Editing Pause

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Warning You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 81: Line 81:
While pausing is supposed to be turned off during a tournament set, this setting is not always strictly enforced, and pausing is still sometimes left on; additionally, the same disruptive effects of pausing can be caused by (intentionally or not) pressing the [[home button]] on controllers that have it, a functionality that can't be disabled in any game. As such, various penalties can be imposed on players who pause the game, accidentally or intentionally. Some rulesets require the pausing player to automatically forfeit their current [[stock]], while other rulesets leave punishment at the discretion of the [[tournament organizer|tournament organizer (TO)]]. These can range from no punishment in a "neutral" position, or a loss of up to two stocks in a more critical situation, such as a pause causing a player to fail their recovery. Nowadays, the blanket punishment of one-stock loss is widespread, while the "two-stock loss" rule has been pushed by the [[Melee It On Me]] ruleset.
While pausing is supposed to be turned off during a tournament set, this setting is not always strictly enforced, and pausing is still sometimes left on; additionally, the same disruptive effects of pausing can be caused by (intentionally or not) pressing the [[home button]] on controllers that have it, a functionality that can't be disabled in any game. As such, various penalties can be imposed on players who pause the game, accidentally or intentionally. Some rulesets require the pausing player to automatically forfeit their current [[stock]], while other rulesets leave punishment at the discretion of the [[tournament organizer|tournament organizer (TO)]]. These can range from no punishment in a "neutral" position, or a loss of up to two stocks in a more critical situation, such as a pause causing a player to fail their recovery. Nowadays, the blanket punishment of one-stock loss is widespread, while the "two-stock loss" rule has been pushed by the [[Melee It On Me]] ruleset.


Some players prefer to intentionally pause the game while being [[wobble]]d by the [[Ice Climbers]], which usually means the automatic concede of a stock after unpausing; this action is players utilizing what should be a penalty to their advantage to keep from losing momentum a wobble will cause.
Some players prefer to intentionally pause the game while being [[wobble]]d by the [[Ice Climbers]], and automatically suicide off the stage after unpausing; this action is done in an attempt to keep from losing momentum during a long, drawn-out wobble.


However, punishments for pausing are not consistently applied. In a serious tournament set, a pausing player is technically required to give up their stock, but oftentimes, the enforcement of the stock loss is determined by the opponent. As a result, some players will choose not to enact the punishment and will allow their opponent to keep their stock. This inconsistent nature has been criticized for placing unnecessary pressure on the opposing player. A significant amount of stigma exists surrounding the pausing rule: players who allow their opponent to keep their stock are often regarded as sportsmanlike or "homies". Meanwhile, players who require their opponent to forfeit the stock are often vilified, even though they're technically following the rules of the tournament. A controversial incident surrounding the pause rule occurred in [[Apex 2013]], during [https://youtu.be/a2snQglitnk?t=8m30s a doubles set] between {{Sm|Leffen}} & {{Sm|Ice}} and {{Sm|Scar}} & {{Sm|SFAT}}. Pausing was left on, and Scar having gotten KO’d while having two stocks (leaving him with one), paused the game while attempting to share stock (having miscounted the number he and SFAT had). As a result, the opposing team "forced" Scar to give up his stock. SFAT was left to 1v2 for the rest of the match, and Leffen & Ice won the set. Scar appeared visibly unhappy with the opponents' decision, and many crowd members began booing Leffen after the set. Following the incident, most players agreed that Leffen was unfairly treated for simply playing by the rules of the tournament.
However, punishments for pausing are not consistently applied. In a serious tournament set, a pausing player is technically required to give up their stock, but oftentimes, the enforcement of the stock loss is determined by the opponent. As a result, some players will choose not to enact the punishment and will allow their opponent to keep their stock. This inconsistent nature has been criticized for placing unnecessary pressure on the opposing player. A significant amount of stigma exists surrounding the pausing rule: players who allow their opponent to keep their stock are often regarded as sportsmanlike or "homies". Meanwhile, players who require their opponent to forfeit the stock are often vilified, even though they're technically following the rules of the tournament. A controversial incident surrounding the pause rule occurred in [[Apex 2013]], during [https://youtu.be/a2snQglitnk?t=8m30s a doubles set] between {{Sm|Leffen}} & {{Sm|Ice}} and {{Sm|Scar}} & {{Sm|SFAT}}. Pausing was left on, and Scar having gotten KO’d while having two stocks (leaving him with one), paused the game while attempting to share stock (having miscounted the number he and SFAT had). As a result, the opposing team "forced" Scar to give up his stock. SFAT was left to 1v2 for the rest of the match, and Leffen & Ice won the set. Scar appeared visibly unhappy with the opponents' decision, and many crowd members began booing Leffen after the set. Following the incident, most players agreed that Leffen was unfairly treated for simply playing by the rules of the tournament.

Please note that all contributions to SmashWiki are considered to be released under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (see SmashWiki:Copyrights for details). Your changes will be visible immediately. Please enter a summary of your changes above.

Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: