Enough Is Enough. Coaching Needs To Stop.

Do you agree that coaching should be banned?

  • Yes, I do.

    Votes: 1,150 47.3%
  • No, it should stay.

    Votes: 104 4.3%
  • It doesn't need to be completely removed, but it does need to be regulated.

    Votes: 1,176 48.4%

  • Total voters
    2,430
Last weekend, I had the good fortune of being able to go to APEX 2015. It was, simply put, awesome. Watching players from all around the world compete on the big screen with hundreds of other Smash fans is an experience I won't soon forget. Melee? Great. Smash 4? Amazing. Even 64 got its share of the limelight. But as some of the later Smash 4 matches rolled around, the event slowed to a crawl.

I bet you can guess why.


Far too much time is being spent on this menu during tournaments.

During Smash 4, there was nearly as much activity in between matches as there was during. People were running up and down the aisle, advising their friends on what to do versus their opponents. Players 'debated their counterpicks' while having full conversations about the last match, or what to do next. It was obvious, it was boring, and everyone but the players involved hated it. Coaching in Smash, especially Smash 4, needs to go - not just for the reasons above, but for the integrity of the game.

Why Is It A Problem?

Coaching has been a contentious issue in Smash for awhile now. At CEO 2014 last year, Project M was plagued by coaching, with mid-set coaching sessions taking longer than the matches themselves in some cases. Because the tournament took so long, several people suggested moving Project M sets from four stocks to three in order to save time - an effective idea that unfortunately did not address the true problem. At that point, Project M 3.0 was a relatively new game still. Compared to other Smash titles, Project M is considered the most matchup-based of the series; many characters have unique gameplay mechanics that must be taught or experienced to be understood. I'd go as far as to say there are situations in Project M where the player with more character knowledge can win over a stronger opponent. Because of this, knowledge of the game is a significant part of the game.

Smash 4 is even more heavily reliant on knowledge: matchups are unique, and situational understanding is a huge part of the game. This is exacerbated by the fact that Smash 4, compared to Melee or Project M, is not particularly technical. There are no useful techniques that are difficult to execute, so a player's technical skill, while important, pales in comparison to what they know. The most important attributes a Smash 4 player can have are situation awareness and adaptability. Giving players 'coaches' that can fill in knowledge gaps allows a second party to essentially adapt for them. So mid-set coaching, where a player is taught what to do in situation X, Y, or Z, gives that player an advantage over their opponent that they frankly have not earned, and do not deserve.


Thousands of people were watching matches during APEX 2015 weekend. Why should they have to watch three minutes of coaching in between?

Now, some of you may be saying to yourselves, "well who cares? Both players can have coaches, after all." This may be true, but it doesn't make it fair. Coaching becomes doubly problematic when you realize that the only players getting significant mileage out of coaching situations are top players. Regular player Joe Schmoe's friends don't have a lot of great advice to give him; an elite player's training partners, on the other hand, are likely able to tell them exactly what to watch for. As an example, take ZeRo. He is the undisputed best at Smash 4. Nobody doubts his talent, and he will likely be at the forefront of his game for years to come, coach or no. But let's say some new player appears out of nowhere, challenging him for his spot. Should that player have to play against ZeRo and the minds of his top-level friends? Or should he be afforded the opportunity to beat, or be beaten, by the best in the world in a true battle of wits?

So What Should We Do?

Don't get me wrong: this all makes sense. Smash 4 is a new game, and even the best players have a lot to learn before they can claim full mastery of it. Knowledge is far from uniform, and a Rosalina player may notice things about a certain matchup that a Diddy Kong player wouldn't. Everyone wants to share knowledge and help their friends win, and I'll admit that's a noble cause. But at the end of the day, once a set starts, it's a competition between two players - not their posses. Add in the amount of time it wastes throughout a tournament, and you have an issue that not only cheapens competition, but keeps tournaments from running at a consistent pace.

Part of the competitive meta right now is the amount of knowledge you bring into a match. Let's get rid of coaching once and for all, and treat game knowledge like the part of the competition it deserves to be.

This piece is purely the opinion of its author, and does not reflect the position of Smashboards or its affiliates.
 
Last edited:

Comments

There is nothing wrong with coaching. If matches are not being played on a scheduled, orderly time for ANY reason, then the players should be penalized or disqualified. But as long as a schedule is followed, there should be no problem. This isn't a coaching issue, it's a time management issue.
 
Regulate it to a min before and no more than 30 seconds mid pending best of amount. Seeing not everyone plays the same and coaches may or may not pick up on things that can be helpful, but it would still be up to the player's discretion whether or not to heed said info and apply it in the next match, not to mention the players skill will still end up being the deciding factor regardless.
 
Lol, it's like when in court some people got lawyers and some people couldn't afford them. Maybe we should have tournament-appointed coaches XD

But, in all seriousness, it should be banned. Knowledge of the game should be a big part of the competition.
 
The integrity argument gets really dumb if you take it too far.

Saying they don't deserve to win if its not 100% them?
If you believed that, you'd want everybody to play in complete isolation, and everybody would suck without the opportunity to learn from eachother.

sharing ideas and learning from other people is half the reason smashboards exists.

Anyway, an absolute rule, "No Coaching" is a bad idea. People are naturally going to talk and stuff between matches and sets. The last thing I want is somebody to go "Did you hear that? that's coaching!" and have it throw the match because somebody lets something slip.
 
I feel like anywhere between 30 seconds to 1 minute is reasonable. In most professional sports they have coaches, but they have 30 second timeouts, etc. That way a basic problem can be addressed, but you don't have time to talk about everything there is to know about a matchup. If you are a good player, you should be able to adapt and learn some on the fly anyway.
 
Great write-up. I voted to limit it. 3 minutes is absurd... 60 seconds is pushing it, so I would make that the absolute max. And throw some rules in about coaching in-between sets, etc. It's annoying for viewers and honestly, the mental game is a great deal of strategy...and it's not fair to outsource that part to someone else.
 
Well there should only be a minute or two in between matches at the very most. 30 seconds probably. get your coaching in during that time, like in boxing.
 
Last weekend, I had the good fortune of being able to go to APEX 2015. It was, simply put, awesome. Watching players from all around the world compete on the big screen with hundreds of other Smash fans is an experience I won't soon forget. Melee? Great. Smash 4? Amazing. Even 64 got its share of the limelight. But as some of the later Smash 4 matches rolled around, the event slowed to a crawl.

I bet you can guess why.


Far too much time is being spent on this menu during tournaments.

During Smash 4, there was nearly as much activity in between matches as there was during. People were running up and down the aisle, advising their friends on what to do versus their opponents. Players 'debated their counterpicks' while having full conversations about the last match, or what to do next. It was obvious, it was boring, and everyone but the players involved hated it. Coaching in Smash, especially Smash 4, needs to go - not just for the reasons above, but for the integrity of the game.

Why Is It A Problem?

Coaching has been a contentious issue in Smash for awhile now. At CEO 2014 last year, Project M was plagued by coaching, with mid-set coaching sessions taking longer than the matches themselves in some cases. Because the tournament took so long, several people suggested moving Project M sets from four stocks to three in order to save time - an effective idea that unfortunately did not address the true problem. At that point, Project M 3.0 was a relatively new game still. Compared to other Smash titles, Project M is considered the most matchup-based of the series; many characters have unique gameplay mechanics that must be taught or experienced to be understood. I'd go as far as to say there are situations in Project M where the player with more character knowledge can win over a stronger opponent. Because of this, knowledge of the game is a significant part of the game.

Smash 4 is even more heavily reliant on knowledge: matchups are unique, and situational understanding is a huge part of the game. This is exacerbated by the fact that Smash 4, compared to Melee or Project M, is not particularly technical. There are no useful techniques that are difficult to execute, so a player's technical skill, while important, pales in comparison to what they know. The most important attributes a Smash 4 player can have are situation awareness and adaptability. Giving players 'coaches' that can fill in knowledge gaps allows a second party to essentially adapt for them. So mid-set coaching, where a player is taught what to do in situation X, Y, or Z, gives that player an advantage over their opponent that they frankly have not earned, and do not deserve.


Thousands of people were watching matches during APEX 2015 weekend. Why should they have to watch three minutes of coaching in between?

Now, some of you may be saying to yourselves, "well who cares? Both players can have coaches, after all." This may be true, but it doesn't make it fair. Coaching becomes doubly problematic when you realize that the only players getting significant mileage out of coaching situations are top players. Regular player Joe Schmoe's friends don't have a lot of great advice to give him; an elite player's training partners, on the other hand, are likely able to tell them exactly what to watch for. As an example, take ZeRo. He is the undisputed best at Smash 4. Nobody doubts his talent, and he will likely be at the forefront of his game for years to come, coach or no. But let's say some new player appears out of nowhere, challenging him for his spot. Should that player have to play against ZeRo and the minds of his top-level friends? Or should he be afforded the opportunity to beat, or be beaten, by the best in the world in a true battle of wits?

So What Should We Do?

Don't get me wrong: this all makes sense. Smash 4 is a new game, and even the best players have a lot to learn before they can claim full mastery of it. Knowledge is far from uniform, and a Rosalina player may notice things about a certain matchup that a Diddy Kong player wouldn't. Everyone wants to share knowledge and help their friends win, and I'll admit that's a noble cause. But at the end of the day, once a set starts, it's a competition between two players - not their posses. Add in the amount of time it wastes throughout a tournament, and you have an issue that not only cheapens competition, but keeps tournaments from running at a consistent pace.

Part of the competitive meta right now is the amount of knowledge you bring into a match. Let's get rid of coaching once and for all, and treat game knowledge like the part of the competition it deserves to be.

This piece is purely the opinion of its author, and does not reflect the position of Smashboards or its affiliates.
Simple solution. 45 seconds between matches. Each player is given an optional, one time, 90 second timeout that must be invoked immediately following the previous game, i.e. at the result screen.
 
Can anyone give me a more clearer explaination about coaching(I never get to attend a real tournament.)? What about in other tournaments? Is it that bad?
 
You had me until this part.

"As an example, take ZeRo. He is the undisputed best at Smash 4."

I feel like the fact that I beat him in a ranked set on ladder matches on NDJ is completely undermined. He may be skilled at the game, but he's not undisputed. Sure, it was Wi-Fi, but I'd love to play him again just to prove a point.

That said, I will agree that coaching needs to go simply for the sake of everyone's time. If coaching takes too long, people start to tune out and lose interest in the match.

However, unless you've never seen a boxing or MMA match in your life, you should know that coaching is an integral part of competition. There's nothing "earned" about it. You don't simply learn everything in Smash by playing. You learn by watching, by listening, and taking others' advice. How is it any more "honorable" to take away coaching in Smash than it is in an actual competitive sport?

To all who had the detriment of going up against someone who was being coached, sorry that Doc Louis wasn't in your corner. Join Club Nintendo today.
 
Coaching is a big part of individual sport sometimes and in others non existent. For example wrestling and boxing. Between rounds the coach gives them tips. Or in golf which as previously stated the Caddy is with them the whole round. While in tennis the coach is in the stands simply watching.

Anyway point is coaching is fine as long as its moderated. 30-60 seconds would deal with the issue. When people start taking more than that, thats when the issues arise.
 
It does not need to be ban and it should not be. Every other sport and competitive game allows coaching. Also there are steps in between legal and ban. For instance regulation. It is so simple to enforce a few rules first. For example a 1 minute time limit between rounds or your coach must be present (next to you) you cannot get up and go find him or vice versa, finally you are only allowed one coach during a set. I'm getting really tired of this ban everything mindset of newer players
 
There is nothing wrong with coaching. If matches are not being played on a scheduled, orderly time for ANY reason, then the players should be penalized or disqualified. But as long as a schedule is followed, there should be no problem. This isn't a coaching issue, it's a time management issue.
Thats really debateable, you may need one during tough times in the match, and they might even need more help
 
I think it's pretty simple. Players should be given a short, but fair, amount of time to consult with a coach and any players who go over than time will take strikes. Different TOs could do different things with said strikes, ranging from an outright loss after the accumulation of too many strikes (there are similar rules in place from GSL players who chat in game or pause without a good reason), or stock penalties. I think the later suggestion is not as good for Sm4sh because of the low stock count.
 
People assert that coaching somehow grossly influences the match. There's two cases here:

A) It does, which means you were doing something obviously wrong and really need to step up your gameplay. Sure, you may have won the set, but if you have fundamental flaws easily spotted by observers, you're not going to get very far...

B) It didn't, so... it didn't matter.

Also, people assume it's easy to implement advice a coach gives you, but it really always isn't. You can be given all the advice in the world, but if you can't execute, it's pointless.

I think 30 seconds is plenty of time, so a rough rule should be established, with onlookers being willing to enforce it [since there's almost always onlookers]. Telling people to err on the side of 25 seconds instead of 35 is fine. But trying to decry coaching as something awful when it's really just a timing issue is silly.

Incidentally, although it DEFINITELY constitutes mid-match coaching, I fully support letting your teammate give you a stream of instructions and advice while you both play and/or perform a 2v1 - I'd seen someone somewhere suggest to ban that too [after all, you're being told how to play by someone who's not playing... since in a 2v1 your teammate is dead], but you're a team even if you're down to one stock. I didn't read all the comments here, but if someone suggested that as well, I offer this as a simple [doubtless incomplete] rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
Coaching is pretty uncommon in most individual sports. While a lot folks like to compare the parallels of smash with other eSports, I've always thought that it makes more sense to compare it to an individual sport like tennis, golf, darts or even figure skating. The reality is, when the coaching is finished and the game starts, it's down to the individual to perform anyway.

I don't personally think very highly of coaching between games, but that's largely because I don't really buy the argument that coaching can significantly alter the outcome of any given match beyond the realm of what is fair. There is a big difference between knowing how to do something and being able to actually execute it. The intel you might be able to gain from someone else that you didn't have already does not translate directly into your ability to make it happen and because all the information is so freely available now, your opponent should not feel hard done by the fact that he lost with Falco on FD against Marth on the basis of the coach's stage suggestion. Who is to say whether or not the script would be the same without a coach?

The simplest solution is to disallow it and remove all ambiguity. A golfer's caddy might offer his feedback on what shot to play. Will the golfer agree? Maybe. Will it change the type of shot he will play? Maybe. Will the significantly improve his overall skill and make or break his chances of winning in a field where he is otherwise outskilled? Probably not. I do not believe (at least in the case of Melee--I can't really speak for the others) that counterpicks or strategies offered by coaches between games will significantly affect the outcome of the match. The skill-cap is far too high and there are too many other variables at play.

And for the TL;DR version (for those of you who just skip over my ramblings): I don't think it makes THAT much of a difference, but we should ban it anyway. Just like Pokémon Stadium.
 
Thank god people are actually talking about this issue. After Wizzrobe held up CEO, it has been bothering me.
 
Allow me to concede the following points about myself;
  • I'm not a competitive player.....yet, anyway.
  • I've never been to any APEX or genuine Smash Tournament.
With this in mind it places my opinion, rightly so, below the vast majority on here. Having said that, I had no idea coaching was even around, much less such a nuisance. It seems the prevailing opinion is to limit coaching to a minute, which I agree to as well, but upon hearing this it does make me think a bit harder about the competitive scene.

The fact that competitive players may need so much additional information between matches to shore up their fight-style disturbs me. Call me naive, but I would expect players to have a general mastery of their mains and counter-picks, and strategies and counter-strategies for whoever it is they're up against. That's how I intend to approach competitive play here; learn the basic and advanced techniques of movement and attack patterns, then apply them into effective and efficient fight-styles against any fighter, including my own.

Having said that as well, I don't think coaching is entirely a bad thing; while I don't like the idea of a secondary observer providing a thesis on how I should fight, a couple of brief reminders on certain weaknesses I have against them or buffs they have over me is good to keep in mind and adjust to a more applicable fight-style. I think coaching between matches is okay so long as it doesn't detract from the game and it doesn't provide too much of an extra advantage to a player. But that's just me.
 
I'm with the third choice, I don't think that coaching should be banned but, they could make a new rule where depending on the set a player can be coached by someone for a certain amount of time.
 
As a TO I have never allowed coaching during sets. There is already a tight schedule to keep up with. Coaching shouldn't be allowed because it can give advantages to players that they don't deserve to get in the middle of a set. They should have actually practiced more when they had the opportunity instead of further delaying an event.
And I doubt a couple minutes of coaching has any effect on the outcome of a match. It's not going to make you beat someone you weren't going to beat anyways. Better players will remain better players, even if someone tells them they like dodge after a jab or something. It's up to the player to notice this stuff.
 
I've been waiting for an article like this to appear and could not agree more! They don't allow it in tennis and several other sports I'm sure, all for very similar reasons. It wastes time and as mentioned, once the set/match begins it's a competition between the players, their talent, their minds and not those of the people surrounding them. The time wasting and consequent irritation for the audience is bonus reason to disallow it. Please outright ban coaching mid-set - it undermines the idea of competitive sport. If during a game of chess a coach or spectator came up and whispered into a players ear there'd be outcry, and in my opinion the principle is the same here.
 
For Smash to continue to be successful, you need a fan base consisting of players and spectators. If players are allowed to piddle around between every match, spectators will get bored and move on.

I personally do not see coaching as the problem as long as it is regulated. Each player should get 1 timeout a set in-between matches to consult their coach. It should be player initiated, not the coach. 15-20 seconds. If the player goes over his time, he will automatically have to select the character he used last, and give up any counter stage pick advantage. Unfortunately, the enforcement of these rules will be entirely up to the opponent, and the integrity of the player initiating the timeout.

Like any sport there are timeouts, but they have to be regulated.
 
One minute breaks, Just like a boxing match between rounds.

Your coach gives you a quick tip on what to look out for, but doesn't have the time to literally baby you through the whole thing. They simply give you a piece of advice that the player has to notice.

On another note, while I do believe it's not fair for those who don't have coaches, it does kind of promote making more social connections with other players.

Edit

Quoting my page 2 post as it adds a lot more insight to my thoughts on this matter.
Wow, I never thought of Smash like this. Excellent comparison and I agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly.
 
I don't think it's wrong to give advice as long as it's outside the set.

Isn't this why we have region groups, training partners, and Smashboards? Part of it us so we can find a place outside to give advice to each other.
 
I'm fine with coaching as long as it's only done by overweight black men with chocolate bars. People dressed like Ash Ketchum are acceptable only if the player in question is maining a Pokemon.
Edit: Link mains may also receive coaching from fairies and giant trees.
 
Last edited:
Just wanna throw this out there, I read a bit, but not all of the comments, so i'm sorry if this has already been brought up.

I grew up, probably like most of you, playing sports.

Whats one thing that they all have in common? You have a coach. "A" coach.

Now, we could dive right into baseball, where at high school or travel-ball levels you would have a coach for different aspects of the game, but when it comes right down to it, you have ONE coach that watches over the entire team.

I feel that if players had to pick a coach when they signed up for a tournament, it could add an entire new meta to the competitive game. Its kind of like golf, where different coaches teach different swing styles. Only this time, you coach might be a mastermind against Diddy players, or Shiek players, etc.

What im getting at, is essentially each player signing up with ONE coach, who is the only person allowed to talk with that player during any match up, at of course a limited amount of time.
 
I feel it should be banned. First off, not every player will have someone to coach them. Secondly, I think matches should test the individual abilities of the players. That means outside assistance should not be included.
 
Coaching should stay, but should definitely have it's limits. Maybe a max amount of time that can be spent coaching. If not that, just remove it entirely.

It's all going to be tourney dependent. Some tournaments will completely ban it, some will cut the coaching time down and some will keep it as it was during APEX.
 
I'm shocked people are moving against inter-match coaching when sports history has proven it's beneficial for everybody (boxing keeps being brought up and for good reason). I understand the time complaint, but, again, that's easily solved with a time limit.

Two points I haven't seen been made, yet, though:

1) Coaching time limits bring up an interesting sports element that I'm not sure has been thought about much in the Smash community: referees. In boxing, there's a referee to tell a coach to hurry it up or encourage competitors to pick up their game when they're just standing there. We may soon need to start implementing referees in Smash as it grows in popularity and people find new ways to exploit the current casual rule systems.

2) Coaching (and refereeing) opens up new opportunities for people to participate in the sport without being a direct competitor. Many coaches are simply okay (or maybe even awful) at their respective sport, but have the eye and the mind to help great players become even better. While this can be done outside of sets, I think the between-match opportunities adds a new and interesting dynamic to the game.
 
Has anyone addressed the fact that coaching in physical sports like Baseball and Boxing is something that ALL PARTICIPANTS have?

Every boxer has a coach. Every baseball team has a coach. Every basketball team has a coach. Every soccer team has a coach. Every football team has a coach. AND no matter how good or bad that team/participant is. They have a coach. They have an officially designated coach. ONE main coach and maybe an assistant coach. Coaches are actually apart of the "team" and are taken into account with the rulesets.

Whenever a boxer wins a belt, its universally understood that he won as a result of a combination of his own efforts and his trainers/coach's efforts.

Whenever a basketball/football/soccer/whatever team wins a Championship, its universally recognized that it was the combined efforts of the TEAM (which includes the players, and coach) that won.


Smash does not have this. Every single competitor is not gifted with a coach. Hundreds of competitors are coachless. The standard in competitive smash is no one needs a coach or generally has one. When you enter a smash tournament, you enter as YOURSELF, unless you're playing doubles, in which you enter as YOU AND YOUR TEAMMATE.

You never enter singles as yourself + a coach. This is how the rules of competitive Smash works. It's literally called SINGLES for a reason.

How often do you see Tennis players being coached mid-game in Singles?

How often do you, as a spectator, find yourself going, "Man. That guy won Melee singles because of his skill and the guidance of his coach!" Be honest with yourself. I'm sure a majority of you generally contribute a player's win to the player himself and rarely, if ever, take his out-of-the-blue friend who coached him into consideration.

Coaching inherently brings a skew to a matchup that was never there and has no reason to be there.

Time constraints and whether you feel its a problem or not are secondary to the fact that some people just aren't lucky enough to have coaches. Nevermind, that coaches themselves have their own skill and understanding that further skews the MUs.

And the likelyhood of having a coach is generally relative to how popular/good you are. Joe Schmoe is significantly less likely to have a coach to assist him mid-set compared to the world's top 24. Even within the top 24, sometimes those players don't have coaches. Hungrybox is probably one of the least coached players out of the world's best, if not the least coached.

How is that fair to him if he's fighting Mango, and one of many players of the Mangonation comes up to coach Mango after losing a set?

It's stupid.

Regardless of whether you see something wrong with it or not, it skews player MUs based on factors that are not relevant to the the competition, and its unfair to every single coachless player in the tournament. Coaches are just straight up not apart of the ruleset and are never taken into consideration when you see a player win a tournament.


Yes. Some sports have coaches. But those coaches are apart of the team, are standard to all participants and participating teams, and are taken into account with the game and its rules.

Smash is not one of those things.

So either you start introducing coaches/coaching into the rulesets of smash as a tournament standard, or you ban that **** because its outside interference that's unfair to the other participants who aren't lucky enough to get a coach.
 
Last edited:
I think coaching should be allowed, but only before the tournament begins. An example would be like a police officer; they get trained and advised before they officially start but at the end of the day they are the ones who do their job alone and make their decisions independently. (Unless they have a partner in which case my example is invalid lol) Smashers participating in a tournament shouldn't be held by the hand by some coach during the competition. Preparations by the player and the coach should be made before the tournament, kinda like a football team. The coach belongs on the sidelines (or in this case the audience), NOT on the field.
 
Honestly the competitors should be prepared before going into such events. If they themselves don't at least understand some about the matchups and stages that their characters/mains perform well on, they should really spend some more time studying that.

With that said, even with studying, I don't think coaching should be banned outright. I think the general consensus of the time consumed in these sessions being reduced is definitely plausible.
 
By allowing coaching, but with a 30/60sec restriction, you're asking for new regulation of something in ALL occuring sets. Stream AND non-stream.

You cant just say, "only 30/60secs" and not expect people to push the envelope and try to walk a mile when you offer them an inch without strict regulation.

Which is not going to happen in tournaments, outside of streamed matches and/or top 8/16.

You're also asking for extra resources to be allocated by the TOs to regulate this fairly. You're going to need to have people available every time a conflict in regards to this form of coaching going on too long occurs. And for every possible incident that occurs, having someone over to judge is going to ultimately take up more time.

If you can't enforce it fairly and consistently, why try to enforce it at all?

The reason why enforcing coaching limits works in other sports is because there is always someone there to enforce it because each game that is played in those sports all require x amount off staff/officials to be present, or else it's not an official game.

If you want to regular coaching periods in smash, you need staff/officials to be present at the set in order to regulate it because you cannot trust the players themselves to regulate themselves without issues.

This idea is essentially adding in a whole bunch of extra stressors and complications for something that isnt even fairly implemented in the first place. It's worse than what we have now if anything.

The logistics of regulating coaching periods is not worth it for the way competitive smash tournaments are currently set up. Poor implementation is going to lead to exploiting/gaming the system and other unfair nonsense and is just gonna add a lot of headaches unless the tournament can properly execute this form of regulation.

The matches you see on stream are not the only matches that exist in a tournament. If you are going to try to add stuff like this, it must be applied to all sets/matches.

I would rather leave it as it is, than to try to regulate it in a half-assed fashion.

All in all, coaching just isnt worth it.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't need to be banned outright, just limited. No coaching before Game 1, subsequent games should be limited to 1-3 minutes between matches.
 
Are people even taking into consideration the maximum amount of time that can be spent when they suggest these coaching periods?

TOs take the possibility of each and every game gong to game 3 or game 5, last stock when they budget for time. They also budget for each and every game GOING to TIME. This is why we have a stock timer, to prevent tournaments from going on too long.

If you impliment a coaching period, you have to assume that each and every coaching period is going to be used and each and every single second will be used and then factor that into the overall tournament length.

Even something like 30 seconds adds a minute to each Bo3 and 2 mins to each Bo5, which grows exponentially as the tournament grows larger and larger.

In a 64man single elim bracket, anything below like top 12, will add an extra ~50 mins if each game goes to round 3 with 30 second coach periods between each game. Which is a lot of time not even considering that like semi finals and finals and GFs werent taking to factor when i counted this out. This is also single elimination.

Why are people so fervent to add extra time to tourneys for something like coaching?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom