The "Coaching" Debate.

[CloneHat]

I have a theory that the best coaches, and the only ones that could ever be effective in tournament, don't make decisions for players, they just help players keep their focus to make the right decisions for themselves.

This makes no sense.

This could only be true if the player being coached had as much leisure time to take in their opponent's habits as a spectator, which they don't.

Secondly, this also assumes that the player is perfect, and that the coach's advice on the opponent's habits will not be beneficial. If you're saying that a coach providing advice will not be effective in tournament, you're simply wrong.

This is nonsense made up for the sole purpose of making coaching look better.

 

[Nihonjin]

Nihonjin you're saying that if my opponent plays better because people are cheering for him I can use that to play better myself. I'll feed off the fact that people are not cheering for me and strengthen my own mind.

It doesn't change the fact that people are still helping your opponent's skill and that the skill of holding a strong mindset is not entirely his own, therefore it defeats the purpose of a one on one fight which is the basis of your argument.

If you say that cheering for a player won't make them play better because it depends on the player then I will say coaching won't make them play better because it depends on the player.

You have no argument.

Let me repeat it for you again, real simple.

The crowd does not make people play better, people push themselves to play at their best because of the crowd. Whether they're for or against you is irrelevant, you can still use them to play to the best of your abilities.

I'm not going to bother explaining why this is incomparable to coaching again.

I have a theory that the best coaches, and the only ones that could ever be effective in tournament, don't make decisions for players, they just help players keep their focus to make the right decisions for themselves.

No they don't.

A good coach takes over entire parts of the game. Like finding habits (of both players), picking up on strategies their opponents are using and ways to counter them, thinking of counter picks based on their opponents weaknesses/strengths, etc.

 

[Wobbles]

Mmm... I'd probably diverge on that one from you, Amsah. Once you say that you can counter with the point "people have to make themselves play better because of the coach by listening and applying his advice," and that adapting to coaching is a skill. After all, a coach's advice make one player overthink or get distracted and screw them up, while it might make another player act more quickly and effectively. And that distracts from the real issue, which is that what a given coach does is available only to one player.

I'd argue against it like this; the crowd creates a public resource while a coach creates a private one. The crowd's cheering is "available" to both players, and how the player interprets and uses that cheering is up to them. A coach's advice is given only to one player.

Hence if someone in the crowd shouts "HE ALWAYS ROLLS LEFT," then both players are now aware of that information and can both use it. If a coach tells it privately to only one player, then the resource is unfairly distributed and becomes an imbalancing factor (regardless of how much it benefits/detriments the player).

 

[forward]

"The crowd does not make people play better, people push themselves to play at their best because of the crowd"

Can be reworded as...

People are not made to player better because of the crowd. Because of the crowd, people push themselves to play better.

Does this make sense why what you just said doesn't make sense?

 

[Nihonjin]

I'd argue against it like this; the crowd creates a public resource while a coach creates a private one. The crowd's cheering is "available" to both players, and how the player interprets and uses that cheering is up to them. A coach's advice is given only to one player.

I was going to make this point tbh, but I ended up typing:

I'm not going to bother explaining why this is incomparable to coaching again.

I'm getting sloppy..~_~

I completely agree with you though..

 

[The Star King]

Forward, cheering does NOT make players play better than their best. It simply removes their nerves/motivates them to try harder, but it doesn't actually give them knowledge they didn't already have. Coaching, on the other hand, DOES give them knowledge they didn't already have.

 

[Nihonjin]

"The crowd does not make people play better, people push themselves to play at their best because of the crowd"

Can be reworded as...

People are not made to player better because of the crowd. Because of the crowd, people push themselves to play at their best.

Does this make sense why what you just said doesn't make sense?

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..

 

[forward]

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.

I honestly do not see the difference. I see that these are fundamentally the same in that playing better would not have happened in either case if the match occurred closed off from all other people. If it is another person that makes you play better that's where I draw the line and I would think that's where you would draw the line because your argument is based off of preserving one on one competition with no outside influence.

I don't care about the details of how you were influenced to play better, whether you were told direct advice or inspired, because they both come from the same source, another person.

Also, if we agree that pushing yourself to play well is a skill we should test in tournaments, then your girlfriend most certainly made that easier for you because she made you push yourself.

 

[Composeur]

You can still beat him. That's enough.

I don't think that's amsah's point. I think he's saying it's still a measure of unnecessary interference in a game where the point is that the better player should win.

If you have two players of equal or near-equal skill level who would normally have close matches and about a 50/50 win ratio between them, giving one of them a good coach and the other nobody would change that win ratio. The coached player would probably start beating the other more than half the time, even though the players are still of equal skill level. From the comments I've read in this thread, it seems that MOST of us would agree with that, regardless of whether or not we support coaching in tournaments. Is this correct?

So suppose player X comes by herself from out-of-state to a big tournament. Player Y, who is also attending, is from the area and has lots of friends at the tournament. He's also friends with Hugs. In the case that they're very close in skill level, Hugs coaching player Y in their tournament set could very easily affect the outcome of the set, and there's nothing player X can do about that because she has no friends there to coach her (and none of her friends could've coached as well as Hugs, even if they'd come).

Is that not a plausible scenario for a tournament that coaching is allowed in? I feel like this example clearly illustrates how coaching can provide an unfair advantage in essentially turning a 1 v 1 to a 2 v 1. Yes, life is full of unfair things, but my general understanding of a tournament's purpose is that it's to recognize (and reward) the best player. This means rules are designed to maximize the equality of fairness, because the fairer it is, the likely it is that the player who deserves to win will win.

I realize life isn't perfect and that tournaments aren't theoretical events, but it seems like it's our responsibility as a community to ban practices in tournaments that blatantly give an advantage to one player. All it would require is one more rule in the ruleset; it's not exactly a difficult thing to realize.

Anyway, that's just the conclusion I came to.

 

[Merkuri]

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.

I honestly do not see the difference. I see that these are fundamentally the same in that playing better would not have happened in either case if the match occurred closed off from all other people. If it is another person that makes you play better that's where I draw the line and I would think that's where you would draw the line because your argument is based off of preserving one on one competition with no outside influence.

I don't care about the details of how you were influenced to play better, whether you were told direct advice or inspired, because they both come from the same source, another person.

Also, if we agree that pushing yourself to play well is a skill we should test in tournaments, then your girlfriend most certainly made that easier for you because she made you push yourself.

I really don't think the difference is as difficult to understand as you're making it seem. It's almost like you're trying to remain ignorant.

The desire to player doesn't come from anyone else but yourself. The desire is self created, granted the desire may have been inspired by someone else, but it still comes from within you. The source of your inspiration could have been because you want to make the crowd proud, your girldfriend sitting beside you proud, because you want to make your dog sitting back home on your couch proud of you! It could be to make God proud of you. In the end it all comes down to you motivating yourself to play better. Seeing as how the will to play better to is totally dependent on the player it is immaterial in what is fair and what is not.

This attribute does not apply to coaching, because they are not giving you desires they are giving you information, and if you simply aren't intuitive enough it may simply be impossible for you to pick up on this information especially since you are playing the game. This information does not come from you, it comes from your coach sitting beside you. Stop comparing two different points already, at this point your argument is almost insulting to the reader.

 

[MT_]

So let me get this straight. The pro-coaching argument now has become something like:

Coach and crowd are essentially equivalent.

I haven't seen an assertion made from the pro-coaching side based on this premise, but I can only imagine that this will lead to this next statement: if we want to ban coaching then we have to ban a crowd. We don't want to ban a crowd, so don't ban coaching.

There's a lot of gray area here but I can respect the argument.

@Wobbles, the "public resource" analogy I think is a little flawed. What truly matters is how much each player gains from some spouted information. Take this example: player A knows that player B keeps rolling from the ledge and continues to punish it. Someone from the crowd shouts, "B keeps rolling from the ledge!" Now player B recognizes his punishable habit and has gained a lot from this information. However, player A has gained essentially nothing. Just because it's the same information doesn't make it fair.

 

[S l o X]

people obviously didn't see pp vs lucky, p4, in person hugs coaching. ****'s not even game changing it's set changing. he basically told him the best places to go, where why how when who etc . . . he basically studied pp FOR him and lucky just sat back listened and did his tech skill-y fox stuff.

bad argument but yea, coaching is dumb. 1v1 > 1V10

 

[Wobbles]

But A knows that B has access to this information. The game state HAS changed because of their awareness, but at least both players have the same knowledge, and it's up to them what to do with it.

If a coach is quietly telling B that A is waiting for the roll and won't expect a ledge-jump, or something, then A has no awareness that the game-state has changed, giving B free opportunities to recover that he would not have taken advantage of before.

 

[MT_]

My point is that the crowd's input has not benefited both players equally. Whether or not player A is able to utilize the information to still be able to punish player B is a completely different set of skills than what is normally being tested in an ideal one on one tournament match. I do understand where you're coming from though; it does draw a line between coach and crowd, though not to the extent to which the anti-coaching side would probably like.

 

[Wobbles]

Being aware of your opponent's mindset and whether he's adapted to you or not is a skill commonly tested, actually, but no, not tested to the extreme that somebody is shouting things like "HE'S GONNA GO LEFT BRO."

I think that a crowd should show respect and stick to positive hype, rather than try to directly stick their face in the match and change the outcome, but unless we forbid people saying anything--or we put players in soundproofed booths like Starcraft players--then we can't completely control that. Is it necessary to go that far? No, because TOs CAN get people to stay a minimum distance away from the players during matches though, and if he sees somebody trying to constantly feed info to the player he can go up to them and just say "knock it off or gtfo."

 

[KAOSTAR]

Being aware of your opponent's mindset and whether he's adapted to you or not is a skill commonly tested, actually, but no, not tested to the extreme that somebody is shouting things like "HE'S GONNA GO LEFT BRO."

I think that a crowd should show respect and stick to positive hype, rather than try to directly stick their face in the match and change the outcome, but unless we forbid people saying anything--or we put players in soundproofed booths like Starcraft players--then we can't completely control that. Is it necessary to go that far? No, because TOs CAN get people to stay a minimum distance away from the players during matches though, and if he sees somebody trying to constantly feed info to the player he can go up to them and just say "knock it off or gtfo."

I made this argument earlier, but I like the part about "the state of play"

I think its a really good counter to the crowd argument.

both players really do hear these random ideas flying around and they can take what they want from it.

if im waiting for a shield grab and somebody yells don't grab (player B was planning to punish my whiffed grab) but he knows that I may now realize ious a trap so he instead pressures my shield knowing that I was holding off on the grab.

**** is brilliant homie.


edit: nobody try to argue that coaching is ok if both coaches are loud enough for both players to hear. thats added depth in strategy already meaning id have my coach plant ideas in my opponent on purpose. inception lmao!

when the ideas come from the crowd generally they are candid suggestions with no tricks involved.

 

[_wzrd]

Maybe we should just leave it up to TO's to stipulate whether coaching is allowed or banned & explicitly state it in the tourney thread.

Of course DSR will be able to allow or dis-allow coaching in special cases at each tournament. The moral issue of coaching will always be bipartisan, each side to this argument have at least a couple great points about coaching.

 

[_wzrd]

PS I agree with wobbles about crowds/hype etc.

I was typing something up, but he had it covered it beyond the point I had thought of.

 

[forward]

If a coach is quietly telling B that A is waiting for the roll and won't expect a ledge-jump, or something, then A has no awareness that the game-state has changed, giving B free opportunities to recover that he would not have taken advantage of before.

Nobody knows the future.

You can guess the future based on probability, which is what we are doing in smash, constantly and all the time. Every action gives us information to the probability of our opponent's next action. If you don't believe me than you probably aren't good.

Coaching in the form of telling people probabilities is ineffective.

If your mind is on one track calculating probabilities, calculations where we are probably making on avg at least 5 decisions/second, I don't believe that if someone tells you their calculation that you will be able to fit it in INSTANTLY into your calculations and use it effectively. So the idea of "do it now!" coaching is wouldn't even be effective. It's not even possible to fit it in instantly either, there would be a delay between the coach's thought of the game, converting those thoughts to words, speaking the words, the person hearing the words, converting the words to smash thoughts, and then executing them.

If I'm wrong then give me an example where it actually happened. Not theory, I want experimental data.

If you want to talk about telling them habits for future reference then think about this. Every habit is met by another habit. If people have a habit of teching towards the center its because the other person has a habit of hitting them to the ground so the tech habit occurs. This means habits your coach tells you is two fold, he has to tell you what your opponent is doing and he has to tell you what you are doing to provoke it.

Let's say your coach manages to do that. He's identified that when you jump at him he wave dashes back. Alright, think about this. How many good players react to every jump the same way? None, right? It depends on a lot of factors such as the angle the jumper is falling at them, the position before the jump was initiated, frame advantages, the "stance" the grounded person is in (running, standing, crouching, shielding), even things like percentage, stocks, and time can influence that decision. The likelihood the coach has identified all of those factors AND posses the language ability to describe such an abstract concept AND that you understand it AND that you can implement it while still continuing with the calculations you are making at the time is so small it is negligible. There is a much greater chance that information would mess you up.

Okay, so that's a little deep. If you're not good at this game it won't even make sense to you because you don't understand how angles, frames, percentage, and hundreds of other little details that can't be put into words affect decisions. But for fun let's look at a more basic example. A Falcon d-throw tech chase on a spacie.

Falcon d-throws, predicts a tech in place and goes for the stomp, the spacie techs in. It happens several times and the coach tells you he always techs in. Next time goes to punish the tech in and hits it, takes a stock.

Can you prove that the Falcon player didn't know this information before the coach? Ok, so to cover all bases lets say the coach did know this information before the player. Is there any chance he could be wrong? Of course there is, it could just be mindgames by the spacie player, he's been conditioning his opponent to expect a tech in so he can switch his tech when he notices a change in behavior in his opponent tech chase movement (people do this btw, if you think i'm wrong you're bad at this game).

Alright alright so just to make sure I don't miss anything, lets say the coach was right, he accounted for all the mind games, overcame the barrier of communicating the idea and his player follows through and he is right. So, did the player know this? No, the whole argument is that the coach is thinking for the player. So if the player didn't know this but he decided to have faith in his coach's decision, is the player actually playing better or is he gambling? He's taking a risk, he has faith that his coach is correct. Let me make it clear that faith DOES NOT equal skill.

One might say, "Well Forward the problem with that is that the Falcon is not playing against his opponent he's playing the coach. It's supposed to be a one on one fight."

Well it is a one on one fight, it's the player vs the coach because the player isn't doing the thinking. If you're not happy with that, let me ask you this. What would you expect to be a more difficult opponent, a single opponent whose mind is controlling his hands or a an opponent whose hands are being controlled by a mind being controlled by another mind? All I see with the coaching scenario is a delay in execution on my opponent's part that is gonna make the match a breeze.

So far I haven't heard any evidence that this sort of "do as I command" coaching is even remotely effective. Coaching examples there brought up have been skewed from the truth to support their opinion. Dr. PP came in and said he didn't hear any sort of advice from his crew in the example that involved him. Lucky said that HugS wasn't tactical advice but telling him to calm down and regain composure.

In fact, all evidence would point that it is not effective. Go beyond the surface level of "my opponent has people making decisions for him" and think about what that means and you'll see it is illogical to believe that that is helping him or that that is even what is going on. How many of you have ever tried to tell a lesser skilled player what to do in a given situation and they reply "every time I try that he does (thing that beats it)!" I've heard it a lot.

If you think it is wrong that player can't have a close friend sitting next to them telling them to keep up the good work, calm down, relax, you got this, good job, then not only are you ******** but you are sick and cruel.

The crowds argument still stands. Smash history is filled with more upsets caused by crowds than by coaches. I'm sure those stories are a dime dozen. Anybody can tell you of a time a crowd got to them and made them play worse or a crowd cheered them on and they played well.

Seriously, ask yourself this question. If you had to go up against your closest rival and you had the choice between a crowd of 50 people filled with friends and family cheering you on and saying awesome things to keep your spirit up and a coach whose going to tell you which way the other guy is gonna tech and if he's gonna recover high or low which would you rather take? I don't know about you guys but I'd say the choice is easy.

 

[Wobbles]

....You said just about NOTHING to actually advance your argument Sean.

We're arguing that the coach creates an imbalancing presence that affects ONE player, and can skew match results. That's somebody giving advice, saying things like "he rolls from the ledge a lot keep an eye out," quietly helping somebody adapt and change their play. Something that, IMO, is that PLAYER'S responsibility.

We have said NOTHING about banning crowds, about encouragement, about positive hype. The issue is having somebody there giving you tactical information and making your decisions better. If your opponent is baiting you onto platforms so he can pressure you, and going up to those platforms is a bad idea for your matchup, but you don't realize that and you're losing, a coach can easily tell you that in between stocks. He can give you matchup advice and tell you where to go, what moves to avoid. He can tell you what finishers to focus on, he can point out where the guy tends to DI. He can change the pace of the match by influencing how you play it.

I also said nothing about probabilities. Somebody says "dude he always rolls from the edge," and then they do and you punish. Not "he has an eight-three point three repeating chance of rolling to the right" and then you bust out the graphing calculator. Or ****, how about "he always rolls away from pressure" and then he short hop b-airs out of shield for the win and the coach says "whoops my bad dog."

You can NOT dispute that this is very doable. You know quite well that you've given somebody tactical advice during a friendly, coached them, made suggestions, and watched them improve mid-match. Many good players have done that for their friends, or just for random people who have asked.

You also can't say that it's okay because the coach might be wrong, because *as I stated before* HE'S NOT PART OF THE MATCH. His decisions, his analyses, however right or wrong they are, those do not belong in the SINGLES match between two other players.

The argument here is that making decisions that for somebody during a tournament match set up to test an individual player's skills is disruptive to the intent of the tournament itself. Having people encourage you, cheer you on, that's part of the positive hype that I'm more than happy to acknowledge as an awesome part of the scene. It's part of what makes this competitive game a spectator sport. It's fun. It's awesome. No dispute.

Something confuses me though. Right now you're telling me "a coach giving advice isn't effective and can even hinder a player," when earlier you said it helps players "live up to their full potential." Does coaching help or doesn't it? Not encouragement, not cheering, not saying "stay calm bro" to your friend, but coaching. Giving matchup advice and pattern info. Telling people that "staying in this part of the level makes you vulnerable to pressure, don't do it" and watching your friend suddenly do 2x better. "This move isn't safe against his shield," and now your friend isn't getting punished nearly as much.

Can stuff like that be effective and helpful, and help a player improve his play? If so, then why is it okay to do that during a tournament match for somebody? Friendlies are your study groups, tournaments are exams. You can stare at your cheat sheets all you want before the test and you can get your friend to bust out the flash cards, but don't expect the teacher to let you use them on the final. And just because your notes might suck and give you wrong answers doesn't mean it's okay to have them.

 

[Wenbobular]

If all I was going for is winning I'd have Mango sit at my shoulder and have him call my opponent's habits out for me haha

I'd rather have a crowd behind me for an actual tournament experience though
xD

I've only ever once had a crowd get hyped for one of my matches (like an 8v8 crew battle) and it felt pretty amazing

I can only imagine how Lucky / Peepee felt while playing at Pound 4 ... that crowd was hyped as ****, rockin' the seat I was sitting in and everything

 

[KAOSTAR]

forward

first of all, what is considered fair or unfair generally stems from theory. if there are situations where one player can profit and in this case not from his own knowledge or thinking its unfair to the other player. specific examples of real occurrences aren't even necessary.

but to answer your question about falcon tech chasing....maybe the falcon would have done that anyway, in that case you don't know if the coach truly helped. but its really easy to take a hypothetical and say player A has been doing waveshines across the stage on player B. Every time they reach the edge player B grabs it with proper di instead of flying off and getting shine spiked. player A's coach then tells him to d smash at the edge instead. this is something player A has NEVER DONE BEFORE. now he is taking stocks much more easily. you gonna say the coach didn't **** player B over?

similar situation. player A is using the same waveshine across fd ****. but in this situation player B doesn't know how to immediately grab the edge. player A has been taking advantage of this. then player B's coach tells him about grabbing the edge and player A must now adapt. definitely more work caused by coaching.

coaching is an issue that effects all levels. its as simple as providing a player with insight or knowledge they didn't previously have before....during a match. not some do as I command. once a player had a certain level of tech he can execute most things even if they haven't done them b4.

coach tells player A to empty sh into a grab instead of always doing an aerial.

coach tells a player to double shine at the edge instead of single shining.

its not even a gamble all the time. relaying tactical information is much more dangerous because the player doesn't always need to understand the reason.

and im personally against a personal homie next to you saying calm down. player B may have been intentionally trying to frustrate you. now a coach just came over and ruined a mental part of player B's game plan.

im against a crowd as well but imo its a separate issue and requires different counter measures. its much harder to stop than personal coaching.

don't get me wrong tho, I love the hype. its super fun. I just think from a completely fair and competitive stand point, crowds are potentially harmful to the integrity of a match between two players.

 

[Nihonjin]

If your girlfriend didn't inspire you to stop rolling you would keep getting punished.

Lots of stuff

Are you really trying to argue that coaching is ineffective..?

Seriously, ask yourself this question. If you had to go up against your closest rival and you had the choice between a crowd of 50 people filled with friends and family cheering you on and saying awesome things to keep your spirit up and a coach whose going to tell you which way the other guy is gonna tech and if he's gonna recover high or low which would you rather take? I don't know about you guys but I'd say the choice is easy.

*Assuming that I only care about winning in this scenario*

Then yes, It's an easy choice. I'd go for a coach.

I can already push myself to play at my absolute best, the crowd (as much as I like them) wouldn't help me at all. While a coach might be able to pick up on habits of me and my opponent that I didn't notice myself.

 

[forward]

Alright guys it's been fun but I need to step away from this. I've spent too much time thinking about it and it's hurting my grades. So, until we meet in person, farewell.

 

[Vro]

I don't see how my post was ripped apart, other people are just charging in from a completely different view point and yelling at each other, CAN'T YOU SEE IT THE WAY I SEE IT?! Yes, I understand that some of you think that it should exactly be ONE person vs the other ONE person. If that's the ****ing reason, why is there even talk about this?

The only thing I wanted to mention is what Forward did, in that ultimately it is still the player's decision on how to use the advice, how to play, and to actually press the buttons. Unless a coach actually pressed buttons on the controller, I can't believe you guys are so dense on the ONE VS ONE.

If anyone is so incredulous to think that a coach could become a crutch is completely overruling the fact that the better player should win. Honestly unless you plan your moves an entire stock ahead, a coach can only tell you what to do in real time with slightly less accuracy as either player playing the game (due to time delay of button presses). Unless I'm some sort of super duber scrub who can't see TEH MINDGAMES, all players have equal resources to watching the game. Having another pair of eyes tell you subtle things is only that. If you couldn't tell he was baiting you to roll/spotdodge, and your coach snaps at you real quick, do you honestly think that in a few frames you could change the out come completely and that the player setting up the mindgame was maybe OVERCOMMITTING?

Yes Wobbles bring up the great point of unequal resources when a coach whispers info or intel. But please. If your opponent doesn't know that he's giving that info up (waiting at the roll distance from ledge) then is it really secret?

Yes if we allowed coaching during matches it would turn from 1+coach to 1+coach. Maybe the coach is worth some stupidly small value, and yet some of you yell blasphemy. If that's how it's going to be, we might as well have answers preplanned to any proposed change. "That's just the way it is ***, we've tested this ****!"

Yes, some instances in Melee are a matter of one exchange, one move. But how accurately in real time can your coach tell you to do the one exact instance. He can't space your back air. ****, he might even just tell you to attack, how much coaching is that worth? And did you guys ever think your coach could be wrong? Who makes the decision then? Was it the player taking his advice poorly or was it poor advice?

I remember countless time I've told Tink to stop spotdodging, M2K is trying to bait it. At the same time, he does it so sloppily after he misses a tech and then upsmashes. What a good coach I am, right? Unless a coach is found to be prophetic and have ample time to pre-feed info to his player, a coach will always be flawed, more flawed to the degree of the player.



TL;DR Coaching should be tested until found broken. Pre-conceived notions of the game cannot be changed without experimentation. We can either stick to our guns and show our elitist pride, or we can explore an overrated and overhyped possibility.

 

[KAOSTAR]

tactical information isn't really player decision. there are some things that are done over others because they are simply more effective.

a coach providing you with knowledge you didn't have b4 instantly makes you a better player mid match. its not because you learned and adapted, not because you understood some new deeper concept, just because another person told you an answer, making it harder on the other player.

it does not matter who has to use the information, if they don't already know it, they shouldn't have access to it.

vro you really just don't get it. its not important whether or not a coach says hey he is baiting you and you instantly try to react.

IF YOU DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE BEING BAITED THEN THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THE OTHER PLAYER WILL CONTINUE TO SEE SUCCESS WITH IT...UNTIL THE COACH TELLS THEM AND THEY REALIZE AND AVOID THAT SITUATION FOR THE REST OF THE MATCH....makes the other player come up with a new trick because a 3rd party, somebody with a clear head who isn't occupied with thinking about spacing or tech skill just ruined it.

having an unoccupied brain on your side is an advantage in itself. coaches see things as they are, from the outside not the battlefield where vision is cloudy.

 

[Vro]

You are saying that a person has limited thought capacity during a match, which I disagree with. You can always think about more things quicker if you train to do so. At least, imo.

And if you do support that statement, that means it is a lot of info (too hard to multitask) for a coach to TELL you something and for you to interpret it. What if he didn't spot dodge but has had it waiting in his pocket, and this was not the one time? It's as if you believe coaches see something players do not, which I disagree with. I believe players, at least they should, be able to see all information available, just like the crowd. Granted some thing are hard because it's a fast pace game, but if you think a player can be completely pre-occupied in thinking about backairs, that is a stupid player.

So yes, if a stupid player is playing a really mindgames kind of player, a coach would matter a lot. But realistically, how many good players need coaches to tell them general advice? Rather, the only useful information is moment specific advice that may or may not be accurate. And as I said before, if you are baiting something and the other player doesn't take the bait, if you didn't have a backup plan or midswitch plan, you are a bad player, overcommitting.

Maybe I don't see the game the same way you guys do.

player's thoughts > tech skill > actual in game event
^
coaching

coaching helps the thoughts, but has to go through another layer, the human interpreting them. So, in my mind, the coach is not before the thoughts, the one controlling it. The coach is an external factor that must go through the player's mind. once again, he has to choose what happens. And isn't that what we want to see? Player's choices?

inb4capslockrply

and just for laughs. Isn't coaching like backseat driving? It does no good and only makes the driver pissed!

 

[-ACE-]

The only thing I wanted to mention is what Forward did, in that ultimately it is still the player's decision on how to use the advice, how to play, and to actually press the buttons. Unless a coach actually pressed buttons on the controller, I can't believe you guys are so dense on the ONE VS ONE.

Regardless of whether or not a student receives answers mid-exam, ultimately it is still the student's decision on how to use the information and how to write the answer down. Lol.

If anyone is so incredulous to think that a coach could become a crutch is completely overruling the fact that the better player should win. Honestly unless you plan your moves an entire stock ahead, a coach can only tell you what to do in real time with slightly less accuracy as either player playing the game (due to time delay of button presses). Unless I'm some sort of super duber scrub who can't see TEH MINDGAMES, all players have equal resources to watching the game. Having another pair of eyes tell you subtle things is only that. If you couldn't tell he was baiting you to roll/spotdodge, and your coach snaps at you real quick, do you honestly think that in a few frames you could change the out come completely and that the player setting up the mindgame was maybe OVERCOMMITTING?

Funny how you use the phrase "the better player should win" as leaving it up to the players (and only the players) will serve as a much better indicator of which player is better. There is absolutely no need to plan your moves an entire stock ahead to benefit from having a coach. And unfortunately, subtle things and matters of just a few frames can change the entire outcome of a tournament. That's how melee is.

Yes, some instances in Melee are a matter of one exchange, one move. But how accurately in real time can your coach tell you to do the one exact instance. He can't space your back air. ****, he might even just tell you to attack, how much coaching is that worth? And did you guys ever think your coach could be wrong? Who makes the decision then? Was it the player taking his advice poorly or was it poor advice?

Coaching overall will help certain types of players more than others. Someone who knows exactly what to do but has no tech skill is not going to benefit from a coach as much as an intelligent player with a lot of tech skill that simply lacks matchup experience. ****, that's essentially a new point I haven't seen in this thread yet. Some players aren't going to benefit immensely from coaching (kinda like the player I mentioned earlier whose biggest weakness is tech skill). They might not even want a coach at a tournament where it is allowed. Is it fair that this player will receive little or no help from a coach while other players (good players that lack experience in certain matchups) will be benefiting a great deal from the advice given to them from their coach? If you lack a certain skill you should suffer the consequences, just because your biggest weakness happens to be (lack of) experience in a certain matchup doesn't mean you should have someone telling you how to play it appropriately mid-match.

TL;DR Coaching should be tested until found broken. Pre-conceived notions of the game cannot be changed without experimentation. We can either stick to our guns and show our elitist pride, or we can explore an overrated and overhyped possibility.

Not all of this is theory. Most of it is common sense imo.

 

[Vro]

Sense isn't common =O

Do you honestly believe it is like giving a student answers to a test? I feel that analogy is bad because then you are saying your opponent fixes his answers before he reveals them to you. Which I think is a sign of a bad player.

edit:
I forgot to mention MU stuff. Yeah, I can see that stuff may be very powerful, especially with players who don't know some matchups (i'm looking at you floaties ><)

I mean, I can tell my friend to do more back airs as Falcon against Jiggs before the match. I can tell him some good moves or general advice. But I'm not sure how far that story goes with better players, especially players who on both sides really really understand the matchup.

If you're thinking a bad player will be blessed through a bracket with a good coach, I'd really like to see it. Matchup advice is very possible. Actual specific, to the moment advice? Unlikely

 

[-ACE-]

Sense isn't common =O

Do you honestly believe it is like giving a student answers to a test? I feel that analogy is bad because then you are saying your opponent fixes his answers before he reveals them to you. Which I think is a sign of a bad player.

I never said the answers were correct. You aren't going to take advice from a coach if you're doing something you've done thousands of times, something you KNOW is very effective (our at least I wouldn't), just like you wouldn't copy an answer to a question you knew you already had covered. It does, however, give you an outside view on the situation from someone whose only job is to study the match and relay advice (very helpful in certain situations), which is similar to seeing someone else's answer on a test can get you thinking moreso in the right direction.

 

[Vro]

I think that is a better explanation. I feel like coaching is just bringing your notes or taking an open book quiz. It's a lot more to handle, but you could get a better outcome if you have the practice. Granted, if both sides have the same access (actually unequal because coaches are not uniform, gasp!), what's so wrong with that?

So.. coaching makes a better player better? Or makes him play optimally? Except for egos, I don't see what's so wrong with that. Unless of course, you are on the other side from the beginning and just want to shove a shoe up my mouth.

I'll shutup here since I don't think this thread is changing any minds or rule sets. And once again, to each his own. Players will run tournies as they will. players will play tournies as they will.

 

[KAOSTAR]

MU advice is under tactical information.

its not even a bad player situation, I would put money that shiz would have done better vs axe if he had the right coach. not saying he would win, but some MU knowledge would have helped him alot.

good players don't know everything. but mid match, more information given to them is a powerful weapon, because they are good players. it definitely forces player B to adapt to the way player A is now playing. since they didn't know that information b4, they never would have utilized those new tactics without use of a coach.

 

[The Good Doctor]

MU advice is under tactical information.

its not even a bad player situation, I would put money that shiz would have done better vs axe if he had the right coach. not saying he would win, but some MU knowledge would have helped him alot.

good players don't know everything. but mid match, more information given to them is a powerful weapon, because they are good players. it definitely forces player B to adapt to the way player A is now playing. since they didn't know that information b4, they never would have utilized those new tactics without use of a coach.

You don't know for sure that they would or would not play differently. Also, even if a coach says something, there is no guarantee the player will listen. Vro has officially changed my mind on the subject.
<3Vro

 

[Rostigalen]

You don't know for sure that they would or would not play differently. Also, even if a coach says something, there is no guarantee the player will listen. Vro has officially changed my mind on the subject.
<3Vro

Are you really saying that because the tips handled to you COULD be ignored, coaching should be considered OK? Wow. So it doesn't matter that those tips could be...you know, put to use, possibly drastically changing the outcome of a match?

 

[KAOSTAR]

You don't know for sure that they would or would not play differently. Also, even if a coach says something, there is no guarantee the player will listen. Vro has officially changed my mind on the subject.
<3Vro

LMAO. whatever. the fact that it may give players access to insight they didn't have already is enough to say its unfair.

this isn't a debate, its a 1 sided argument.

it matters not if x player benefits, the fact is that they can. thats all that really matters. it can potentially work against the other player.

its something we can control and we should eliminate as many unfair aspects from our tournament procedure/rules that we can. id be ok with no coaching unless both players agree to it aka for the hype or whatever reason.

like I said b4, I feel the same way about crowds, but thats a different issue and much harder to regulate. plus people like the hype.

 

[Nihonjin]

Do you honestly believe it is like giving a student answers to a test? I feel that analogy is bad because then you are saying your opponent fixes his answers before he reveals them to you. Which I think is a sign of a bad player.

See it as hiring someone to (help you) write your Thesis.

The whole point of writing a thesis is to show you know your ****, someone helping you with it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

You don't know for sure that they would or would not play differently. Also, even if a coach says something, there is no guarantee the player will listen. Vro has officially changed my mind on the subject.
<3Vro

So cheating should be allowed because people may or may not make use of it? *sigh*

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

mindboggling imo

 

[CloneHat]

So cheating should be allowed because people may or may not make use of it? *sigh*

I'd count how many times this feeble argument has been brought up.

If it were possible.

Stop posting and just read through the thread people, all the pro-coaching arguments have been brought up many times.

 

[Mahone]

Omg why the **** are you guys still arguing!

Hasn't it become obvious that

1. Coaching should not be allowed in current singles tournaments
2. We should make side events/tournaments with coaching allowed, because it is another variable that can make the game more interesting (i like foxlisk's comparison to teams)
3. Crowds really should not be allowed, but they are never going to ban cheering so it doesn't matter

You guys realize that you are just arguing about what tournaments test....

If you think tournaments test adaptability, quick thinking, etc. then coaching should be banned
If you think that tournaments test dealing with pressure, getting over nerves, etc. then crowds should be banned

There is no right answer people, but i think that if we actually legalize coaching, it will be much different from what you see now (i explained how in an earlier post) so we should run it as a side event or, more likely, not do it at all

 

[Wobbles]

Vro:

I will roll a die before we play our match. If it's a 1, I win. If it's a 6, you win. If it's a 2, 3, 4, or 5, we play normally.

This is completely fair, wouldn't you agree? You have a 1/6 chance of instantly winning, and so do I. And then we have a 2/3 chance of playing normally. That sound good to you? I hope not.

AND BEFORE YOU SAY THAT COACHING IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO THIS... you're right. The point is that just because something is "fair," or applies "equally," or "may not even affect the match," does NOT make it a legitimate and welcome part of the game.

Hey guys, welcome to tripping. It doesn't affect matches very often and it has an equal chance of applying to either player. And if you think it's always disadvantageous (though it HAS cost people games), consider that sometimes the invincibility frames on it help you dodge attacks, and has also possibly HELPED those players as well. Tripping = bueno? No. Tripping no es bueno. Es malo.

AGAIN, AND AGAIN... we are making the argument that coaching changes the way the match is played, for better or worse. We are also arguing that in a 1v1 situation, having somebody point things out to you that you did not see or realize yourself is unfair. We are also arguing that being in a spectator position--where your mind is not occupied with execution and making decisions--allows you to concentrate more on the mental aspect, to see things that the player in the hot seat does not. Whether he should or should not see those things is irrelevant.

Actually, it IS relevant. If he could have seen something, SHOULD have seen it, but did NOT, then that is his error. If you correct that error FOR him by pointing it out, in time for it to make a difference, then you are giving him an advantage that he does not deserve.

Hey, I could have shine spiked you and you would have died. In fact, under most circumstances, I would have done it, but for whatever reason, this time I didn't. It would also improve the quality of the match by making it closer if it had worked. Would you kindly SD for me?

No. Mistakes and player errors belong to the player. Mistakes can be missed l-cancels, bad reads, poor positioning, using punishable moves at questionable times. Nobody should be there to cover for you to "make the match better."

UNLESS, and this is my only concession to the pro-coaching argument, you make the coach an official part of the match. Again, why not just register coaches? Make them entrants, make them official parts of the match. Let us officially state that we are testing the coach's ability to analyze and communicate, and the player's ability to listen and execute. That would be interesting, and it would say to each player, "the burden is on you to bring a coach," rather than leave it to chance which of your friends is watching your match at the time. The coach can sit next to you and whisper whatever he wants to help you play better. That's the only thing that would make coaching and I dandy with one another.