Coaching

[X1-12]

Prove me wrong with writing a rule which can without problem be enforced.
Also keep this in mind:

all rules do not have to be enforced constantly.. if there's a rule,, people naturally abide to it as it becomes normal


a real life example: Banned use of mobile phones while driving the UK: Do you think the police actually enforce this rule realistically? No but people know its against the rules so they don't do it


a smash example: wobbling in melee (often banned) people could easily do this while the TO's back is turned then if the TO does come it would be his word against mine or whatever.. This rule can't actually be enforced, The TO doesn't watch every TV but if there's a rule, people don't break it.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

all rules do not have to be enforced constantly.. if there's a rule,, people naturally abide to it as it becomes normal


a real life example: Banned use of mobile phones while driving the UK: Do you think the police actually enforce this rule realistically? No but people know its against the rules so they don't do it


a smash example: wobbling in melee (often banned) people could easily do this while the TO's back is turned then if the TO does come it would be his word against mine or whatever.. This rule can't actually be enforced, The TO doesn't watch every TV but if there's a rule, people don't break it.

Very nice examples.

 

[jugfingers]

I've both won and lost close matches because of coaching, although I don't think anyone is arguing the impact it can have. Since people seem to like analogies so much: I don't think chess players are coached during matches. Smash to me feels closer to chess than to baseball or whatever you guys play.

as someone who is very involved in playing and studying chess I say this is poppycock.

1)chess is turn based,

2) there is no tech skill in chess

i.e if you tell someone to do a move they will 100% without a doubt be able to do it.

knight to g6...hey no problem.


whereas in a sport like baseball, you can tell someone to throw a curveball because its a good counter to a certain batter, but that doesn't automatically enable them to

A)throw a good curveball

B) stop the batter from hitting the curveball if they do indeed throw it

c)cause the batter to swing

d) something else happens that also backs up my argument

same as in smash, if you tell someone to stop rolling when getting pressured near the edge, this although might be helpful does not ensure that the players opponent will not punish the coachee in some other way perhaps directly related to the immediate absence of rolling.

but whether coaching should be allowed or not I will say that smash is definitely not similar to chess in regards to coaching.

 

[Marc]

Many smash players will 100% be able to do what you tell them to, especially because tech skill beyond a certain skill treshold should be very consistent. I don't see how people being able to completely follow up on the coaching is a factor anyway, but it is silly to believe the advice is closer to real life sports with room for lots of (vague!) options, considering there is a limited moveset involved.

My point was made to demonstrate how smash for a large part is a battle of wits and keeping a good overview of what is happening. I think this is what people like Amsah are trying to say... other people shouldn't be pointing out what you're not seeing during matches.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

The way I see it, if someone obeys "the coach" it's not even them playing anymore in their own entirety.

If someone is changing the decisions that my opponent would usually/normally make, then... I'm not playing that person in my eyes.

 

[X1-12]

The way I see it, if someone obeys "the coach" it's not even them playing anymore in their own entirety.

If someone is changing the decisions that my opponent would usually/normally make, then... I'm not playing that person in my eyes.

not trying to poo on your arguement, but under pressure even some of the best players mess up even simplish tech skill.. shiz was messing up waveshines and isai drops in his sets vs falcomist

 

[Nihonjin]

as someone who is very involved in playing and studying chess I say this is poppycock.

1)chess is turn based,

2) there is no tech skill in chess

i.e if you tell someone to do a move they will 100% without a doubt be able to do it.

knight to g6...hey no problem.

I know you're not arguing that people can't (from time to time) perfectly follow advice their coaches give them. Or that such advice can't potentially win the game for them.

So what's your point..?

B) stop the batter from hitting the curveball if they do indeed throw it

Placing your knight to G6 like your coach told you to, doesn't prevent your opponent from countering whatever strategy your coach had in mind.

d) something else happens that also backs up my argument

I have yet to see said argument.

Same as in smash, if you tell someone to stop rolling when getting pressured near the edge, this although might be helpful

That's just it, it shouldn't be helpful. You're fighting, not your coach.

Imagine this, you're Fox, you're fighting someone relatively equal to you who plays Marth.

In the very last match of the set, you realize that your opponent always rolls towards the middle of the stage when he's being pressured on the edge. You keep punishing him for it. This means you picked up on a habit of your opponent which is giving you an edge in this match, exactly the way it should.

Now, you're both on your last stock, you're at 30%, your opponent's at 120%. You're pressuring him on the edge and notice he's shield DI'ing towards the middle of the stage trying to roll out, already smelling victory you stop pressuring and charge your upsmash where you know he'll roll (exactly like he did in the earlier stocks). But at that very same moment his coach yelled out "Don't roll!" and your opponent somehow manages to control his impulse. Now you're wide open and caught off guard by the fact that he didn't roll, he waits for you to upsmash, grabs and immediately throws you off the edge (with horrible DI because you didn't see this coming at all), successfully edgegaurds and wins the set.

Are you telling me, that's not at least as unfair as your chess coach telling you where to move certain pieces?

but whether coaching should be allowed or not I will say that smash is definitely not similar to chess in regards to coaching.

Yes it is.

 

[Smasher89]

X1-12: So basicly "coaching is banned" should make people not coach in any form?


If it were that easy, we wouldn´t have for example Jiggs taking the ledge at the beginning of a match and waiting there for the rest of it if the opponent won´t approach.

Someone could say he is stalling, but it´s just to the puffplayer to say that :

On stage, i won´t have advantage, on the ledge on the other had, I´ve got an advantage and I´m therefore in an advantageous position.
I don´t want to leave and give the opponent the advantage, the opponent should approach (exacly the same reason the opponent wont approach)"

That is an example to why just "stalling is banned" doesn´t work.
Also the reason a "coach ban rule" is needed to be crafted (right word?) before it can be banned.




A small notice, the sports mentioned that got a ban or regulation to the coaching offers the time to take a break, and a big "venue" (tennis court, curling thing with more) making it actually kinda possible to enforce the rule and clear that it´s being violated. A crowded venue, where lots of people are watching close to where the game is being played just make the rule more of a trouble then a gain for the tournament host to use IMO.
Isn´t boxing a mental game that allows coaching at all times?, i think that is better compared with smash then curling XD




A chess coach(which is assumed, being better then both players) would be able to tell every move, therefore play the match by himself (autowin for the one with the best coach), where the "player" doesn´t have to rely on him/herself at all more then being able to listen to the advice.


In smash, the player is still the player and the ones pressing the buttons, in real time. Dividing attention/focus to listen to the coach can if the player wants to "prevent it" by pressuring even more,making it dangerous to split that attention in some situations. Whispering in a loud venue must be kinda tough to hear too...




I´ve got people told how to escape my free stock chaingrabs, should I complain?, nope, I just uses their advice against them and makes them DI in the worst way possible, which probably even can get the player to question the coach, therefore dividing attention and being more likely to make mistakes that I capitalize on.


Also winning a match != winning a set, the better player still wins(Bo3 is always lol though no matter the rules, the winner of the first match usually wins the set, but that´s another discussion).

 

[Nihonjin]

X1-12: So basicly "coaching is banned" should make people not coach in any form?


If it were that easy, we wouldn´t have for example Jiggs taking the ledge at the beginning of a match and waiting there for the rest of it if the opponent won´t approach.

Someone could say he is stalling, but it´s just to the puffplayer to say that :

On stage, i won´t have advantage, on the ledge on the other had, I´ve got an advantage and I´m therefore in an advantageous position.
I don´t want to leave and give the opponent the advantage, the opponent should approach (exacly the same reason the opponent wont approach)"

That is an example to why just "stalling is banned" doesn´t work.
Also the reason a "coach ban rule" is needed to be crafted (right word?) before it can be banned.

Horrible analogy. What you're referring to isn't stalling, it's camping. Comparable to what I did to Jman.

A small notice, the sports mentioned that got a ban or regulation to the coaching offers the time to take a break, and a big "venue" (tennis court, curling thing with more) making it actually kinda possible to enforce the rule and clear that it´s being violated. A crowded venue, where lots of people are watching close to where the game is being played just make the rule more of a trouble then a gain for the tournament host to use IMO.
Isn´t boxing a mental game that allows coaching at all times?, i think that is better compared with smash then curling XD

Boxing/K-1/UFC etc don't have a limited move sets like chess or smash, you can't compare the two.

A chess coach(which is assumed, being better then both players) would be able to tell every move, therefore play the match by himself (autowin for the one with the best coach), where the "player" doesn´t have to rely on him/herself at all more then being able to listen to the advice.

You don't have to take over an entire match, just telling someone what to do in one situation is more than enough to alter the course of an entire set. Read my previous post.

In smash, the player is still the player and the ones pressing the buttons, in real time. Dividing attention/focus to listen to the coach can if the player wants to "prevent it" by pressuring even more,making it dangerous to split that attention in some situations. Whispering in a loud venue must be kinda tough to hear too...

This is a bull**** argument. Whether or not it's hard to divide your attention is irrelevant.

The fact remains that coaches influence the match either in your favor or in that of your opponents when they shouldn't have any influence at all because they're not the ones playing.

I´ve got people told how to escape my free stock chaingrabs, should I complain?, nope, I just uses their advice against them and makes them DI in the worst way possible, which probably even can get the player to question the coach, therefore dividing attention and being more likely to make mistakes that I capitalize on.

I'm against that too.

Also, I would love to see you try to use advice I give in Dutch, Japanese or Surinamese.

Also winning a match != winning a set, the better player still wins(Bo3 is always lol though no matter the rules, the winner of the first match usually wins the set, but that´s another discussion).

This makes no sense.

 

[Cactuar]

You and I have surprisingly similar thoughts on... everything...

 

[X1-12]

X1-12: So basicly "coaching is banned" should make people not coach in any form?


If it were that easy, we wouldn´t have for example Jiggs taking the ledge at the beginning of a match and waiting there for the rest of it if the opponent won´t approach.

Someone could say he is stalling, but it´s just to the puffplayer to say that :

On stage, i won´t have advantage, on the ledge on the other had, I´ve got an advantage and I´m therefore in an advantageous position.
I don´t want to leave and give the opponent the advantage, the opponent should approach (exacly the same reason the opponent wont approach)"

That is an example to why just "stalling is banned" doesn´t work.
Also the reason a "coach ban rule" is needed to be crafted (right word?) before it can be banned.

Are you denying that people (in general) have an inbuilt inkling to stick to the rules?

Also winning a match != winning a set, the better player still wins(Bo3 is always lol though no matter the rules, the winner of the first match usually wins the set, but that´s another discussion).

its often called pulling an armada.. as you learn and adapt to their style enough to beat them on their counter-pick

 

[Smasher89]

Then you're using the coach his advice in your favor, which is still unfair because he shouldn't be part of the match.

Also, I would love to see you try to use advice I give in Dutch, Japanese or Surinamese.

The example I gave was based on the only knowledge that the opponent was listening to his/her coach, not the knowledge of what the advice is.


Not sure about boxing, since I´ve not ever competed in it or even played a match, but I think it´s the same thing applies when it comes to openings and punishments, since the player practices to become technical/effective or as brutal(and not too energyconsuming) as possible with their punches, and guarding only works too a certain degree.

These are uses(openings/punishments) which I atleast know applies too football (for a sport reference I´m 100% sure about).


X1-12- No, and that´s proven since there was a world war 2


I get how you mean it´s irrelevant and that a coach can have "close" to a direct action towards helping a player win.
I don´t see why it shouldn´t be allowed though, claiming it´s unfair is the same argument that claiming a matchup is unfair, which also direcly gets towards the game, the game is unfair, deal with it

 

[Cactuar]

I get how you mean it´s irrelevant and that a coach can have "close" to a direct action towards helping a player win.
I don´t see why it shouldn´t be allowed though, claiming it´s unfair is the same argument that claiming a matchup is unfair, which also direcly gets towards the game, the game is unfair, deal with it

Matchups are internal to the game while coaches are external. Not a good argument.

 

[Smasher89]

Matchups are internal to the game while coaches are external. Not a good argument.

Like already mentioned (circledebating?) cheering is also an external thing that can effect performance.
For a fact, I´ve beaten Calle W in a really big tournament (even though that is long time ago, RoS4) with alot help from that, and by that time he was I think 3rd or 4th best ranked swede after Ek, Helios, not sure about Armada.
And there was no coaching involved as I remember at all.

So basicly it can be as effective as coaching, with the difference that you actually can learn something from coaching(improving metagame and players) where theres alot fewer things to learn about cheering (learn to handle it so it never affects you in a bad way if theres cheering for the opponent basicly).

 

[X1-12]

So basicly it can be as effective as coaching, with the difference that you actually can learn something from coaching(improving metagame and players) where theres alot fewer things to learn about cheering (learn to handle it so it never affects you in a bad way if theres cheering for the opponent basicly).

dealing with pressure/coaching is just part of having a good mentality, dealing with the fact your opponent has two brains is not..

 

[Smasher89]

Learning to notice those habits and improve for many players(lowranked that wants to improve) is a need to get their matches recorded.

So they can watch and really learn from their mistakes(that your posts clearly shows you want them to still be doing), unfortunatly that is "a luxury" for the top 4-5 players often since it´s mostly semi, winners final, losers final and grand that goes up and gets recorded. Not other lower placing players. Isn't that unfair for them if they want to improve?

Banning coaching probably will lead to a less inspired metagame, less strategic discussion, and more dominance from a single random player depending on where, with less watchable(2-4 stock after 4stock) finals.

 

[X1-12]

Learning to notice those habits and improve for many players(lowranked that wants to improve) is a need to get their matches recorded.

So they can watch and really learn from their mistakes(that your posts clearly shows you want them to still be doing), unfortunatly that is "a luxury" for the top 4-5 players often since it´s mostly semi, winners final, losers final and grand that goes up and gets recorded. Not other lower placing players. Isn't that unfair for them if they want to improve?

Banning coaching probably will lead to a less inspired metagame, less strategic discussion, and more dominance from a single random player depending on where, with less watchable(2-4 stock after 4stock) finals.

if you fall into habits you will get punished and realise.. you don't need to watch matches to realise your habits.. and even if you did. everyone has an old VCR or something with which they can record friendlies..

It seems like your arguments are getting more far-fetched with each of your posts..

 

[jugfingers]

I know you're not arguing that people can't (from time to time) perfectly follow advice their coaches give them. Or that such advice can't potentially win the game for them.

So what's your point..?

lol following advice perfectly??

you mean like don't roll?

you can't really give that detailed an instruction real time and a game of smash, its not like you can fuse your cerebellum with someone playing and tell them what to do at every moment of the game, as you could in chess.

Placing your knight to G6 like your coach told you to, doesn't prevent your opponent from countering whatever strategy your coach had in mind.

the point is your coach can tell you every single move the whole game

the reason coaching is banned in chess is because, if you listened to your coach it would be your coach playing chess not you, there would be no need for you to be sitting down at the board at all, you in fact would be doing nothing.

Imagine this, you're Fox, you're fighting someone relatively equal to you who plays Marth.

In the very last match of the set, you realize that your opponent always rolls towards the middle of the stage when he's being pressured on the edge. You keep punishing him for it. This means you picked up on a habit of your opponent which is giving you an edge in this match, exactly the way it should.

Now, you're both on your last stock, you're at 30%, your opponent's at 120%. You're pressuring him on the edge and notice he's shield DI'ing towards the middle of the stage trying to roll out, already smelling victory you stop pressuring and charge your upsmash where you know he'll roll (exactly like he did in the earlier stocks). But at that very same moment his coach yelled out "Don't roll!" and your opponent somehow manages to control his impulse. Now you're wide open and caught off guard by the fact that he didn't roll, he waits for you to upsmash, grabs and immediately throws you off the edge (with horrible DI because you didn't see this coming at all), successfully edgegaurds and wins the set.

1st of all, charging an upsmash hoping your opponent will roll is a stupid thing to do. and im not talking about charging a smash while your opponent is on the ground predicting he's gonna roll some place. I mean what you have described above and this is a perfect example of why coaching should be allowed, because it will eliminate at the at very basic level people doing stupid **** in matches, I mean why didn't the fox wait for the roll before charging the upsmash, there is certainly enough time to run and usmash or just stand stationary and usmash without the risk of your opponent simply not rolling and then punishing you for being stuck charging an upsmash.

if someone can yell a single thought that stops you from losing then nobody should ever lose from that situation ever. coaching will help eliminate obviously stupid stuff and help the community grow into a more advanced skill level as a whole.

Are you telling me, that's not at least as unfair as your chess coach telling you where to move certain pieces?
.

...yes that is my position on this issue.

like I said before, coaching in chess, is not really coaching its simply playing chess yourself and have the person your coaching moving the pieces, hence why it is illegal in the chess community.

 

[X1-12]

1st of all, charging an upsmash hoping your opponent will roll is a stupid thing to do. and im not talking about charging a smash while your opponent is on the ground predicting he's gonna roll some place. I mean what you have described above and this is a perfect example of why coaching should be allowed, because it will eliminate at the at very basic level people doing stupid **** in matches, I mean why didn't the fox wait for the roll before charging the upsmash, there is certainly enough time to run and usmash or just stand stationary and usmash without the risk of your opponent simply not rolling and then punishing you for being stuck charging an upsmash.

if you're doing something stupid, you should get punished and learn from your mistakes.. if you are just doing what you're told you don't learn as fast as you often wont understand why not to do it especially mid-match. Also what if one game you have to play coach less.. all those bad habits will be totally exposed as you wont have actually learned from them

 

[Nihonjin]

Learning to notice those habits and improve for many players(lowranked that wants to improve) is a need to get their matches recorded.

Are you suggesting you can't record outside of a tournament?

So they can watch and really learn from their mistakes(that your posts clearly shows you want them to still be doing), unfortunatly that is "a luxury" for the top 4-5 players often since it´s mostly semi, winners final, losers final and grand that goes up and gets recorded.

So you want people who have absolutely no business being in the semi finals, to make it there with help of their friends (and at the expense of someone else) just so they get a chance to record themselves? Corrupt tournament much?

Not other lower placing players. Isn't that unfair for them if they want to improve?

1) You can improve without being recorded.
2) This has nothing to do with coaching.

Banning coaching probably will lead to a less inspired metagame

No it won't.

less strategic discussion

Only in your world.

And more dominance from a single random player depending on where

The best player winning consistently, the injustice is unbearable..[/sarcasm]

Spoiler

Go play Mario Kart, you'll love their system

with less watchable(2-4 stock after 4stock) finals.

Irrelevant.

lol following advice perfectly??

you mean like don't roll?

Like, but not limited to 'don't roll' yes.

you can't really give that detailed an instruction real time and a game of smash, its not like you can fuse your cerebellum with someone playing and tell them what to do at every moment of the game, as you could in chess.

You don't have to.

The point is your coach can tell you every single move the whole game

How much a coach helps you is irrelevant to my argument.

the reason coaching is banned in chess is because, if you listened to your coach it would be your coach playing chess not you, there would be no need for you to be sitting down at the board at all, you in fact would be doing nothing.

Then how about we allow coaches in chess to make 20 moves each match? That way you're still playing, he's just helping a little. You'll improve!

1st of all, charging an upsmash hoping your opponent will roll is a stupid thing to do.

Reading your opponents shield DI during pressure and using that to predict their roll is stupid..? Guess I'm dumb for doing that, and Zhu's even dumber for falling for it.

See for yourself

But it's irrelevant, my point is that the coach's advice changed the course of the match dramatically.

I mean what you have described above and this is a perfect example of why coaching should be allowed, because it will eliminate at the at very basic level people doing stupid **** in matches

As stupid as you might find it, people getting punished for their mistakes is what this game is all about. If you think it's a stupid mistake, you point it out after the match and that player will improve just the same, without you screwing with results.

If someone can yell a single thought that stops you from losing then nobody should ever lose from that situation ever.

The situation doesn't matter. My point was that someone predicted/manipulated/read their opponent only to have their opponents coach ruin it for them.

...yes that is my position on this issue.

Your position makes no sense.

like I said before, coaching in chess, is not really coaching its simply playing chess yourself and have the person your coaching moving the pieces, hence why it is illegal in the chess community.

Like I said before, the technical aspect isn't what separates the good from the bad players, it's their ability to adapt. If your coach decides to take over that part of the game for you, you're not really playing, like in chess, you're just moving the pieces.

But really, seeing as you're for coaching because they don't take over the entire match, how about we allow coaches to make 10 moves for you in a chess match?

 

[da K.I.D.]

You (smasher89) act like people are trying to ban coaching entirely.

You can coach somebody and help them to get better all you want as long as its not in the middle of a tournament match.

 

[jugfingers]

Then how about we allow coaches in chess to make 20 moves each match? That way you're still playing, he's just helping a little. You'll improve!

except this sarcastic comparison is not at relevant to coaching in smash, an equivalent to smash would be someone actually picking up your controller and playing for half the match and then giving it back to you, its not the same as coaching.

Reading your opponents shield DI during pressure and using that to predict their roll is stupid..? Guess I'm dumb for doing that, and Zhu's even dumber for falling for it.

See for yourself

....I saw you try to usmash at 1:57 and get punished with a backair cause zhu didn't roll? lol

not sure what point in the match your talking about??

zhu does have noob rolls though, everybody knows that lol.

As stupid as you might find it, people getting punished for their mistakes is what this game is all about. If you think it's a stupid mistake, you point it out after the match and that player will improve just the same, without you screwing with results.

screwing with results is a little distorted I think, I would like to hear a better example of coaching influencing a match to victory that doesn't include punishing something stupid, that should be punished anyways.

The situation doesn't matter. My point was that someone predicted/manipulated/read their opponent only to have their opponents coach ruin it for them.

yea but it was in a way that could be easily and detrimentally punished, which makes it not a good idea, and the fact that someone shouted something that caused your opponent to not do something stupid I think is a bad argument for banned coaching


it could basically be summarized, I don't want coaching because I want people to continue to do stupid stuff so I can punish them and win.

Your position makes no sense.

my position that coaching shouldn't be allowed in chess makes no sense?

its pretty straightforward....

Like I said before, the technical aspect isn't what separates the good from the bad players, it's their ability to adapt.

technical aspect does seperate high level players, technical ability will always seperate players in a fighting game based on speed.

If your coach decides to take over that part of the game for you, you're not really playing, like in chess, you're just moving the pieces.

no this is wrong, you are wrong.

dash left, jump, fast fall, dash right, shffl fair, dash right, full hop backwards dair, shield. roll left

lol not gonna happen.

But really, seeing as you're for coaching because they don't take over the entire match, how about we allow coaches to make 10 moves for you in a chess match?

IM NOT FOR COACHING IN CHESS!!!

**** I hate arguing on the internt lol.




CHESS: there should not be coaching

Fighting games/sports/non turn based technical activities: coaching should be allowed


because there is an enormous factor of speed agility involved that cannot be enhanced by coaching

 

[Nihonjin]

except this sarcastic comparison is not at relevant to coaching in smash, an equivalent to smash would be someone actually picking up your controller and playing for half the match and then giving it back to you, its not the same as coaching.

It has everything to do with smash. Taking over part of the game is just as bad as taking over entirely.

....I saw you try to usmash at 1:57 and get punished with a backair cause zhu didn't roll? lol

That was a failed uptilt.

not sure what point in the match your talking about??

The part where the video starts? 0:09 seconds, ftilt, ftilt *I notice he's shield DI'ing* so I stopped tilting and I wavedashed back, he rolled, I grabbed.

Same concept in my example, but again, it's unimportant.

zhu does have noob rolls though, everybody knows that lol.

In a tournament match it's not up to anyone but himself to notice those rolls are a mistake.

Screwing with results is a little distorted I think, I would like to hear a better example of coaching influencing a match to victory that doesn't include punishing something stupid, that should be punished anyways.

What you're asking for is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how a coach influences a match to victory, it's that they do.

- But if you must know, Zgetto could've told Jman how to punish my camping and prevent me from ever using it again against him. Whether I'd lose because of that is up for debate, but the match would've changed drastically.

- Shiz would've lost if I coached Falcomist because I saw that last suicide spike coming from a mile away and would've told him to air dodge

yea but it was in a way that could be easily and detrimentally punished, which makes it not a good idea

You realize that a good idea turns into a horrible idea if your opponent expects it right..?

And the fact that someone shouted something that caused your opponent to not do something stupid I think is a bad argument for banned coaching

You're missing the point entirely.

It could basically be summarized, I don't want coaching because I want people to continue to do stupid stuff so I can punish them and win.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

my position that coaching shouldn't be allowed in chess makes no sense?

I was talking about your position that coaching should be allowed in smash.

IM NOT FOR COACHING IN CHESS!!!

**** I hate arguing on the internt lol.

I don't care about chess and I didn't mean to repeat that point. I thought I edited it out.

because there is an enormous factor of speed agility involved that cannot be enhanced by coaching

Again, technical skill is not what separates good players from bad players. It's their ability to adapt, which is exactly what coaching enhances.

 

[jugfingers]

The part where the video starts? 0:09 seconds, ftilt, ftilt *I notice he's shield DI'ing* so I stopped tilting and I wavedashed back, he rolled, I grabbed.

Same concept in my example, but again, it's unimportant.

in that instance you waited for him to roll, then grabbed, in the example you were talking about before, the player had started charging an upsmash before the roll, hence getting punished after someone shouted don't roll.

You realize that a good idea turns into a horrible idea if your opponent expects it right..?

actually if your opponent expects it, it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

You're missing the point entirely.

its not that im missing it, I understand your argument, infact I agree with your argument, except that I want players to have a beneficial outside influence, because I want people I'm playing against to be as good as they possibly can be.

whereas you don't want want outside influence because it makes it "Unfair"

"the outcome was become skewed in favor of the victor due to coaching"

but I think your ignoring the other outcome that can come by coaching which is that the player not being coached still wins, but had to change his style a few more times and generally had a slightly more difficult time punishing his opponent due to people telling him not to do stupid stuff.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

Again, technical skill is not what separates good players from bad players. It's their ability to adapt, which is exactly what coaching enhances.

I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize skill gaps between players due to technical skill even at the highest level of play.

adapting is indeed key, but then if you can adapt, coaching shouldn't be a concern, because you can change your style accordingly to the advice being given to your opponent.

 

[Nihonjin]

in that instance you waited for him to roll, then grabbed, in the example you were talking about before, the player had started charging an upsmash before the roll, hence getting punished after someone shouted don't roll.

I waited because I can't grab him if he's not there. With Fox I would've charged an Upsmash and he still would've rolled.

The point is, the reason the person got punished wasn't because he made a mistake, but because the coach pointed out what he was doing.

Actually if your opponent expects it, it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

/Facepalm

Its not that im missing it, I understand your argument, infact I agree with your argument, except that I want players to have a beneficial outside influence, because I want people I'm playing against to be as good as they possibly can be.

Coaches don't push players to play as good as they can be, but as good as the coach is.

whereas you don't want want outside influence because it makes it "Unfair"

It is unfair, you can't argue against that.

"the outcome was become skewed in favor of the victor due to coaching"

but I think your ignoring the other outcome that can come by coaching which is that the player not being coached still wins but had to change his style a few more times and generally had a slightly more difficult time punishing his opponent due to people telling him not to do stupid stuff.

Coaches don't just tell you not to do stupid stuff, they tell you what to do period.
They also tell you what stupid stuff your opponent is doing making it a whole lot easier for you to beat them. But you seem to think that's fair.

I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize skill gaps between players due to technical skill even at the highest level of play.

*compares HungryBox to Silentwolf* Yeah, I'm pretty sure the mental aspect of this game is a billion times more important..

Adapting is indeed key, but then if you can adapt, coaching shouldn't be a concern, because you can change your style accordingly to the advice being given to your opponent.

And you don't find it unfair that one person has to rely on his own natural ability to adapt, while the other person is getting help?

Alright, imagine this.

You and some other guy are both applying for the same University, but they're only going to take one of you. In order to decide which one they pick, they make you take a test and whoever scores the highest gets accepted.

You try your hardest to remember your math, grammar and all sorts of things you've learned in and after high school. Though you don't know the answer to all the questions, you seem to be doing pretty well. You take a peek at the other guy who seems to be at wits' end. He's nervously rocking back and forth with both his hands on his head staring at the test on his table. You smile, knowing this is as good as yours.

Then out of the blue someone walks into the room, he walks up to the other guy, looks at his test and whispers something in his ear. The guy thanks him, grabs his pen and starts writing. The same guy who looked as if he was about to give up on life itself is now writing vigorously.

You both finish the test and hand them in, out of curiosity you ask him who the guy was and what he said. He answers "That was my cousin, he's a last years student on the same study we're trying to get into, I called him because I forgot how some of these math formulas work.".

You get denied, he gets accepted.

- One person being accepted represents the fact that only one person can advance to the next round in brackets

- The test represents your opponents playing style you're trying to crack using all the skills you've learned up until the beginning of the match

- The guy walking in represents a coach (who happens to be a lot better than both you and your opponent)

Your argument would be 'Well, I already knew most of the answers so I didn't need help!' or 'He should've known the answers anyway so it's no big deal'

Some other people in this thread argue 'Well, his cousin only explained how they work, the guy still had to figure out most of the answers by himself!' or 'Well, now the guy knows, so we'll become smarter as a race!'

But you tell me, fair or unfair.

 

[CaptainEvilStomper9]

Haha at "now we'll become smarter as a race" being compared to the advancement of the metagame. Pretty good analogy. I think coaching should not be allowed because it makes players better then they are but also by the same logic cheering should not be allowed because it makes certain people worse then they are, there both external factors to the game.

 

[Nihonjin]

Haha at "now we'll become smarter as a race" being compared to the advancement of the metagame. Pretty good analogy. I think coaching should not be allowed because it makes players better then they are but also by the same logic cheering should not be allowed because it makes certain people worse then they are, there both external factors to the game.

Being affected by the crowd is a matter of concentration. You can learn not to be affected by it, so no. There's no reason to ban it. You cannot learn how to not be affected by your opponent getting advice from someone else so it should be banned..

 

[CaptainEvilStomper9]

Some people have more difficulty getting over the crowd then others and since its external to the game I think it should not be a factor (better players can lose to lesser players who are not effected by the crowd as much), though banning cheering would not be good for the scene its irrelevant since we only do things for fairness.

On another note some people have been said to perform better with a crowd (Hax comes to mind) don't you think that's also an unfair advantage if he performs better then normal because a crowds cheering for him? That's the same reason you dismiss coaching. All external factors should be eliminated to keep the game fair.

 

[Nihonjin]

Some people have more difficulty getting over the crowd then others and since its external to the game I think it should not be a factor (better players can lose to lesser players who are not effected by the crowd as much), though banning cheering would not be good for the scene its irrelevant since we only do things for fairness.

Choking under pressure isn't anyones fault but your own.

On another note some people have been said to perform better with a crowd (Hax comes to mind) don't you think that's also an unfair advantage if he performs better then normal because a crowds cheering for him? That's the same reason you dismiss coaching. All external factors should be eliminated to keep the game fair.

If you perform better with a crowd, that simply means you're pushing yourself harder because people are watching and you want to impress (that's the case for me at least). This does actually mean playing to your true potential (unlike with coaching <.<) because no one telling you what to do or how to do it, you're just playing better. And if you put your mind to it, you should be able to play like that all the time.

With coaching that's not the case, no amount of practice or concentration will ever make up for having someone help you out.

Basically:

Me + Crowd = Me + Serious face ~ Fair

Me + Coach will always >> Me by myself ~ Unfair

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I don't understand how anyone can compare chess to SSBB. But I understand the reasoning of your argument. I just wish there was a better example to be used.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I dont think I can say anything that amsah hasnt brought up already.

and btw, I thought the University analogy was flawless.

 

[CaptainEvilStomper9]

I think a tournament should decide who is better at the game, not who is better at coping with a bunch of annoying screaming while playing the game.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Chess isn't comparable coaching-wise to Brawl, because it's turn based. As pointed out earlier in this thread. However, it is fast paced. When you're being coached in chess, isn't it time based professionally? Whereas Brawl is just fast paced because of it being so many stock and the slightest delay or hesitation can be stock-taking, and game factoring. I understand the comparison, but in reality, it's not a legitimate comparison.

I view coaching as a basic awareness boost, which isn't the way to go. A player's skill is ranked as part of their awareness and ability to jump and react on that awareness. If you're consistently pointing out a flaw that they have, that they can adjust to and fix because of you're indication of that flaw. It makes it unfair. The rule can not be strictly enforced as far as fans watching goes unless you're willing to go to extreme measures to do this (in which case MLG is the only possible method of doing this seeing as local tournaments won't jump to this) but the rule can be stated, and reenforced as well. Repeatedly brought up, and warnings issued and supplied. Even disqualifications of the people assisting, too. And so on.

Like I've said before, assisting and watching are two different things. Completely. Awareness is part of skill in my book, and I don't want to feel as if I'm playing the person coaching my opponent, either. It makes it unfair in my book.

 

[Nihonjin]

I think a tournament should decide who is better at the game, not who is better at coping with a bunch of annoying screaming while playing the game.

As you advance and further into the tournament and more money's on the line, pressure naturally increases. It's part of the game.

Besides, like I said earlier, you can learn to perform well under pressure and not be negatively affected by crowds, it's a matter of concentration and having a good mentality. Even if a billion people watch your match and want you to lose, you're still only playing one person, so simply ignore them. Unless they're purposely trying to distract you, you can't blame anyone but yourself for choking.

 

[Lovage]

I don't understand how anyone can compare chess to SSBB. But I understand the reasoning of your argument. I just wish there was a better example to be used.

we're talking about melee

brawl is more like tic tac toe

 

[da K.I.D.]

we're talking about melee

brawl is more like tic tac toe

this thread was made by someone whos readily identified as a Brawl player...

the concept applys to both smash games...

 

[Linguini]

lol amsah you wasted a lot of time on this thread. all this discussion is worthless in the end, regardless of the good points that have been made.

 

[Aniolas]

We can all agree that coaching would affect the game.
Some think it's a major impact, some a minor.

From what I've understand, Amsah doesn't care if it's a major or minor impact, anything that
will directly affect the game should get banned, right?

I would still want to compare it with boxing.

There you have 4 different punches, (jab, cross hook and uppercut), you can hold your guard up and dodge. So almost like smash, but with less options.

It's also about to adapt, and read your opponent, does he drop his guard? Does he always try that same combo etc etc.

And you have coaches, both in the matches and between the rounds. That will help the boxer to reach his full potential.

Yes, coaching in smash do affect the game, but I believe it's a part of the game, and will make the community better in the long run.

I guess we'll never agree, because have different viewpoints.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

we're talking about melee

brawl is more like tic tac toe

That makes a bit more sense seeing as both are faster paced. But they're still turn-based games as opposed to Smash.

 

[Nihonjin]

lol amsah you wasted a lot of time on this thread. all this discussion is worthless in the end, regardless of the good points that have been made.

I have nothing better to do anyway.

Yes, coaching in smash do affect the game, but I believe it's a part of the game, and will make the community better in the long run.

If you read this and still think we should allow it I really have nothing else to say..lol

Alright, imagine this.

You and some other guy are both applying for the same University, but they're only going to take one of you. In order to decide which one they pick, they make you take a test and whoever scores the highest gets accepted.

You try your hardest to remember your math, grammar and all sorts of things you've learned in and after high school. Though you don't know the answer to all the questions, you seem to be doing pretty well. You take a peek at the other guy who seems to be at wits' end. He's nervously rocking back and forth with both his hands on his head staring at the test on his table. You smile, knowing this is as good as yours.

Then out of the blue someone walks into the room, he walks up to the other guy, looks at his test and whispers something in his ear. The guy thanks him, grabs his pen and starts writing. The same guy who looked as if he was about to give up on life itself is now writing vigorously.

You both finish the test and hand them in, out of curiosity you ask him who the guy was and what he said. He answers "That was my cousin, he's a last years student on the same study we're trying to get into, I called him because I forgot how some of these math formulas work.".

You get denied, he gets accepted.

- One person being accepted represents the fact that only one person can advance to the next round in brackets

- The test represents your opponents playing style you're trying to crack using all the skills you've learned up until the beginning of the match

- The guy walking in represents a coach (who happens to be a lot better than both you and your opponent)

Your argument would be 'Well, I already knew most of the answers so I didn't need help!' or 'He should've known the answers anyway so it's no big deal'

Some other people in this thread argue 'Well, his cousin only explained how they work, the guy still had to figure out most of the answers by himself!' or 'Well, now the guy knows, so we'll become smarter as a race!'

But you tell me, fair or unfair.