of a tournament player is essentially lessening the amount of situations or habits required to be observed by the tournament player. What are fighting game players trained to do, if not adapt and observe and react? If a coach is observing and telling a player how to adapt, then the player merely is reacting to what the coach is calmly telling them, thus eliminating the majority of the work/skills(like ability to focus and adapt under pressure) a player needs in order to be successful. Even if both players have effective coaches, this does not change how much less ability tournaments demand from players. Demanding less tournament ability from players does not make sense because top players should be capable of adapting and reading and observing under pressure against other top players. Reducing the basic player skillset required to win makes for less impressive top players, and I could even suggest that those players that are left to cultivate their adaptation skills further for success would end up furthering the metagame more quickly once they reach a certain level and can do so faster than if a coach was helping them(assuming no choking or other distractions from gameplay).

Even if you stop people from whispering in someone's ear during the game, they can still yell their advice from the sidelines. The only difference there is that the opponent gets to hear the advice too, which I guess might make a difference.

 

[Dr Peepee]

A time limit for coaching in between matches is a solid idea, actually.

If we did keep players in the crowds that would have coached otherwise, then they will have to compete with the rest of the crowd yelling, in addition to what you already said about both players being able to hear it. I doubt anyone would still try to coach given those circumstances, but if they did at least they couldn't always do it whenever they wanted to, and the player trying to hear the coaching may have to drop lots of focus from the match to listen to the coach from the crowd. Seems like a fair cost in my opinion.

I just don't want coaches talking to players right beside them during matches. If all spectators are forced to be a set distance away and part of a crowd, then that seems like that will stop most effective coaching even if it may not quite entirely wipe it out.

I would set up some arbitrary distance but that distance sort of depends on the venue and such so I'm not really sure what to suggest.

 

[Bones0]

Seems like a kneejerk reaction imo. How would you enforce such a rule. The coach will simply step back into the crowd and start yelling their advice from the back in which case the only way to stop that is to silence the whole crowd. Just set a time limit for coaching in between matches.

Even if you stop people from whispering in someone's ear during the game, they can still yell their advice from the sidelines. The only difference there is that the opponent gets to hear the advice too, which I guess might make a difference.

I already explained why there is a huge difference between shouting advice and giving it privately.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

I did as well, saw it comin'

also i guarantee this ******** point will be brought up once again which is that 'if you don't allow coaching, the crowd can't talk', which is ********, getting coached personally IN YOUR EAR is much different than trying to hear coaching from like 20 different people, the price is right style.

i still stand by it, hearing it directly in your ear compared to the crowd is a HUGE difference, i don't even see it benefiting you, trying to hear a specific person through all the crowds. Even if you don't see the difference, then there's no reason NOT to apply the rule.

honestly what are we losing out of applying a no-coaching rule? Whiny people who need someone to support them no longer get the support? I think i care more about unfair 2v1's and the delaying of tournaments over that.

coaching is unfair and everyone should know this. singles is not a team sport obviously, and that should be enough.


and please god no1 compare this to something like boxing where you have an actual coach for justification. that is practically a 'coach+boxer' sport. they are SUPPOSED to talk to their coach throughout a match.

 

[Bones0]

Boxing would be more competitive if they banned coaches. This is why mainstream sport references always fail.

 

[Gea]

Eh, I don't think coaching time allotments between matches in a set is fair for the other player. Having to wait on your opponent kills some of the momentum you had been carrying with you. It sucks to have someone stand up after you beat them and call across the venue to a friend for help.

While coaching itself is pretty much impossible to ban, I don't think players should be able to waste anyone's time in between matches of the set talking to anyone except their partner during doubles.

 

[JPOBS]

what's the argument in favor of coaching?

Other than the "it would be hard to prevent anyway" or "other sports allow coaching, why not melee" both of which are easily debunked.

 

[CloneHat]

what's the argument in favor of coaching?

Other than the "it would be hard to prevent anyway" or "other sports allow coaching, why not melee" both of which are easily debunked.

There's also "The crowd is going to say things too; what are you going to do, ban the crowd?"

 

[Gea]

There's also "The crowd is going to say things too; what are you going to do, ban the crowd?"

I think the overall best solution presented was that those people sitting so close to the other players can't talk to them. It's a bit silly not to allow players to sit close to a match if they aren't saying anything, but they should keep quiet or back up in they want to cheer.

Then again, this really seems like the type of rule whose enforcement falls entirely down to if the TO actually cares about this issue anyways.

 

[Mahone]

I'd also like to point out hbox SWITCHED his coach for a specific matchup...

this is a slippery slope...

imagine having a coach for each matchup... that would be ridiculous

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

why do people keep bringing up the crowd as an arguement? read the rest of the thread. its been said over and over. the answer is you don't ban the crowd, since it can't happen, but you do ban letting people right next to the players. that can be stopped.

 

[Cactuar]

*shrug*

There doesnt really need to be more discussion around this. Something will be included in the recommended regarding coaching.

 

[CloneHat]

*shrug*

There doesnt really need to be more discussion around this. Something will be included in the recommended regarding coaching.

Sweet. I felt that it was pretty much concluded last time, there were just no repercussions even after the 50+ pages.