• 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!

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

Although I am not new to the Smash "scene" I am rather new at actually playing the game competitively. So this was not the first time I have seen a smash Tournament play out. I don't really see the need to cut out coaching altogether. If we go as far as to say Smash is an E Sport then this would be one of the only sports I could think of that didn't allow coaching. Sometimes a little outside perspective on the match is all you need to turn the set around.. ever if its something as little as "watch the !@#$ bananas." Something as simple as a time limit between fights could speed up matches. I'm not in favor of bans just because people don't like something. I for one hate god !@#% bananas.
 
Just because Smash could be consider the only esport without coaching, doesnt justify allowing it.

Just as there are sports without mid-match/set/game coaching (like Tennis???????), not every single esport should allow it.

It's a fallacy to appeal to the norm. (Everyone else does it, so we should too!)
 
lol i golf so that statement is completely wrong. the caddy is with the golfer the whole round. i get what you're saying about chess, but that's different. smash is a completely different sport and should be treated as such. coaches honestly i don't care about but if someone comes up to me and offers some advice i'll take it whatever, but if someone goes on for longer than 30 seconds i'll just say ok i'm good and go on. i agree coaching shouldn't take 3 minutes or whatever, but that's almost the player's fault, not the coach.[/qu
Coaches in pretty much every individual sport sit in the stands. Golf, tennis, everything. When the game starts, coaching is over. Imagine a chess player getting coached between moves. Pretty ridiculous right?

If you have a coach who teaches you while you practice, whatever. Fine. Having a coach tell you what to do when you flounder during a match is just covering your weaknesses, something you should have done before competition.
Well... idk where to begin....since coaching does in fact take place in most sports while the game is being played. so..
 
Yeah I can see how this may get annoying and even boring. I think that if coaching stays it should be limited to a certain amount of time or you get a dq or something.
 
I don't have a problem with coaching, but it should be limited to a 30 second play clock. Similar to the shot clock in basketball or the play clock in football.
 
There needs to be a regulation for it
1. You can't have the whole damn audience come up and coach you if you are gonna have a coach its gotta be one person can't have the whole fanbase run up and tell you how to play

2. We gotta put a time limit on in between match time it takes way too long to get matches started for smash 4 people philosophize which main will lead them to the motherland. If you're gonna have a gameplan don't come with it not figured out and if you gotta make game time decisions they have to be way faster
 
First of all, I want to agree that excessive coaching mid set is clearly an abuse of 'coaching,' but using the time between matches to plan and analyze your play is a pretty big part of e-sports (which is the community fighting games want to be legitimized in). In LoL, while you can't pause to talk, in between games of your Bo3, there is certainly time to evaluate and analyze play. I'd recommend limiting the time mid set (people seem to be suggesting 1 min, which I think is fine), but I just want to address some points I saw scrolling through.

1. "Coaching is unfair!" The OP says this, talking about the difference between playing Zero and playing Zero plus his network of friends, and other people mirror this sentiment. To that, I just have to wonder how strong your drive to be the best player is? Sirlin would probably call this complaint scrub mentality. In other nominally single player games, having a team behind you to brainstorm, analyze, and advise is common (again, going to Magic, and also other FG communities with e-sports teams). The biggest difference is that the coaching isn't mid-set (unless you have someone shouting something out to you while you're getting back to character select). However, calling coaching/collabarating unfair is just a weak mindset that lets you defer blame from your losing. If you and your group of friends aren't as good as [unoffical team of Zero+friends] than you need to improve, not only in gameplay, but in matchup knowledge and ability to analyze play mistakes.

2. "Your victory should be all about you" A similar (and similarly weak) mindset, but slightly different. No success is all about you. If you're trying to invent the wheel yourself (discovering tech, analyzing matchups, etc) of course you're going to be out-paced by people with a better system for improvement. Sure, a talented player can win against other players who are part of a team (in Magic, SF, etc) but at the top level of play, letting pride get in the way of progress (wanting to "do it yourself" instead of getting as much help as you can) is also a weak mentality (even if it looks like a strong, macho one).

3. TOs need to enforce it/the events are too unprofessional. This is one of the important arguments. Whatever the final decision is (no mid-set coaching, no handwarmers, whatever), it needs to be clearly posted and enforced. Especially at large events, (I understand that APEX had it's own host of problems) there need to be clear rules with enforced punishments. If you have six minutes per match, with one minute between for coaching/handwarmers/resetting your mental state, that needs to be strictly followed. I love the old school Mages rule for lateness, that results in first a warning, then beginning at 0-1, and finally a DQ. I remember my first real tourney experience (Cataclysm 2 I think for melee) where they actively stayed on top of this, and the tourney was the smoothest I've seen--much smoother than many smaller tourneys I attended over the years.
 
First of all, I want to agree that excessive coaching mid set is clearly an abuse of 'coaching,' but using the time between matches to plan and analyze your play is a pretty big part of e-sports (which is the community fighting games want to be legitimized in). In LoL, while you can't pause to talk, in between games of your Bo3, there is certainly time to evaluate and analyze play. I'd recommend limiting the time mid set (people seem to be suggesting 1 min, which I think is fine), but I just want to address some points I saw scrolling through.

1. "Coaching is unfair!" The OP says this, talking about the difference between playing Zero and playing Zero plus his network of friends, and other people mirror this sentiment. To that, I just have to wonder how strong your drive to be the best player is? Sirlin would probably call this complaint scrub mentality. In other nominally single player games, having a team behind you to brainstorm, analyze, and advise is common (again, going to Magic, and also other FG communities with e-sports teams). The biggest difference is that the coaching isn't mid-set (unless you have someone shouting something out to you while you're getting back to character select). However, calling coaching/collabarating unfair is just a weak mindset that lets you defer blame from your losing. If you and your group of friends aren't as good as [unoffical team of Zero+friends] than you need to improve, not only in gameplay, but in matchup knowledge and ability to analyze play mistakes.

2. "Your victory should be all about you" A similar (and similarly weak) mindset, but slightly different. No success is all about you. If you're trying to invent the wheel yourself (discovering tech, analyzing matchups, etc) of course you're going to be out-paced by people with a better system for improvement. Sure, a talented player can win against other players who are part of a team (in Magic, SF, etc) but at the top level of play, letting pride get in the way of progress (wanting to "do it yourself" instead of getting as much help as you can) is also a weak mentality (even if it looks like a strong, macho one).

3. TOs need to enforce it/the events are too unprofessional. This is one of the important arguments. Whatever the final decision is (no mid-set coaching, no handwarmers, whatever), it needs to be clearly posted and enforced. Especially at large events, (I understand that APEX had it's own host of problems) there need to be clear rules with enforced punishments. If you have six minutes per match, with one minute between for coaching/handwarmers/resetting your mental state, that needs to be strictly followed. I love the old school Mages rule for lateness, that results in first a warning, then beginning at 0-1, and finally a DQ. I remember my first real tourney experience (Cataclysm 2 I think for melee) where they actively stayed on top of this, and the tourney was the smoothest I've seen--much smoother than many smaller tourneys I attended over the years.
I actually agree, i think they're shouldn't be coaches for these types of games, unless its really necessary at some points.
 
coaching wastes the time of the spectators. Unless, they put a mic to it so the viewers on stream can hear what they are saying just like a boxer's corner in between rounds. Also there must be a set time, like 1 minute or so.

I voted just to ban it outright.
 
honestly this feels like impatience here, people want to win at tourneys and they will take their time to talk strategy. theyre not playing to entertain the audience, they're playing to win, or at least thats what i think.

HOWEVER! they can sometimes take a really long time, so i can see why it annoys people. coaching should most likely be regulated for the best results, its a midway that is probably the best case scenario that makes everyone happy.
 
@ GTZ GTZ no one is forcing you to have a coach. Doesn't mean that other people can't get coaching, especially if there isn't a pre-existing ruling on it.

@ MP8 MP8 Why is it surprising? Do you think that boxing (pretty similar example) shouldn't have coaches either?

@ Chihiro Fujisaki Chihiro Fujisaki I think many spectators forget that the game is about more than pleasing the audience.
 
@ GTZ GTZ no one is forcing you to have a coach. Doesn't mean that other people can't get coaching, especially if there isn't a pre-existing ruling on it.

@ MP8 MP8 Why is it surprising? Do you think that boxing (pretty similar example) shouldn't have coaches either?

@ Chihiro Fujisaki Chihiro Fujisaki I think many spectators forget that the game is about more than pleasing the audience.
@ St. Viers St. Viers i think that at least half the spectators forget that according to the votes. people need to be reminded of this
 
I don't think that coaching is a bad thing in itself, but when they talk about match-ups for 4 minutes in between every match, that's when regulations need to be set in. Moderation will keep things going at a steady pace, though I do agree on how players without coaches can have a difficult time winning against players with coaches, especially high-level players.
 
I think it's really cool how customer moves, a feature that everyone was looking forward thatwould have deepened the game, gets banned out for time concerns but five minute coaching sessions between four minute games get to be okay.

Smash streams are starting to look like LoL streams between matches. It's really stupid.
 
Coaching should be banned in tournaments.
In games with so many matchups (like Smash 4 or Project M), matchups are impossible and the inbetween-game process is something both players want to use.
There should be a clear time limit between matches.
I think viewing your own notes before the set is OK (can be tough if you don't know who your opponent plays) but in-set I think it should not be allowed.

An idea could be that both players first have to go to a TO (5 minutes before the game starts or so), who then saves their first games' character choice. Both players are informed. They can now gather information from own notes or from other people. When the set begins, any kind of coaching is banned. (It would need good organisation but it would be better for stream viewers and fairer imo)
 
I don't disagree that coaching was a problem at Apex 2015. I was pretty peeved when I had to wait a long time between sets because the coach had some 'pivotal' advice.

However, I disagree about how having a coach is 'unfair'. Sure, I understand Smash 4 is pretty intensive in terms of knowledge of match-ups, abilities and opponent know-how but having a good coach who gives good advice doesn't give some a decisive edge in battle, It helps refocus the fighter, gives them a different angle to go on and make games more enjoyable to watch as a result. We can't also forget that bad coaches exists and may even hinder some players!

Coaching is key in all sports and I think Smash could benefit from it if it were regulated properly. 30-45 seconds between a set is long enough for a good coach to give solid advice, any more is just a waste.

Also, off-topic but I want to mention that all quarter-finals should be three matches instead of five, The worst part for me was the quarter finals and how bloody long that took.
 
I think we ought to limit coaching to 60 seconds maximum. If a player needs any more info than that, they deserve to lose. It's their job to learn the MU, and if they fail at that, they fail at Smash. I completely agree with TheDerrit's position on integrity too. The player did not earn that knowledge, and so coaching eliminates some of the integrity of the match. If you have to be coached, it's not really you playing, is it? Somebody else had to come give you that knowledge.
Yeah
 
Coaching is good, but needs to be limited to 30sec-60sec. Why do we practice with other people, instead of sitting in training mode all day? Because we need other people to point out mistakes, if someone is coaching they can say "yo dude you're doing X too much, and hes doing Y, so do Z". You are contradicting yourself by saying, smash is a game of knowledge and then saying a coach giving a player knowledge is unfair. If that is the case then the player without the coach is at an advantage because he probably knows more in the beginning which is why he doesn't need a coach.
Coaching should DEFINITELY be apart of smash, its apart of ALL traditional sports, and is heavily apart of high level E-Sports.
 
Coaching for 30-60 seconds being enforced as a rule can be a relaxed rule because matches off stream tend to be a lot more relaxed as well. The rule only need to be enforced when it a problem. And more often than not the problems only arise with the same players.
 
yeah.... sometimes its wayyyy too much. it should be a rule to coach for 1 min max or something. like streamers or the pool organizers or something should time how long a match is being coached for. I dont think it should be banned, just tweeked.
 
I want to point out the argument "not every player will have a coach" is not a valid argument. We don't ban things based on what everyone can and can't do. Not every player can wave dash or l-cancel that does not make these bannable.

Its also just arbitrary...
 
A little coaching is fine, if its less than a minute long. It's not a sure fire way to win. Coaching just gives you something to hope for.
 
Just one of those things that the TO needs to keep an eye on. I would hope that a TO would recognize that coaching, whether it's for 3 minutes or 30 seconds, isn't fair to the opponent let alone the tournament at large. Even if it doesn't become part of official rules, this is something that'll need policing regardless. You may need some of your own friends bite the bullet and shoo away coaches at larger tournaments such as Apex instead of participating.
 
I want to point out the argument "not every player will have a coach" is not a valid argument. We don't ban things based on what everyone can and can't do. Not every player can wave dash or l-cancel that does not make these bannable.

Its also just arbitrary...
>.> Yes they can. It's skill anyone can learn through experience the same way any and all match-ups can be learned through experience or simply finding more info about it from various sources. The difference here is that much like L-Canceling, it wouldn't be fair to have your friend with their hand on the controller ready to press the L button as needed. That'd be ridiculous. You wanna give advice? Do it after the set. If a player didn't take the time to learn something himself, tough ****.
 
Sorry in advance if something I say has been said, but I don't have the mental fortitude to read through 6 pages of smash fan comments at the moment.

To start, people making sports-smash coaching analogies: keep in mind that breaks in between sports like hockey, soccer, or especially boxing (where people seem to be getting the one-minute break rule from) are not just opportunities for coaches to give advice to players. The breaks (especially in boxing) are a chance for the competitor to rest and get patched up so they can go for longer periods of time. In professional boxing, title matches (weight class champ vs challenger) go for 12 3-minute rounds, and before 1980-something they went for 15 3-minute rounds. Can you imagine 2 guys trying to fight each other for 45 minutes straight with no breaks? Anyway, the point here is that smash, while challenging in its own way, is not as physically taxing as a sport like boxing, and so breaks shouldn't necessarily be as long as those given in sports because the players don't need the same amount of rest time as an athlete.

Furthermore, sporting events (such as boxing again, forgive me for referencing a single sport for analogies) can last hours, but oftentimes a card (fight schedule) has fewer than a dozen fights or so for the whole event. Contrast this with smash, where apex 2015 had thousands of participants competing over just 3 days. If every Smash match of all 4 games allotted even a minute of time for coaching in between fights, the amount of extra time taken up would make it nigh impossible to maintain the 3-day schedule and finish on time. Now, people may say "oh, it's okay because on the top (insert number) players use coaching", but that just means that the top players have an extra advantage that "Joe Schmoe" doesn't. If coaching is to be allowed in smash it will have to be regulated across the board and be a part of every single match, not just like the Top 8 Bo5 matches as opposed to typical Bo3, for example.

In conclusion, I'd like to give props to the author of this article for finding the words I have been searching for to explain exactly what it is that I love so much about Smash 4. "Smash 4 is... heavily reliant on knowledge: match-ups are unique, and situational understanding is a huge part of the game. The most important attributes a Smash 4 player can have are SITUATION AWARENESS and ADAPTABILITY." I love that more than simply requiring the ability to push enough buttons with speed in the right sequence, Smash 4 forces players to analyze the game from moment to moment, and rewards tactical superiority over technical superiority.
 
Last edited:
As a melee player I have to say that I never see coaching happen in melee aside from an occasional quick suggestion lasting a few seconds. Why is that? Players have already determined their counterpicks ahead of time. Why can't players of other games do the same? Granted, that might be more work in sm4sh than it is in melee, but if you're on that level of play there's honestly no excuse to have not put that time in especially considering sm4sh players don't need to spend countless hours practicing tech skill like melee players do.
 
Keeping coaching legal in any form privileges those who have friends who are good at the game. Part of what a game of melee tests is your ability to adapt and play against your opponent. Mid-set coaching is effectively cheating.
 
I think coaching should be banned so that the tournament can run smoothly. Also, not everyone has the benefit of even having a coach. It seems like a luxury that should be kept to events where there is plenty of down time due to stream set up or running ads.
 
I have a real question here for people complaining about coaching: do you think coaching is wrong, or just coaching at events? It seems like alot of you object to coaching entirely, which makes (sorry) you opinion useless, because it shows that you have no clue what getting good at something actually entails--you want to believe in the myth of "talent" and intuition in the creation of good players. To people who believe it's just coaching at events that is the problem, carry on, because you guys have legit complaints (even if I disagree XD)
 
How about:
1 registered coach per player, per tournament.
2 minute prep time before button check to converse w/ coach
60 seconds between sets to converse w/ their coach
A soundproof box for the players to play inside (this is like the standard for all other eSports, seriously), this prevents any outside interference with the match.
 
As we start getting recognized more as a sport maybe we take a page from Tennis. They have coaches, but are not allowed to be coach during matches.
 
no coaching. At all. Its nobody's fault but the player if he or she doesnt have full knowledge of some matchups. If anything ill attend the next one and have 10 minute coachings. Its fair right? no. its not. No coaching.
 
I personally agree that coaching should at the very least be tolerated. Seeing the coaching that occurred at Apex not only made the tournament last longer than expected but it seem like coaching had to occur between every game despite who won. What I would propose to solve this solution is to allow only one minute for coaching purposes but only before the first game. The set should be played by the players participating in the tournament set and should not be receiving assistant with the set. After all, it should only be the competitors playing the tournament set not the players and their coaches.
 
Holy geez the poll results. Coaching shouldn't be banned entirely, but it should be put on a short leash if you ask me. I agree with what the OP said in that it's unfair when top-level players coach others, take the gods for example. But to take it out entirely might be a bit harsh.

I won't complain if it happens, but I say give the players 30 seconds or so for coaching. And if the player isn't ready in 30 seconds penalize them a stock to show you're serious about this.
 
Top Bottom