The "Coaching" Debate.

[DJ Nintendo]

I definitely agree with Forwardteezy.

 

[FoxLisk]

I definitely disagree with Forward.

And I think that the strongest statement one can extract from his post is that coaching should be tested, certainly not that it should be allowed, as much as he tried to obscure the truth with his opinion - he wasnt enough of an ******* to obscure the truth of the situation with his opinion.

 

[Ballistics]

I am against any kind of talking/distraction/heckling/commentating that distracts the players in the tournament, and this is mainly because the players paid money and they are concentrating to win

However if you made a tournament with coaching rules in the OP and everyone knew about the possibility of having a coach, and the majority of the players used them, I don't see what the problem is

The main issue with it now is that usually one player is coached and the other player is left at a disadvantage because they do not have one

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Nihonjin's point that in tournaments or money matches it should be between only two players competing against each other is an opinion and should be regarded only as such.

Its called singles for ****s sake. Come on now.

Though I disagree with you, I love your point about how the best coaches aren't always the best players. Gregg Popovich was a role player on his college teams and now hes one of the best coaches in basketball history. Phil Jackson wasn't half the player that the worst player on his teams are. Didn't stop him from getting 10 championships.

A scrub can know a lot about the game but be unable to implement it. That player can also be very good at verbalizing their thoughts, and thus be a fantastic coach. Remember this whenever you write off someones opinion because of their skill level; look at the content of their comments and not the skill of their play.

 

[VA]

I think this thread raises an important point. Informal coaching should not be tolerated anymore. Coaching (if it is to be deemed legal) should be put into some kind of framework. Rules and regulations of coaching etc.

It is quite clearly unfair if one player has someone giving them advice and the other doesn't. Even if the advice is ****, it can be a mental advantage.

Anyway, that's my input.

 

[Nihonjin]

if i coached hbox and mango coached lets say dr. pp, who do you think will win..i still think hbox will win if hes a better player..hbox is just happy someone is rooting for him when the majority isnt..confidence booster

This is all completely irrelevant to the argument that coaching is simply unfair.

Also, you can root for Hbox without giving him advice.

To the theoretical situation that didn't, and hasn't ever happened? Yes.

"You're allowed to use help because even with it you *might* not win"

Like I said. Concession accepted.

Sketchy list.
Coaching in same category as unplugging a controller

Yes, because you're directly and purposely interfering with the match. They're fundamentally the same, only plugging out a controller is a lot more effective.

Regulating what is an 'acceptable' level of trash talking

We're already doing that.

Trash talk is accepted, but if you start yelling in someone's ear the entire match in order to distract them, it's not.

Trash talk is accepted, but if you personally attack someone based on their sexual orientation, religious beliefs and/or ethnicity, it's not.

Get it?

Visual distractions 'regulated'

Again, we're already doing that now.

If you're a visual distraction by accident (ie. if someone walks behind a TV) that's no problem.
But if someone stations himself in between one of the players and the TV, effectively blocking one persons view, then obviously that's not allowed.

Get it?

At it's highest, I could see Coaching falling under Regulated. Which again, GL regulating that.

Nope, banned. Just like plugging controllers.

In that theoretical scenario that has not been played out.

How bout I theorize a scenario whereby coaching advice, while sound, was misinterpreted/executed wrong costing a stock, but in the long run bettered the person as a player. Or how bout one where coaching didn't effect ****, and the match played out as it would have if nothing had been said.

If someone loses a stock because of crap coaching, then coaching still affected the match and I don't want that.

If nothing happens
How about, when I pull out someone's controller and they put it back in so fast that they didn't get punished for it and the person still wins the match?
Do you not see how dumb this argument is?

'calm down' -Advice
'he's got a stitch' Advice
'he's got an extender' Advice
'you got this' Cheering"
'remember what i told you before' Advice

It's not that hard really.

Incorrect, as it's entirely possible for both players to have coaches. In which case it's entirely 'fair'.

Alright, lets replace coaching with the word weapons.

Imagine you're in a fight to see who's the strongest person alive, the only weapons available to you are:

- A fork (My grandma)
- A paper blowdart (Brawl player)​

While your opponent can choose between:

- An Assault rifle (Cactuar)
- A Sniper rifle (HugS)​

Would you say that's fair system that would bring accurate results? I don't.

But in this case your argument would be this:

- Maybe the person wielding the guns doesn't know how to use them, so he might still lose
- They both have weapons so it's fair.​

I think that's absolute nonsense.

Are we not allowed to use analogies?

Sure you are, but you didn't explain the connection between your analogy and our argument.

I can only speculate as to why it is allowed in some sports and not allowed in others. And I haven't exactly seen any rules quoted from other sports stricly prohibiting coaching. I've seen analogies to tests & chess, neither of which relate to smash as well as MMA does.

Prove it. You saying so doesn't make it true.

And the only reason it was brought up was to counter the examples given to support banning coaching, which is more of a 'no talking at all' rules in both cases.

Just saying "MMA allows coaching!" isn't a counter argument. If you can't explain the similarities between MMA & Smash nor the reasoning behind the rule there's no point in bringing it up.

Having a better coach may be an advantage but I don't think that any sort of testing has been done to say who the best coaches are or what makes the best coaches the best. Cactuar is not the best singles player but he is good and his coaching was good enough to help M2K win. I don't think anyone can say for certain that between two players who play 1v1 and one of them wins consistently over the other that that person would be a better coach than the other.

You just admitted that coaches can be the deciding factor in who wins rather than the players who are competing. That's exactly what I'm against.

If another person holds the view that the a singles match should be played between two players and their respective coaches it is equally acceptable to believe this.

So Singles is actually Two on Two?

Actually, no. There's no rule forcing people to have a coach or one to limit the amount of coaches a single player can have. So theoretically it can be infinite on one.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Coaching is stupid and if you're in the crowd and hear someone do it, don't be afraid to give them a nekkletser. Lijers, allemaal.

 

[PB&J]

you are right..i always give hbox advice when i root for him..some of the greatest matches in recently history had coaches..mango included

like what forward said it pushes us to our full potential

some people argue that since there's money on the line , " people should not talk"

i dont play this game for the money, i dont care if i win a major tourny with 300 people and win 0-2 dollars..i just love to win and am striving for that number 1 position.

sure, not all people feel that way but..thats just my opinion.

banning the "hype crowd"- that would suck. i know hax,dr.peepee, and colbol play much better when people are rooting for them..i know i do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAJLpb8YTI

but some people play " so called worse" or they are just looking for something to blame

its a tough ruling..so ill just agree with forward

 

[Nihonjin]

like what forward said it pushes us to our full potential

This game isn't just about technical speed and precision, it's also about adaptation and creativity. If you rely on your coach to adapt and come up with creative counter strategies then you can't really call it your potential anymore now can you?

banning the "hype crowd"- that would suck.

Strawman.

 

[Codi]

they should agree to it. If one person wants it and the other does not then they shouldn't be allowed that set.

 

[Jimbo Slice]

Cactuar is an assault rifle.

 

[Armada]

Amsahs argument is to good so i have change my mind.

I have never been against it and i don´t care so much if someone have a coach against me BUT a lot people does so in the future i also wanna see no coaching.

The only reason people have coaches (and i have coach a lot of people too so i have much experience from it) is because they wanna see one of the people to win the game.

Even if some people maybe think thats "extreme" i wanan say its not.
The most people play beause its fun BUT allmost everyone also wanna win so advantage with coaches is actually unfair.

I will stop coaching during sets now because i have understand its the wrong thing to do.
And i know i have effect a lot of sets because i know very much abot all the players (this is in European tournaments).

Amsah have clearly make all this thread.

Amsah is to good =).

 

[Nizro]

I don't mind coaching per se but I understand that they change the outcome of the match, for better or worse.
Forwards argument about pace of the fight is awesome, I know that if someone is like "DAYUM THAT COMBO WAS TOO GOOD" I'll hang onto that momentum much more than if no one said anything.
So I'm neutral but point taken.
Good **** Amsah.

 

[themiii]

I'll direct the first part of my argument towards the weapons analogy that was used.
Along the same lines of thought, the character roster can be set of weapon displays. so, I can pick my Bazooka, fox (or jigglypuff amirit) or I can pick a pistol that often finds itself jamming (pikachu)

If you feel limited by your characters output, change your character.
You're giving me a false dichotomy, where your only possible choices consist of a fork and your grandma. You can surely find someone who is a better coach, just like you change your character if you don't feel it lives up to tournament demand (sup Taj)

Also, who is to say you don't get cactuar or hugs?

I will agree completely though that coaching is 100% an influencing factor to the match. I do NOT believe however that it is the deciding factor. The effectiveness and what coaches can contributed to the metagame of melee is still unknown, we are just speculating different possibilities.

Forward brought up the point where they can allow us to reach our full potential. I purposely say "our full potential" because a coach will not advance skill level during a match, they can only give you advice on what the right moves to do are.

Lets assume this situation: Fox v Falco, both of exactly equal skill, they W/L 50/50
Now, the falco player obtains a coach that assists him. The coach says that fox does not respond well to camping, so get the marshmallows ready. The falco now wins a good amount of matches until the fox player adapts which in case the matches would be 50/50 until another breakthrough is evident.

In the above hypothetical situation a coach assisted in the advancement of the metagame between the falco and the fox, something i'm rooting for. It is true however that the coach was certainly an influencing factor in the match, however the falco still had the ability to camp whenever he wanted to, which shows that the coach did not increase his skill, just allowed him to fill up potential.

This leads me to my next and final point.
It was noted that coaching was on the same level as plugging out a controller. Why?
coaching can advance the in game play, plugging out a controller has nothing to do with in game play. It is a limiting factor. Obstructing someones view is also a limiting factor.
is coaching a limiting factor? Absolutely not. It is quite the opposite.

I conclude by saying that I embrace coaching in hopes of the progression of skill capabilities.
It does indirectly influence the game. if you disagree with any influences between a 1v1, then you would probably disagree with coaching, hype, being in a good mood, your friends cheering you on.

 

[PB&J]

im not say listen to every word the coach has to say..i know in sports they do and gaming is a sport believe it or not

 

[CloneHat]

Also, who is to say you don't get cactuar or hugs?

The player coaching has no reason to help someone that they don't want to win. They will always help their friend, skewing the so called "equality".

It was noted that coaching was on the same level as plugging out a controller. Why?

Because it introduces a 3rd party/element to a one-on-one match.

coaching can advance the in game play, plugging out a controller has nothing to do with in game play.

The point is that they both interfere with the outcome of a one-on-one match, regardless of how "progressive" or "potential-realizing" they are.

 

[Luma]

**** amsah is so scary once he really starts arguing =D

anyway, some people should really go to a european tournament and see how you act respectfull during a set =P

and some points in here are just stupid, trying to compare melee with some sport and stuff, saying just get a coach yourself, yeah how are you gonna do that when you went alone to a tournament? also in sports people pay their coaches, just not compareable...

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Pengie]

I'll direct the first part of my argument towards the weapons analogy that was used.
Along the same lines of thought, the character roster can be set of weapon displays. so, I can pick my Bazooka, fox (or jigglypuff amirit) or I can pick a pistol that often finds itself jamming (pikachu)

The difference is that that is something that is within the game. Once you add coaches you are adding external factors that are not a part of the game.

If you feel limited by your characters output, change your character.
You're giving me a false dichotomy, where your only possible choices consist of a fork and your grandma. You can surely find someone who is a better coach, just like you change your character if you don't feel it lives up to tournament demand (sup Taj)

The point is that there shouldn't be the need to have to find a better coach. It's called singles for a reason; it's not supposed to be you and your best friend in your ear against me.

I will agree completely though that coaching is 100% an influencing factor to the match. I do NOT believe however that it is the deciding factor. The effectiveness and what coaches can contributed to the metagame of melee is still unknown, we are just speculating different possibilities.

So you admit that it is an external (i.e. outside of the game) factor that can affect the outcome of a match. The whole reason against coaching is that it can take things out of the players hand and that it no longer becomes about who can play the best under the pressure of a tournament, but about who can have their coach point out and remind them about things.

Forward brought up the point where they can allow us to reach our full potential. I purposely say "our full potential" because a coach will not advance skill level during a match, they can only give you advice on what the right moves to do are.

If the player cannot remember what to do during a match that is their own fault There is a reason that we have friendlies and tournament matches; friendlies are there to practice things in a low pressure situation so that later on you can apply what you have learned in a tournament match. Specifically what you know and have learned, not what you know and what your coach know.

Lets assume this situation: Fox v Falco, both of exactly equal skill, they W/L 50/50
Now, the falco player obtains a coach that assists him. The coach says that fox does not respond well to camping, so get the marshmallows ready. The falco now wins a good amount of matches until the fox player adapts which in case the matches would be 50/50 until another breakthrough is evident.

In the above hypothetical situation a coach assisted in the advancement of the metagame between the falco and the fox, something i'm rooting for. It is true however that the coach was certainly an influencing factor in the match, however the falco still had the ability to camp whenever he wanted to, which shows that the coach did not increase his skill, just allowed him to fill up potential.

The Falco should have been able to figure that out himself. Good players are able to find things out on their own through experience and adapting to what they notice in their opponent. In this case the Fox player was screwed over because the someone told the Falco player something that they had not figured out themselves.

This leads me to my next and final point.
It was noted that coaching was on the same level as plugging out a controller. Why?
coaching can advance the in game play, plugging out a controller has nothing to do with in game play. It is a limiting factor. Obstructing someones view is also a limiting factor.
is coaching a limiting factor? Absolutely not. It is quite the opposite.

Outside influence that affects the outcome of the match. It may not be as drastic but they do accomplish the same thing.

 

[Luma]

just stop with the sports, you will only fail...

 

[Nihonjin]

I'll direct the first part of my argument towards the weapons analogy that was used.
Along the same lines of thought, the character roster can be set of weapon displays. so, I can pick my Bazooka, fox (or jigglypuff amirit) or I can pick a pistol that often finds itself jamming (pikachu)

If you feel limited by your characters output, change your character.
You're giving me a false dichotomy, where your only possible choices consist of a fork and your grandma. You can surely find someone who is a better coach, just like you change your character if you don't feel it lives up to tournament demand (sup Taj)

How is it a false dichotomy? People do not have the same coaches available to them. This is a fact.

I will agree completely though that coaching is 100% an influencing factor to the match. I do NOT believe however that it is the deciding factor.

You just admitted that coaching influences matches. Which means that (at least in some cases) it's going to be the deciding factor. Denying that is ridiculous.

In the above hypothetical situation a coach assisted in the advancement of the metagame between the falco and the fox, something i'm rooting for. It is true however that the coach was certainly an influencing factor in the match, however the falco still had the ability to camp whenever he wanted to, which shows that the coach did not increase his skill, just allowed him to fill up potential.

You're wrong. Skill isn't just in the technical execution. Adapting to your opponent and coming up with a strategy that's effective is a skill as well. Relying on your coach to do that isn't playing to your full potential, but artificially going beyond it.

This leads me to my next and final point.
It was noted that coaching was on the same level as plugging out a controller. Why?

They both purposely give an unfair advantage to one of the players and directly interfere with the game.

Is coaching a limiting factor? Absolutely not. It is quite the opposite.

It is to the person who's being coached against. If I come up with an effective strategy my opponents coach explains how to counter that strategy, then he's limiting my options.

 

[Jessup124]

I will agree completely though that coaching is 100% an influencing factor to the match.

Yeah I completely agree with this

I do NOT believe however that it is the deciding factor. The effectiveness and what coaches can contributed to the metagame of melee is still unknown, we are just speculating different possibilities.

Forward brought up the point where they can allow us to reach our full potential.

it DOES NOT BELONG and SHOULD NOT be allowed on a tournament level, get it?
T O U R N A M E N T S are not training grounds.

I purposely say "our full potential" because a coach will not advance skill level during a match, they can only give you advice on what the right moves to do are.

So what you are saying is that a coach will provide "you" with a skill called compensation for lack of skill that one may have due to being under pressure. You are not working at your full potential.

I conclude by saying that I embrace coaching in hopes of the progression of skill capabilities.

In other words, "ONE" wants coaching in case "one" can't think of a move on their own so one can beat the opponent through any means called cheating coaching...wow, just wow.

if you disagree with any influences between a 1v1, then you would probably disagree with coaching, hype, being in a good mood, your friends cheering you on.

I disagree with coaching and as for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense. NO one is banning your friends from cheering you on and people being in a good mood.

 

[Pi]

"You're allowed to use help because even with it you *might* not win"

Like I said. Concession accepted.

You're getting on my nerves kid.
You're allowed to use help because it's help and it'll better you as a player, how you choose to implement it, if you choose to at all, is up to you and I'd venture as far to say that trying to implement a brand new strategy mid match to someone who's already honed the strategy you hope to counter is far riskier than just storing the advice as it applies to the situation.

Yes, because you're directly and purposely interfering with the match. They're fundamentally the same, only plugging out a controller is a lot more effective.

Everything effects a match to some degree or another, the temperature, the crowd, the person sitting behind you, your opponents actions, the glare on the TV, the pretty girl in your peripheral vision. You make it sound so easy to distinguish between what is and what is not acceptable, and police it, at the same time. It's not. You're going to keep saying it is, and I'm going to keep saying it's not, so how do you want to act?

Trash talk is accepted, but if you start yelling in someone's ear the entire match in order to distract them, it's not.

So you literally have to be have to be tonging their ear for it to be unacceptable?
Pretty sure you could ignore that if you tried hard enough, but i see your point, intent to distract.
So you want to regulate people's 'intent'. Gonna hook em up to a lie detector and grill em on whether or not they were trying to distract?
It's not that easy.

Trash talk is accepted, but if you personally attack someone based on their sexual orientation, religious beliefs and/or ethnicity, it's not.

So everyone calling Hbox's playstyle/puff gay during the match is goinng to be DQ'd?
AFAIK Hbox is not gay, so because he's not gay it's going to be ok?
I've heard ******, ****, chink, thrown around during matches toward players, everyone should be thrown out? Or is it okay because it's all in good fun?
How about when you confront someone about it, and they say they didn't mean it, it was all in good fun. How bout when it's not just 1 person it's a group of person, and you're running a tournament of 80+ people with 10+ matches going on.

Again, we're already doing that now.

If you're a visual distraction by accident (ie. if someone walks behind a TV) that's no problem.
But if someone stations himself in between one of the players and the TV, effectively blocking one persons view, then obviously that's not allowed.

If that were the only two situations that would fall under 'visual distractions' then I could see your point. But it's not, there are way more that could come up, and depending on personal preference way more that could be considered 'too much'.

If someone loses a stock because of crap coaching, then coaching still affected the match and I don't want that.

If nothing happens
How about, when I pull out someone's controller and they put it back in so fast that they didn't get punished for it and the person still wins the match?

I'm saying advice is still advice that will better the player, and giving advice when it's relevant is going to stick moreso than giving it after the fact. If you have the ability to take and implement advice flawlessly every time, then good ****, because I don't know anyone with that ability nor have I seen it demonstrated in any match anywhere.

It's not that hard really.

Calm down can be referring to the persons personal stress level, not their playstyle, is it okay in that situation?
He's got a stitch, or he's got an extender, or any variation of calling it out before it's 'obvious' or after has been used before, and no one has thought twice about it. All the sudden because now we're trying to 'ban coaching, advice, instruction, etc.' it's all unacceptable whereas before it was completely fine?
Or is it fine because it was 'obvious'. Well where do you draw the line between what is obvious enough to warrant announcing it and what should be left up to the players.

Alright, lets replace coaching with the word weapons.

Imagine you're in a fight to see who's the strongest person alive, the only weapons available to you are:

- A fork (My grandma)
- A paper blowdart (Brawl player)​

While your opponent can choose between:

- An Assault rifle (Cactuar)
- A Sniper rifle (HugS)​

Would you say that's fair system that would bring accurate results? I don't.

But in this case your argument would be this:

- Maybe the person wielding the guns doesn't know how to use them, so he might still lose
- They both have weapons so it's fair.​

If you've spent your melee career training with a fork and a brawl player, and the other guy has spent his training with an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, coaching is a non-issue.

The situations you keep bringing up is that coaching is going to push one of two players of equal skill into 4stocking the other. It's not going to happen, it hasn't been tested, proven, or established that it'll happen, it's all speculation.

Prove it. You saying so doesn't make it true.

I can't 'prove it'. There's no scientific formula to prove the likeness of a video game and a real life event. If you can't look at the way MMA is constructed, the environment it's in, the interaction between the fighters, the choices/decisions they need to make vs. the choices and decisions we need to make, if you can't look at that and tell me you find more similarities in that sport and ours, vs. chess/tennis/a test and ours, then I can't help you.

Just saying "MMA allows coaching!" isn't a counter argument. If you can't explain the similarities between MMA & Smash nor the reasoning behind the rule there's no point in bringing it up.

It wasn't the thesis of these novels you've got me writing, it was a counter argument to the arguments that were 'chess says no talking, tennis says no talking'. If they're going to say that one sport has it this way, then I'm going to counter that with this sport has it this way.
And again There is no rule that dictates coaching is allowed, there is simply no rule dictating that is not allowed. Both In MMA, and in smash.


All your reasoning and arguments are based around TO's, or whoever is policing matches using their better judgment, and then all your counter-arguments are based around judgment not being enough.

You keep saying prove this or prove that, when you haven't proven **** yourself. All you've given is exaggerations and theories where potentially something could have happen to interfere with the outcome of a match.

Well the fact is you can't prove it one way or another, there hasn't been enough instances where coaching has so greatly impacted a match as to change the outcome of the set, and all you're doing is speculating.

Smash can exist on both planes (in theory). You can have everyone keep quiet during matches, and have two players play the game in silent observation of the crowd.
Or you can have coaches next to them.
Both can exist, and one is not 'wrong' and one is not 'right'.

If you want a true test of player skill, then let's everyone play jiggs ditto's on FD.


@Tournaments are not training grounds.
First of all it's an opinion, it's your personal outlook on what a tournament 'is'.
We are a dying community, our game is not online, nor do many of us have the resources/time to play smash as profusely as we all would like.
That being said, we should always be looking to improve as players, whether it's in a friendly set that slows down the tournament a couple minutes, or in a bracket match having your crewmate point out some habits you've falling into.
The fact that there are 10 potentials at the tournament who have hopes of winning money should not restrict the vast majority of players who are looking to just go to the tournament to improve.

Lol 18 people viewing thread

 

[Cactuar]

Just a note...

As someone who has a lot of experience coaching and is being brought up regarding this topic, and has seen the results of it first hand, I have to say that it really is unfair from low level play to top. As amsah has stated, singles is about player vs player, not player * coach's ability vs player * coaches ability. This whole argument about it letting us play to potential is nonsense. It makes you rely on a crutch and removes a huge component of competitive play, which is pressure. The biggest advantage of having a phenom coach is that it removes a large part of your thinking game. You might. Be playing to your own tech skill potential, but you sure as **** aren't doing nearly as much with your brain. How are you playing closer to your own potential if you aren't stimulating your adaptation and actions with your own thoughts? This game still relies more heavily on intelligence than tech skill in the end.

There is a reason I stopped coaching people years and years ago. It skews results unfairly and discourages new entrants to the game. How would you feel if it was your first tournament and I was coaching my random scrub friend... telling him, in detail, every winning strat vs your char, then going further and picking apart every habit you have, as well as how to counter it? How is that fair to you?

You wanna be a truly amazing coach? Sit down with the person and learn their style. Find their flaws and talk through them. Pick apart their habits and break them. Teach them how to think. When they finally play in tournament and beat so and so, they can stand proud and say "I won, and I did it with my own skill" or if they lose, they can figure out why they lost and adjust for the future. Being able to truly help someone get better is what coaching should be, not holding their hand and giving them the answers during the test.

 

[Pi]

Maybe I'm being too optimistic when I think about coaching.
I've always thought the intent of coaching was to better the player being coached, not to play the game for them.
I never even thought of a coach being used as a crutch, and I don't think it's always this way.
I think there are legitimate ways of coaching that serve more to help the player improve, than to help him win that particular match.

But w/e

I'm done with this thread, I can't continue to argue in the face of cactuars post.
Until someone else can come in and say it's not that way, he's the only one who's actually been in the instances and theories we've been discussing, and he's saying it skews the match unfairly.

I still believe there are legitimate ways of coaching, before, during, or after a match that won't be seen as a crutch, but more of a stepping stool or some other piece of furniture -.-

 

[Merkuri]

Just a note...

As someone who has a lot of experience coaching and is bring brought up regarding this topic, and has seen the results of it first hand, I have to say that it really is unfair from low level play to top. As amsah has stated, singles is about player vs player, not player * coach's ability vs player * coaches ability. This whole argument about it letting us play to potential is nonsense. It makes you rely on a crutch and removes a huge component of competitive play, which is pressure. The biggest advantage of having a phenom coach is that it removes a large part of your thinking game. You might. Be playing to your own tech skill potential, but you sure as **** aren't doing nearly as much with your brain. How are you playing closer to your own potential if you aren't stimulating your adaptation and actions with your own thoughts? This game still relies more heavily on intelligence than tech skill in the end.

There is a reason I stopped coaching people years and years ago. It skews results unfairly and discourages new entrants to the game. How would you feel if it was your first tournament and I was coaching my random scrub friend... telling him, in detail, every winning strat vs your char, then going further and picking apart every habit you have, as well as how to counter it? How is that fair to you?

You wanna be a truly amazing coach? Sit down with the person and learn their style. Find their flaws and talk through them. Pick apart their habits and break them. Teach them how to think. When they finally play in tournament and beat so and so, they can stand proud and say "I won, and I did it with my own skill" or if they lose, they can figure out why they lost and adjust for the future. Being able to truly help someone get better is what coaching should be, not holding their hand and giving them the answers.

Great post. We need to stop this coaching bull, if I'm ever playing in a tournament and someone sits beside my opponent to coach him I'm sure as hell gonna talk to the TO about it before I play out my match.

 

[Luma]

if you improve during a set it should only because you are able to adapt, nothing else

if someone helps you to improve during a set, how was that your skill? you are just doing what someone else told you

 

[Nihonjin]

You're getting on my nerves kid.

Good. That means you're running out of arguments.

You're allowed to use help because it's help and it'll better you as a player, how you choose to implement it, if you choose to at all, is up to you and I'd venture as far to say that trying to implement a brand new strategy mid match to someone who's already honed the strategy you hope to counter is far riskier than just storing the advice as it applies to the situation.

You shouldn't be.

You make it sound so easy to distinguish between what is and what is not acceptable, and police it, at the same time. It's not.

I made a pretty clear distinction. And difficulty to enforce is irrelevant.

So you literally have to be have to be tonging their ear for it to be unacceptable?
Pretty sure you could ignore that if you tried hard enough, but i see your point, intent to distract. So you want to regulate people's 'intent'. Gonna hook em up to a lie detector and grill em on whether or not they were trying to distract?
It's not that easy.

There's this thing called human judgement, use it.

Oh and let me ask you this, how would you enforce a "no wobbling rule"?

So everyone calling Hbox's playstyle/puff gay during the match is goinng to be DQ'd?
AFAIK Hbox is not gay, so because he's not gay it's going to be ok?
I've heard ******, ****, chink, thrown around during matches toward players, everyone should be thrown out? Or is it okay because it's all in good fun?
How about when you confront someone about it, and they say they didn't mean it, it was all in good fun. How bout when it's not just 1 person it's a group of person, and you're running a tournament of 80+ people with 10+ matches going on.

Again, human judgement. Or are you telling me we can't throw people out who verbally harass other players?

If that were the only two situations that would fall under 'visual distractions' then I could see your point. But it's not, there are way more that could come up, and depending on personal preference way more that could be considered 'too much'.

Like I said, we already have those rules. What's considered 'too much' is up to the TOs.

I'm saying advice is still advice that will better the player, and giving advice when it's relevant is going to stick moreso than giving it after the fact.

How many times do I have to repeat myself before it sticks? Tournaments are not training grounds, they're proving grounds.

If you have the ability to take and implement advice flawlessly every time, then good ****, because I don't know anyone with that ability nor have I seen it demonstrated in any match anywhere.

I actually do, but I don't see how that's relevant to this debate.

Calm down can be referring to the persons personal stress level, not their playstyle, is it okay in that situation?

No. Calm down is instruction.

He's got a stitch, or he's got an extender, or any variation of calling it out before it's 'obvious' or after has been used before, and no one has thought twice about it. All the sudden because now we're trying to 'ban coaching, advice, instruction, etc.' it's all unacceptable whereas before it was completely fine? Or is it fine because it was 'obvious'. Well where do you draw the line between what is obvious enough to warrant announcing it and what should be left up to the players.

It's not allowed period. Again, my distinction was pretty **** clear.

If you've spent your melee career training with a fork and a brawl player, and the other guy has spent his training with an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, coaching is a non-issue.

Someone didn't get the analogy. Go read it again.

The situations you keep bringing up is that coaching is going to push one of two players of equal skill into 4stocking the other. It's not going to happen, it hasn't been tested, proven, or established that it'll happen, it's all speculation.

Again, what a horrible strawman.

I can't 'prove it'.

Then don't bring it up.

@Tournaments are not training grounds.
First of all it's an opinion

No, I'm pretty sure it's a fact.

 

[Pi]

Also to all you 'anti coaching' scrubs

All I've got to say is your ignorant sorry johning 'this unfair that unfair no items fox only fd' scub ***** is MM so i can wreck you without a coach, then go get a coach, and i'll stick wreck you.

****ing two bit faux intellectual **** riding theorizing exaggerating mother ****ers

MONEY MATCH ME

*all I've said in my previous posts still stand, and I'll be happy to continue debating if we get an opinion from someone else who's actually been involved in a coached match and has something to say against what cactuar has said.

 

[Nihonjin]

Maybe I'm being too optimistic when I think about coaching.
I've always thought the intent of coaching was to better the player being coached, not to play the game for them.
I never even thought of a coach being used as a crutch, and I don't think it's always this way.
I think there are legitimate ways of coaching that serve more to help the player improve, than to help him win that particular match.

I told you this about a billion times in this thread.

I'm done with this thread, I can't continue to argue in the face of cactuars post.
Until someone else can come in and say it's not that way, he's the only one who's actually been in the instances and theories we've been discussing, and he's saying it skews the match unfairly.

You're the only one arguing from ignorance. I've coached and been coached myself, why the hell do you think I'm arguing against it?

MONEY MATCH ME

You don't want that.

 

[DippnDots]

I've been under the impression that coaching during matches was illegal but in between matches was accepted. I thought that's how it's always been. Dunno, i don't think coaching is necessary in teams, because you have two of you to spit ball ideas back and forth. And in singles, coaching during the game just eliminates the fact that it's 1v1, in between games though i don't think its disrespectful at all. Beyond just hearing the right advice, you need to be able to apply it.

I had a friend who wasn't the best sheik playing at his first tournament against a jiggs. He kept getting shield grabs and such but would use every hit opportunity to land a fair. Before the very last match I was like, "dude, you really need to uair to KO jiggs, she's getting to much higher percents than she should be." he didn't take my advice anyways, or was too stressed to remember, and ended up losing. The point of this story, jigglypuff is a girl.

 

[themiii]

The point is that there shouldn't be the need to have to find a better coach. It's called singles for a reason; it's not supposed to be you and your best friend in your ear against me.

I distinctly said that if you ONLY want 1v1's then you probably disagree with even a crowd cheering someone on, cause that is an outside influence that can also disrupt a game. I think the hype adds to the game. Similarly, I believe coaching would add to the game as well.

Skill isn't just in the technical execution. Adapting to your opponent and coming up with a strategy that's effective is a skill as well. Relying on your coach to do that isn't playing to your full potential, but artificially going beyond it.

Very well put, and I agree with it. However, I have a much more optimistic view than you. I believe that if you are able to surpass your full potential, even artificially, then you have the capability to increase your potential. This make coaching a factor that can increase game play, which is always fun to see.

It is to the person who's being coached against. If I come up with an effective strategy my opponents coach explains how to counter that strategy, then he's limiting my options.

This is wrong. Coaching does not limit your options. You still have all of your option intact, your options are just known now. Hypothetically, if I start dash attacking and it works even once, then the effectiveness of dash attack is limited because it is known. Whether a coach explains this or the victim of the dash attack notices, the option is less effective (let alone stalemoves lol)
The problem with most of these arguments is that they vary between analytic and synthetic arguments. We can not prove anything about coaching without a synthetic example.

They both purposely give an unfair advantage to one of the players and directly interfere with the game.

Because it introduces a 3rd party/element to a one-on-one match.

it DOES NOT interfere with the game. It interferes with the way the player is playing the game. This is different. Turning off a tv, blocking the view of a person, plugging out a controller isnt limited to changing the way the player is playing. In most cases, it revokes his ability to play. I wouldn't consider closing your eyes and randomly pressing buttons, which is basically what obscure vision is, playing.

My argument is primarily to express how coaching may advance gameplay.


Just for kicks.

it DOES NOT BELONG and SHOULD NOT be allowed on a tournament level, get it?
T O U R N A M E N T S are not training grounds.

no, u.
For a lot of people, they are.

 

[Luma]

amsah vs swd, 200€ on amsah

 

[Luma]

"My argument is primarily to express how coaching may advance gameplay."
nope, it will limit if because people wouldnt bother to learn how to adapt anymore, but what would they do when they go to a tournament alone?

 

[Pi]

I told you this about a billion times in this thread.

I've never believe it to be used as a crutch. That better?
If I saw coaching as a crutch, I would not be in favor of it. I see coaching as a way to better a player.

You're the only one arguing from ignorance. I've coached and been coached myself, why the hell do you think I'm arguing against it?

Blah blah blah, I've seen coaching be ineffective, does that make me a master on the subject?

You don't want that.

I know you ridin high cause you got all these scrubs slobbin your knob
People in the top 5 placing you so high up
I respect you as a player, you good, you good
but I'll still make you & anyone else tap

 

[The Good Doctor]

I feel like coaching should be allowed between matches, but not midmatch. It's 1 vs 1, not me vs you and your posse.

^This^
It is irritating

 

[Quic]

I know you ridin high cause you got all these scrubs slobbin your knob
People in the top 5 placing you so high up
I respect you as a player, you good, you good
but I'll still make you & anyone else tap

lol.
10lols.

 

[Stev]

How come everyone seemed to ignore Forward's point: It improves the overall quality of the game?

 

[Luma]

a coach is supposed to train you, so get one during friendlies if you want, but if you play a tournament set you have to do the thinking yourself
if you cant play well under pressure just learn how to do it, even though its not part of the game but its part of a competitive gaming

How come everyone seemed to ignore Forward's point: It improves the overall quality of the game?

already answered that

plus not everyone can have a good coach

 

[Jim Morrison]

Also to all you 'anti coaching' scrubs

All I've got to say is your ignorant sorry johning 'this unfair that unfair no items fox only fd' scub ***** is MM so i can wreck you without a coach, then go get a coach, and i'll stick wreck you.

****ing two bit faux intellectual **** riding theorizing exaggerating mother ****ers

MONEY MATCH ME

*all I've said in my previous posts still stand, and I'll be happy to continue debating if we get an opinion from someone else who's actually been involved in a coached match and has something to say against what cactuar has said.

This ***** is ****ing y'alls **** up, you just gonna stand there and take this dude like that? He's riding over you like a steamroller wooow.