The "Coaching" Debate.

[Pi]

everyone can also punch you in the face during a set, thats also fair right?

i see no rules prohibiting it
oh yea
it's called assault and battery

 

[Druggedfox]

Just a thought:

Luma didn't claim anything about rules. He just said something was fair =P

Rules don't necessarily define what's fair and unfair.

Go back to arguing uselessly all of you <3

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Maybe I should just stand in front of my opponent so he can't see the screen.
No rules prohibiting it right?

it's called being a **** and frankly SWD, you are acting the part.

 

[Wobbles]

Sean: the issue isn't that PP was recovering high per se, but that Taj was intentionally attempting to lead him low for the finish and people were explaining to PP *as it was happening.* When you lead somebody's recovery oftentimes you have intentionally committed to one specific option, and from where I was sitting PP was definitely falling for it. Unfortunately, that didn't matter at all because people were giving that information away. It wasn't just a case of "go high," it was "okay he's baiting you to go low so he can take your edge or gimp your up+b." Detailed information about what Taj was doing when PP, at the time, didn't fully recognize it for himself.

Before somebody gives the argument, "but it advances the metagame and makes PP better at the matchup forcing Taj to adapt as well," the problem is localization. That "improvement" is localized to an extreme where it directly interferes with a tournament match.

If we're bringing up items, then it's fair to say that over time that randomness is equally applicable to both players and balances out, tests new skills, etc. The problem is that tournament sets are not taken over extended periods of time. Any kind of localized probability outlier, like a star-rod spawning next to a player while the other guy recovers, can dramatically affect tournament matches in favor of one player.

Coaching can, at specific and crucial moments, do similar things. Sudden useful insight from a coach can quickly swing a match in one player's favor, particularly if the coach notices another player's habit and points it out. If you don't think that sounds likely, how about when a coach tells me that my Captain Falcon opponent has a tendency to roll away a lot. For some reason, I didn't already pick up on this, but now I know. So I wavedash early to chase the roll, get a grab, and wobble him. Or, if that ******ry is too extreme, how about a shine-spike, or how about the next time they fight I tell Axe where JMan is going to tech so he can get a 0-death CG with Pika.

And this still doesn't address one of my big problems, which is this: why are we punishing players twice for not having a big community? You are already gimped in the sense that a lack of a solid community makes you less likely to have the competition and high-level insight to help you improve out of tournament. Hell, a small community also means less people cheering for you during matches, another downside. But in the (more common than you'd think!) event that a player from a small region has a close match against a player from a big region, why does that other player get ANOTHER advantage in the form of more people with more experience helping him win DURING THE MATCH?

No, not every player has equal access to coaching. Sucks to be you if you flew to the tournament alone; why didn't you pay for your coach's plane ticket? Why aren't you friends with amazing players from other regions? And so what if you are, if you then have to play their closer friends from their own city, whom they favor? What exactly about this is fair?

superwavedash: we prohibit interference with the match. We prohibit players from pausing to screw up the other player's combos. We prohibit blocking vision of the screen. We prohibit spectators from walking up and shaking somebody's chair while they play, which is NOT assault and battery but "seriously calm down I just shook your chair don't get mad bro looool."

Why don't we let players bring substitutes and secondaries? Why not? Everybody can bring one, so it's totally legit. And if your opponent+his secondary are better, then they will win regardless, so what's the problem? Seriously, why don't you want back-up players? Pro wrestling has tag-team, why don't we? ****'s mad hype dog. WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE HYPE.

 

[DJ Nintendo]

*****s is definitely going in on this debate. I like it. Its an interesting read.

 

[PB&J]

*****s is definitely going in on this debate. I like it. Its an interesting read.

tight battle right..lol

 

[The Irish Mafia]

@Luma/APNslickback: Hitting someone / obstructing their view isn't against the rules, it's just simple etiquette. It's called not being an *******. If we need to put that in the rules, then this community really has gone to ****. Coaching isn't impolite, and trash talk, though it usually isn't the nicest thing in the world, can usually be hushed up by asking nicely. If not, then a TO can usually put an end to it.

@Bigwenz: I think it's a little outlandish to say that hugs whispering in Lucky's ear changed the outcome that much. Coaching does not mean giving the controller to someone else, it's just some advice.

One thing I want to adress is the goal of coaching. In my opinion, coaching is not aimed to / cannot change a player's ways in game. If you roll in when fox shnair's your shield, being told not to may stop you from doing it once, but i doubt it will stick, or will completely throw the other player off. I think it doesn't make a player able to do something they cannot do, but acts more as a reminder to do all the things that they can do. That idea, being able to play at your full potential, would be wonderful in tournament, seeing as you want to play your best every game. Personally, i don't think it can make a player do something they normally couldn't, or get a read they normally wouldn't. It can help you get to 100%, but it will never get you above there, and that's why i don't consider it unfair.

IMO.

 

[Nihonjin]

I want to see high level play more than anything else.

Are you in favor of doping in sports?

Nihonjin: It is the exact same as how the effects of a crowd are still there even if you win.

No it's not.

To put it in gaming terms, the crowd can work as a debuff. If you let yourself be affected by it, you play worse. But if you train yourself properly, it doesn't affect you at all.
Coaching on the other hand is a buff for your opponent, your opponent plays better if he gets proper advice. No matter how much you train and/or focus, your opponent will still play better if he gets advice, you have no control over it.

It's not the same.

@Bigwenz: I think it's a little outlandish to say that hugs whispering in Lucky's ear changed the outcome that much. Coaching does not mean giving the controller to someone else, it's just some advice.

This pretty much proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[metalreflectslime]

is coaching fair?
yes, duh, of course it's fair, everyone can have a coach.

Amsah and Wobbles already refuted this by saying that not everyone will have the same coach yet you keep bringing this up.

 

[Wobbles]

"Just some advice" can mean the difference between taking stocks and losing them. It can mean the difference between getting big reads and lots of damage, or whiffing openings. "He techs towards the center of the stage a lot" can be game breaking at the right moment. If somebody tells me where/when my opponent will roll, as an IC player I'm more than capable of killing them from it.

The highest level of play involves adaptation, but it has to be adaptation from the PLAYER. Coach in between games if you want to see meta-game advancement--since we can't stop players from discussing matches and I'm pretty sure we don't want to--but don't wreck the match flow by adapting for the other players.

How do you enforce this kind of stuff? Players sit in chairs away from the flipping crowd. Doesn't have to be very far, you don't need a soundproof barrier, just keep 5-10 feet of distance between the players and the spectators. We're talking about large events here, in smaller environments/settings, usually you just have to look at the guy and say "hey, come on, no coaching," and the player will back off.

IMO crowd-based advice is pretty limited in scope and effectiveness compared to a coach sitting next to you and whispering detailed advice about positioning, strategy, and habits in your ear. I don't think it's necessary to regulate the crowd beyond "don't be a huge douche." Once trash-talk starts hitting hate-crime levels (and no, it doesn't take a ****ing genius to figure out what I'm talking about) then the TO or whatever can get involved, but in general there's not a lot of need to bother.

 

[Pi]

Amsah and Wobbles already refuted this by saying that not everyone will have the same coach yet you keep bringing this up.

lol that's not refuting it, and there's nothing you can say to refute it because the question of is coaching fair has a clear and definitive answer

it is fair. everyone has access to a coach. not having the 'same exact level of coach' doesn't mean it's not fair in the same sense of having the same training partners outside of smash isn't fair, having the same time to devote to developing your smash prowess isn't fair. it's a variable just like any other that we've deemed as an acceptable level of 'fairness'.

but the question that should be discussed, is should it be allowed during tournament matches.

 

[TheGoat]

lol that's not refuting it, and there's nothing you can say to refute it because the question of is coaching fair has a clear and definitive answer

it is fair. everyone has access to a coach. not having the 'same exact level of coach' doesn't mean it's not fair in the same sense of having the same training partners outside of smash isn't fair, having the same time to devote to developing your smash prowess isn't fair. it's a variable just like any other that we've deemed as an acceptable level of 'fairness'.

but the question that should be discussed, is should it be allowed during tournament matches.

Dude, not everybody has access to a top level coach. What if someone has a mediocre coach or no coach at all, and the other person has Ken or Mango as their coach?
Coaching is always going to give one player a disadvantage, it's a completely external factor that has nothing to do with the players actual skill, but rather with his/her personal connections.

 

[FoxLisk]

You know, we could always just do side events. The chess community came up with an event called "advanced chess" where a player works with a chess engine to try to beat their opponent (also a player/engine team). We could do a similar thing where we have a coaching side tournament.

I propose this because I realized the argument about who has access to a better coach is a little weak. I still think coaching should be banned in singles, but if people like coaching and players like being coached, a coaching-encouraged side tournament might be a fun thing. It would also make it clear that, whether or not coaching is abstractly fair in a world where both players have coaches (which I think it probably is), it's not something we want mixed up with singles.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Dude, not everybody has access to a top level coach. What if someone has a mediocre coach or no coach at all, and the other person has Ken or Mango as their coach?
Coaching is always going to give one player a disadvantage, it's a completely external factor that has nothing to do with the players actual skill, but rather with his/her personal connections.

Dude, not everybody has access to a top level training partner. What if someone has a mediocre training partner or no training partner at all, and the other person has Ken or Mango as their training partner?
Training is always going to give one player a disadvantage, it's a completely external factor that has nothing to do with the players actual skill, but rather with his/her personal connections.


I think that sums up superwavedash's rebuttal.

No this is not a troll post. This is just a simple example of how where you live is just as much of an external factor regarding your skill as a coach would be.


Amsah's "debuff" point is a valid argument though and I'd like to see that addressed.

/neutrality

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Cactuar]

The training partner thing doesn't make sense in this argument because it has nothing to do with the actual player vs player test (tournament). Everything you do to prepare prior to your actual match is your own business.

 

[-ACE-]

The training partner thing doesn't make sense in this argument because it has nothing to do with the actual player vs player test (tournament). Everything you do to prepare prior to your actual match is your own business.

Quoted for what I had previously thought of as obvious truth.

 

[TheGoat]

Dude, not everybody has access to a top level training partner. What if someone has a mediocre training partner or no training partner at all, and the other person has Ken or Mango as their training partner?
Training is always going to give one player a disadvantage, it's a completely external factor that has nothing to do with the players actual skill, but rather with his/her personal connections.


I think that sums up superwavedash's rebuttal.

No this is not a troll post. This is just a simple example of how where you live is just as much of an external factor regarding your skill as a coach would be.


Amsah's "debuff" point is a valid argument though and I'd like to see that addressed.

/neutrality

I see the connection you made there. However, the flaw in that logic is that coaches help the players during the actual tournament set. Tournaments fights should consist of two individuals using what they know against each other. Coaches give an unfair advantage, and thus the players do not play purely based off of skill. It should be purely a 1v1.

And training DOES have to do with the players actual skill. Granted playing with mango and ken would give you an advantage, but it takes training to get good that way. Having a coach telling you what to do during a tournament takes no skill. Also, coaching can actually be controlled, whereas unfortunately, the people you train with is more of a situational thing.

 

[Jam Stunna]

When I first started playing Melee competitively, I mained Roy. I faced the same person in my first three tournaments (my friend _V_), and he was a Fox main. I noticed that he would always tech towards me after a knockdown, so I started anticipating it and sweetspotting his tech every time. There's not many things more satisfying than fsmashing Fox. If someone had said to _V_, "Stop rolling into Jam's fsmash!" during a match, it would have really sucked

Later in my career, I was an IC main with no success (this has less to do with the ICs and more to do with the fact that I suck), and I was going through my monthly "Who do I main now?" existential crisis. At a tournament I hosted, I had to play the awesome and very handsome KevinM. He picked Sheik. Someone asked me who I main, and I said, "I play counter characters now," and then proceeded to pick Peach. No one pointed out to me what a colossal blunder that was until after KevinM 2-stocked me. I went back to ICs, beat him r2 on FD, then he picks Marth and beats me on Yoshi's Story. Had someone pointed out to me that my main actually was a Sheik counter, I would have won the first match, and the last counterpick would have been mine to most likely squander. Still, it would have been mine, not KevinM's.

The moral of this long-winded story? Coaching could have hurt me, and it could have helped me. I say allow coaching because I don't mind risking being hurt by it if it means that at some point I might be helped by it.

 

[Youngling]

If you receive coaching from someone else, then does it reflect your true skill?

/thread

 

[Wobbles]

PS:

Let's make a quick list of skills that you, as a player, use during a match.

--Technical skill
--Spacing
--Adaptation/Pattern Recognition
--Game Knowledge
--Decision Making
--Unpredictability
--Focus
--probably other stuff

A coach that helps you by giving you advice is basically giving you Adaptation, Decision Making, and/or Game Knowledge. He is GIVING you "skill" during the match. So again, if it's okay for him to give you THOSE skills, why can't he give you other ones like tech skill by just picking up your controller? Maybe your hands are tired and you aren't playing up to full speed; that's not a good indicator of your true skill! But your coach is fresh, and if he plays a stock or two for you and lets you observe you'd probably play better. That would make things more interesting. Why don't we allow that?

Spoiler

Because it's ****ing stupid, that's why.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

Amsah, i'd appreciate it if you read my whole post as oppose to grabbing some text out of context, imo. If you go around telling people they have no idea what they're talking about, someone might think you're kind of rude.
:3
while "just some advice" may be an understatement, I still think that you're not exactly playing with two player's strength, if you follow what i mean.
hmm.


I think this conversation is being taken up on 2 different levels, being on the "pro" and "mid" levels. I don't think it's possible for a player to change their play that much due to coaching, but amsah and wobbles seem to disagree. From what i've seen in bracket matches at local tournaments, coaching has never made or broke a game, but with examples such as pp vs Lucky, it's apparent that it is possible. Maybe coaching should be banned from top 8 matches up or something. idk, just throwing out ideas.

 

[themiii]

The moral of this long-winded story? Coaching could have hurt me, and it could have helped me. I say allow coaching because I don't mind risking being hurt by it if it means that at some point I might be helped by it.

This is a summary of my optimistic view on coaching.
Whether or not the coaching assists you or assists your opponent, it is making you a better player.
Coaching would only be considered a crutch if, let's use the example of the fox in Jam's post, that fox player never learned for himself to change up his rolling patterns.

I will transgress from there as well to go into a reason why I believe coaching is fair, whether it be inbetween or during matches.

When Jam, as roy, fsmashed that ****ing fox for his n00b roll in the face, that fox had full ability to realize that and change up his rolling pattern. Whether or not he had a coach, it does not change the potential to change up his rolling habits. Of course, this is a analytic argument.

There is however a synthetic example that shows how coaching may be unfair.
That was the case in the Taj v PP post.
Although PP's crew told PP what to do, PP had the ability to learn that on his own. What coaching does, in certain cases, is increase your potential at a faster rate than you can increase it yourself. I do not think this is a bad thing, that is why im pro-coaching.

 

[themiii]

Maybe coaching should be banned from top 8 matches up or something. idk, just throwing out ideas.

I brought this up earlier.
It was targeted towards a refute that tournaments are not training grounds. For scrubs who can't make it out of pools, most of the time they are training grounds.

 

[G.L.]

i think in between matches when you have like 30 seconds, but not during or having someone take a 5 min break between to get coached. i mean how much can you possibly learn in between a match? and i also think alot of coaching is "what stage should i CP?'" which isisnt bad IMO

 

[Youngling]

My post is anti coaching btw

 

[Wobbles]

themii: AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M AGAINST IT.

PP (or whatever player) CAN adapt to the situation, and it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to do so. It is not anybody else's job to help you figure **** out during tournament matches because they are not participants in the match. Of course we want players to improve and see the metagame advance... but to do so in the middle of the tournament match to one player's benefit and another's detriment is absolute horse****. It's the PLAYER'S responsibility to learn and adapt during a match, not the spectator's job to do it for them. After the match, in between matches, during your flipping dreams, coach all you want. But don't ruin one person's play or exploitation of someone's mistakes by pointing them out and say "I'm making him play better!" You're not supposed to. During a tournament match, that's the player's job, nobody else's.

 

[themiii]

Wobbles,

I'll agree that I'm a bit iffy about coaching during the match. Being able to deal with the pressure of a match, your tech skill, and still being able to scrutinize the opponents play is a feature that I would not to negate by adding coaching during game.
But how about, between games? That is what I'm truly looking ok with.

There are counters against it, such as plainly switching up playing style.

 

[Wobbles]

Between games is dandy, provided it's not excessive. Two minutes max in between rounds, for instance, because it's not fair to the other player to make them sit and wait. But those players had best bugger off once the match starts, because that small, evolving metagame unique to each round belongs solely to the participants in the match.

And before somebody says "you seriously expect us to make sure they adhere to a 2 minute counterpicking limit," yes, I do. Any high-profile match will have lots of spectators and TOs, so it's not really that difficult to police. In lower profile matches, players will police it themselves. If "please stop" isn't enough, "cut that out or I'll get a TO" usually is.

 

[themiii]

Glad we can make a joint concession about this. There is still the argument protruding around that says coaches should be banned. What we said to do is regulate it.
I wouldn't like a long break inbetween because it takes away from the hype and the momentum.

 

[Luma]

@ wobbles

we already got such a rule in europe and its working quite well, its really easy to enforce it

 

[Andy Mac]

In-game coaching adds an extra dimension to the game. It can turn a 1v1 into a 1v2 or 2v2. I don't see a problem with letting both players be coached during a match when the noise doesn't interfere with the concentration of the other player. However, it can be unfair for one player to have a coach while the other does not. Pitting two minds against one is unfair for the solo player.

Ruling on in-game coaching should be specified by tournament rules or an agreement between players in a match. Otherwise, the default should be to disallow in-game coaching because it can be unfair to players without coaches. However, anytime when players are not in a match, there should be no restrictions on coaching or getting advice from others. This is to promote free communication between players, allow strategizing between matches, and diminish limitations on the development of Melee's metagame.

 

[Nihonjin]

Amsah, i'd appreciate it if you read my whole post as oppose to grabbing some text out of context, imo. If you go around telling people they have no idea what they're talking about, someone might think you're kind of rude.
:3
while "just some advice" may be an understatement, I still think that you're not exactly playing with two player's strength, if you follow what i mean.
hmm.

I did. I just think that part sums up the whole pro-coaching argument. And I think it's mostly based on ignorance.

I think this conversation is being taken up on 2 different levels, being on the "pro" and "mid" levels. I don't think it's possible for a player to change their play that much due to coaching, but amsah and wobbles seem to disagree.

That's just it, you're wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

From what i've seen in bracket matches at local tournaments, coaching has never made or broke a game, but with examples such as pp vs Lucky, it's apparent that it is possible. Maybe coaching should be banned from top 8 matches up or something. idk, just throwing out ideas.

It should be banned everywhere.

Unless you're in favor of losing to your scrub friend who you always beat just because he's being coached by Cactuar. In that case, have at it hoss.

 

[The Star King]

This is a summary of my optimistic view on coaching.
When Jam, as roy, fsmashed that ****ing fox for his n00b roll in the face, that fox had full ability to realize that and change up his rolling pattern. Whether or not he had a coach, it does not change the potential to change up his rolling habits. Of course, this is a analytic argument.

There is however a synthetic example that shows how coaching may be unfair.
That was the case in the Taj v PP post.
Although PP's crew told PP what to do, PP had the ability to learn that on his own. What coaching does, in certain cases, is increase your potential at a faster rate than you can increase it yourself. I do not think this is a bad thing, that is why im pro-coaching.

Why does your side keep bringing up these arguments?:

-"The person being coached MIGHT not utilize the coach's advice properly, meaning that he hasn't gained much of an advantage."
-"The person against the coachee CAN adapt to the coachee's new tactics."

Both of these can be true, but the players having the ability to affect how big of an advantage the advice is doesn't make the act of giving the advice fair. Think of it this way: Two people are having a fist fight. I give one of the players a knife. What you're saying is:

-The person given the knife MIGHT not utilize the knife properly, meaning that he hasn't gained much of an advantage.
-The person against the guy given the gun CAN adapt to the knife guy's new tactics.

Is it possible to defeat a guy with a knife with your bare fists? Definitely. But that doesn't mean the act of giving the knife to one of the guys is fair. You're right when you say that coaching may not be a big enough factor to change the outcome of a Smash match, but it may also be a HUGE factor that swings the entire battle. We don't know, and thus coaching is dangerous.

Oh, and just in case - don't attack me for using analogies if you're unable to tell me why the analogy is a bad one.

 

[metalreflectslime]

SWD, provided you are not actually Mango or something posing on an alt account I accept this MM for $20.

I believe SWD = knihT.

 

[Problem2]

how about all players must wear headphones that are hooked up to the TV's audio

 

[themiii]

Oh, and just in case - don't attack me for using analogies if you're unable to tell me why the analogy is a bad one.

A:B : : C:D This is an analogy.

A to B is like C is to D.
Giving a player a coach is like giving a fighter a knife.


"A" must contain characteristics such that "C" relates. Also, the process they undergo must be similar. That is denoted with the :
finally, the equality between B and D must be similar.

The equality between B and D are NOT similar
I'll give a clear cut reason why: A player without a coach can still spawn skill and strategy that would be similar to what a coach would have said.
A knife CAN NOT be spawned in the middle of a fist fight (unless it's an anime ofc)
Coaching is an indirect effect on the game. Plugging out someone's controller is direct. Turning off the TV is direct. Pausing the game is direct.

similarly, giving someone a weapon is a direct change in the fight.
Giving a knife to someone in a fight is not like saying "aim for his left" like most boxing coaches would say (something similar at least)

Giving a fighter a knife is like making Zelda's side-B falco's laser. Its an outside implication that changes the game.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I believe SWD = knihT.

Oh, that guy? I have nothing to worry about then.

 

[hungrybox]

I'll read later, MAN this got a lot of posts quick.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Coaching shouldnt be allowed.

I see it pretty cut and dry. Just make it illegal unless both players agree to it. During the set, the competition is between those two players and them only. Outside influences should be minimized as much as possible.

Im pretty sure that most ppl dont want to kill the hype so u cant eliminate crowds....and imo all cheering should be kept positive. dnt cheer against Hbox cheer for the other guy etc. but I dont care about it that much.

Like coaching could be pretty ****ing tight in GF ****ing dr PP vs mango falco dittos and *****s is just gettin off. Hype that **** up, both players call a coach up. Dr PP chooses somebody hella tight, and mango chooses himself, and its on!