Let's talk about Pausing during a tourney match

[Han Solo]

For those that don't remember or don't know, back at Smashacre in early August, there was a bit of controversy during my set with Mew2king. Here's what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFVcOcRERCM#t=474

First off, if I ever pause in a tourney set (or in friendlies), I kill myself right away because that's how I operate. I say to myself, "Han Solo, you should be ashamed for pausing. Kill yourself now to salvage what little honor you have left." And if someone pauses in a tourney set against me, I will always invoke the "THAT'S A STOCK" rule.

Now, for the analysis.

1. M2K jumps on a platform
2. I jump in the air, and I try to bair* (see below).
3. M2K inputs an fsmash, but it hasn't come out yet.
4. M2K pauses. THAT'S A STOCK. M2K is now down to 1 stock.
5. M2K unpauses and since he already input an fsmash, it comes out automatically and kills me. ANOTHER STOCK?


This is what the ruleset says about pausing:

Pausing is discouraged, and should only be done at the end of a stock, if at all. At other times, the pauser loses their current stock. If the pause causes the opponent to lose their stock, the pauser loses two stocks.

The main question I have is, when does the pauser lose their current stock? OPTION 1: Is it IMMEDIATELY at the pause no matter what? This means already buffered inputs don't matter. OPTION 2: Or is it after the pauser unpauses and allows all already input moves to be executed?

*Another thing that's hard to see is if the bair came out and the fsmash straight up beat it or if the pause ate my bair input and I might've hit him. If the pause interrupted my bair input, then the pause might have "caused" me to lose my stock.

Now, what happens when the opponent is on the last stock like I was? I believe clubba came up with the following scenario:

Character X has 3 stocks, Pikachu has 1. Pikachu is recovering. X pauses. That's a stock. The pause interrupted Pika's double quick attack recovery. That's another stock. X still has 1 stock, Pika 0. X wins by the current ruleset.

Sensei (the TO at Smashacre) gave the ruling that the game should be played over. M2K and I were both fine with this (in hindsight, I think 1 stock (0%) vs 1 stock (high %) would have been better). Sensei and Nintendude said later that they think I should've lost the game. That means they're for OPTION 2.

 

[Cobrevolution]

what if someone continually pauses to drink his beer?

the way everything is worded, i always took it as a pause is a stock at the moment of the pause. therefore, anything that happens afterward is the fault of the pause; if the result is a death by the person who didn't pause, then the perp loses two.

pausing to interrupt a recovery or disrupt a combo should be an automatic forfeit of the game, imo, if it's done with such an intent. however, gauging something like that is difficult. and too often, to's will seek to appease both parties instead of making a direct judgment call.

i don't think it matters whether or not someone buffered their input before hand. what if you were recovering and you could have gotten reverse ledge di or normal ledge di? i'm willing to bet there's a number of frames after pausing wherein you can't input anything. feels like that anyway.

you shouldn't add exceptions to rules during a tournament. it should've been your win.

 

[Fireblaster]

i'm willing to bet there's a number of frames after pausing wherein you can't input anything. feels like that anyway.

Irrelevant to the topic but if you hold down any direction and any amount of buttons as you unpause, they are inputted instantly after the unpause. The same also applies to the beginning of a match. If you hold down+A during a match intro, your character begins the match with a downsmash on frame 1.

you shouldn't add exceptions to rules during a tournament. it should've been your win.

I think whether han solo pulled out a bair or not the fsmash would have killed him. However, a precedent cannot be set where a human decides to make a decision based on improper judgement. I agree with you and I don't think anyone should even make exceptions for things that are 100% certain like backthrowing link off the edge at 100% and then trying to wonder if link "could have recovered if it weren't for that taunt pause".

After losing several stocks at very low percentages at oktobersmashfest to pausing, I literally just spent 10 minutes and removed the start button with no problem. The rules are the rules. If you pause you lose a stock. If you cause a death with a pause you lose two stocks. If your pause causes your win, you forfeit that game. Whether it's accidental or on purpose should not matter. If you like playing this game and you have your own controller, you can easily prevent yourself from pausing ever again.

 

[Cobrevolution]

Irrelevant to the topic but if you hold down any direction and any amount of buttons as you unpause, they are inputted instantly after the unpause. The same also applies to the beginning of a match. If you hold down+A during a match intro, your character begins the match with a downsmash on frame 1.

so while paused, if i mash dsmash it'll do a dsmash when it unpauses? that's actually good to know

I agree with you and I don't think anyone should even make exceptions for things that are 100% certain like backthrowing link off the edge at 100% and then trying to wonder if link "could have recovered if it weren't for that taunt pause".

also a good point. there are a couple grey areas that need to be worked out i think.

 

[B Link]

I literally just spent 10 minutes and removed the start button with no problem. The rules are the rules. If you pause you lose a stock.

/thread

Leave start button in at your own risk

I'd say you were gonna die anyway (If someone TAS'd this, I predict that the fsmash wins, EVEN IF you b-aired early).

I don't think the rule should be employed right at the pause. Because, let's say hypothetically: VS Match -- 1 stock a piece. You are SPIKED to a guaranteed death. Then, your opponent pauses to taunt you during your inevitable fall-to-death. Should your opponent lose? Lol, that doesn't seem right.

If TAS proves me wrong (I doubt it) then perhaps, a redo at 1 stock a piece is necessary. Get on it Sangoku.

 

[Han Solo]

/thread

Leave start button in at your own risk

Yo B Link, I was playing with ybombb and vwls last Monday. Where were you?

But, to actually respond, my controller doesn't have a start button anymore. Are you suggesting that the ruleset should say, "Start buttons are banned?"

 

[B Link]

Yo B Link, I was playing with ybombb and vwls last Monday. Where were you?

Everyone said they would come at SIX, so I did. And no one was there, so then I got tired and didn't feel like playing anymore. Hope you had some good games, I heard you were doing well against vwls, but lost to ybombb's link?!

Are you suggesting that the ruleset should say, "Start buttons are banned?"

Nope, "Leave start button in at your own risk" would be cool though.

 

[Fireblaster]

so while paused, if i mash dsmash it'll do a dsmash when it unpauses? that's actually good to know.

No, just hold down+A and it'll come out automatically. Holding a direction all the way will make the game trigger it as a smash direction on unpause or match start.

let's say hypothetically: VS Match -- 1 stock a piece. You are SPIKED to a guaranteed death. Then, your opponent pauses to taunt you during your inevitable fall-to-death. Should your opponent lose? Lol, that doesn't seem right. So I think M2K wins. He paused so he loses a stock, but not two because I doubt it caused your death.

That's too bad. The opponent may choose not to enforce the rule because anyone will view him as a giant jerk for it, but there should be zero exceptions. Once you start allowing exceptions, the same thing can happen again but in a slightly less obvious result. And then less obvious than that and eventually you reach a scenario where it's questionable if a pause caused a death and if the pauser loses a stock he'll go "Well why are you taking my stock, you didn't do it that time someone else paused in this similar scenario"

 

[Han Solo]

I heard you were doing well against vwls, but lost to ybombb's link?!

lol wut

I lost to bombb's Puff, Luigi, and Fox. I beat his Link, Yoshi, and Fox (Fox Matches were 2 stock games because we were waiting for vwls and preston to finish a match so we could play teams). I think I 4stocked his link lol. I'm pretty sure that's all we played in singles.

 

[Sensei]

This is a very close call and there needs to be more clarity set around this rule. After hindsight, I still stand by the decision that the pause did not affect your stock loss so M2K only lost 1 stock. As the rule stands now, it does not mention when the player loses their current stock, so that is the grey area. Is it right at that moment (Option 1) or after the buffered inputs (Option 2) ? If it was Option 1, M2K would only lose one stock and Han Solo would still have a stock left as any actions after the pause would be nullified. If it was Option 2, M2K still loses 1 stock and since his moves were already inputted and buffered that would have killed Han Solo whether M2K paused or not at that moment, Han still loses that stock and M2K would win that match. Option 1 or Option 2 has not been explicitly stated in the rule set yet so this needs to be addressed in the community ruleset.

Some other things to consider:

1. After a player forfeits a stock due to a pause, should they be allowed invincibility frames or should players reset to neutral positions and reengage battle after invincibility has disappeared? I vote for the latter.

2. If a Player A has 3 stock and Player B has 1 stock, and Player A pauses which causes Player B to lose a stock, then should Player A win the match due to having one stock left? Obviously no, Player A should forfeit the match.

3. If players have a dispute over a pausing situation and there is no TO or recording setup to witness the event, then what would solution to this situation? Tough call. I was going to suggest if we could use spectators to give a testimony for the TO, but there is always the potential for biased judgement. I think the safe way for this one is to redo the match.

4. The original main question, when does the pausing player forfeit a stock: Immediately after pausing (Option 1) or after buffered inputs/actions (Option 2)?
Option 1, if the pausing player accidentally causes more percent damage after the pause, then should they restart the match with the appropriate amount of stocks after the stock forfeit(s) and the percentage for the unpausing player at the moment of pause, and what about original stage control/position at the moment of pause? If there is a recording setup, setting up the stocks and percentage would be easy. Stage control/position should not matter as if the unpausing player was in midst of a guaranteed zero to death combo, the pausing player has already lost a stock so position would be back to neutral.
If Option 2, any additional inputs or actions after the buffered ones would not count and the pausing player would forfeit the appropriate amount of stocks and players return to neutral position.

5. Gentleman's rule? Should the unpausing player decide if they want to enforce the rule? And how would the TO enforce the anti-gentleman's rule lol. This one is sort of a joke because it is kinda of an unwritten rule anyway and can't really be monitored.

I want to hear what the community thinks about this rule and the points being discussed. I am going to implement a clearer ruleset for the next tournament.

 

[bloodpeach]

2. If a Player A has 3 stock and Player B has 1 stock, and Player A pauses which causes Player B to lose a stock, then should Player A win the match due to having one stock left? Obviously no, Player A should forfeit the match.

I think this rule automatically adds too much TO oversight into the ruleset. TO's can't be everywhere, and trying to determine after the fact whether or not a pause truly contributed to a loss of stock, based only on the opinions of the participants would be a nightmare. You can't always count on objective spectators or on a recording setup.

I think a pause should automatically forfeight a game if the afflicted party chooses to enforce the rule. Anything less and there will always be abusable grey areas. Besides removing the start button is suer easy anyway.

 

[Olikus]

what if you rage pause while you are in dying animation? I know allot of people that does that, and I dont mind it cus it doesnt affect gameplay.

 

[Fireblaster]

what if you rage pause while you are in dying animation? I know allot of people that does that, and I dont mind it cus it doesnt affect gameplay.

No deal. I've almost lost lives because people thought they were being funny by doing that. Most people will just gentleman's rule it and allow the match to continue normally, but if it ever does affect the match somehow, like link getting hurt by his own bomb while the opponent was respawning, then it's all clear for the other guy to force the pauser to lose a stock.

 

[clubbadubba]

SOLUTION:

1. If you pause at any time without asking permission from your opponent or the TO, your opponent can require that you forfeit a stock. This includes "taunt pauses" and any other pause which you haven't asked permission to do, even if it has no effect on anything.

2. If your pause causes an opponents death, the one who died has the choice of

A) Take a stock from the opponent.

B) Add a fresh (0%) stock back to himself.

This will ensure that the one who didn't pause will never get ****ed by a pause as they will always be able to make the best decision for themselves no matter the situation. Saves us the hassle of creating rules for every conceivable situation. A similar rule exists in the NFL to prevent teams from committing penalties to stop the clock late in the game.:

"If the defensive team is behind in the score and commits a foul when it has no time outs left in the final 40 seconds of either half, the offensive team can decline the penalty for the foul and have the time on the clock expire."

The only problem is determining when a pause "caused" someone's death. Imo you should always be more lenient to the one who did not pause.

-ANY HIT resulting in a death from pause should count. The player who paused should not even be throwing out any hitboxes because they should be KILLING THEMSELVES. No human, not even the TO, should be able to make decisions about what would've happened on moves that buffered before the pause if the pause didn't occur. We just don't know unless we somehow export the game state and use TAS, so we shouldn't have anyone pretending to know.

-ANY PAUSE DURING RECOVERY that kills either the recovering player or the edgeguarder (pause messing up pivot ledge hog or something).

-Basically anything that an opponent dies immediately from that isn't an obvious attempt by the opponent to die immediately after the pause, as that's really the only way to abuse this rule.


So in Han vs M2K:

-m2k pauses, loses a stock (1 left)
-m2k kills han, han gets a choice and obviously chooses fresh stock
-1 stock a piece to finish up.

3 stocks vs 1 stock who is recovering:

-3 stocks pauses, loses a stock (2 left)
-1 stock dies, gets a choice (fresh stock
-2 stocks to 1 stock

1 stock vs 1 stock:

-if you pause you lose

 

[Olikus]

No deal. I've almost lost lives because people thought they were being funny by doing that. Most people will just gentleman's rule it and allow the match to continue normally, but if it ever does affect the match somehow, like link getting hurt by his own bomb while the opponent was respawning, then it's all clear for the other guy to force the pauser to lose a stock.

ofc if it affects the other player sure. lose a stock. but i think most players can do the gentlemans rule if it has no affect on the other player. Im not sure if nazi is the right way to go. remember have fun kids.

 

[mixa]

Im not sure if nazi is the right way to go. remember have fun kids.

no fun. never

 

[Zyskyoto]

why is this even a debate. if you pause, you lose a stock. i hate people who do that ****.

 

[bloodpeach]

The fresh stock idea is interesting. Seems like it would kinda be a pain to implement, tho no worse than what happened at smashacre. I still think any solution that requires a judgement isn't the way to go, and while uncommon, there are still ways to die that neither involve getting hit or missing a recovery.

And what about pausing while in a z2d? The offender loses a stock either way, but can halt the opponents momentum or extra time to plan their next approach by pausing. Mango did this during his loss to wobbles at EVO. Is this something we want in the ruleset? It definitely makes a stream less fun to watch.

EDIT: Are people actually suggesting that you need to have lax punishments for pausing in tournament to HAVE FUN while playing?

 

[8-bitBishop]

You pause by accident while trying vigorously to di.....I forgive you.
You repeatedly pause on ever taunt and kill hit in casual play......I forgive you.
You pause at any time for any reason during a tournament the following punishment is to be issued:
(Note: The Pauser may choose one of the following
1: Restrained and tea bagged.
2: Restrained and tea bagged plus lose a stock( in case you are into that sorta thing)
3: Restrained and forced stick tongue on sphincter of nearest pet for 10 seconds.
4: Play rest of match with a dirty sock stuck in mouth.
5: ***** slapped 3x

 

[Shears]

what if someone continually pauses to drink his beer?

Unless its your first tournament, you should be able to drink and smash without pausing by now.

 

[breakthrough]

You pause by accident while trying vigorously to di.....I forgive you.

You pause at any time for any reason during a tournament the following punishment is to be issued:

What if the DI accident was in a tourney?

 

[B Link]

That's too bad. The opponent may choose not to enforce the rule because anyone will view him as a giant jerk for it, but there should be zero exceptions. Once you start allowing exceptions, the same thing can happen again but in a slightly less obvious result.

Since you're getting random likes I'm gonna have to reply to this. I still disagree.

You're pretty much saying: snowball effect. I.e.: if you let someone pause during a guaranteed win (e.g. Kirby spike last hit, 5 frames from blast zone with no more jumps/upb/etc.), more and more people will complain when something not-so-clear happens (e.g. Kirby drills opponent down off the edge, but Kirby pauses on hits 1-3. Then Kirby unpauses. Opponent's rhythm get messed up, and he/she dies, even though, hypothetically, he/she could have DI'd hard up to survive).

So, your stance is:
1) If you pause, you lose a stock. Even if it's 100% clear that the pause did not cause the death (i.e. it was a guaranteed win). This is because of the snowball effect (i.e. there will be issues with less obvious cases).

My reply: It's ridiculous to make, for example, a 100% clear, guaranteed win GF player lose a 1-1 stock match, just because they victory pause (or whatever).

Snowball effect:

eventually you reach a scenario where it's questionable if a pause caused a death and if the pauser loses a stock he'll go "Well why are you taking my stock, you didn't do it that time someone else paused in this similar scenario"

First of all, through TAS, it's never questionable whether a pause causes a death or not. You can always find out. (...OK, it's too tough to have someone TAS during a tourney). But it is often easy to judge by using video replay anyway.

If it's not that easy to judge (though cases like this are super-rare) then get 5 top players or so at the tourney to vote on it. I think most cases will be unanimous.

This solution is much better than the terrible consequence of your stance: someone could pause by accident during a guaranteed win and lose (e.g. they do a victory pause). That's ridiculous. Pretend M2K and Han Solo's match was the last GF match. And let's suppose that it was a 100% guaranteed win for M2K, in spite of the pause. And it was 1 stock a piece. It just seems like making M2K lose there is very unfair. It seems like that decision would ruin the entire tourney.

Let's say a match wasn't recorded. Then you should ask the players what the scenario was. A couple of top players can then discuss it and decide. Maybe they can recreate it to some degree. If the match-players can't remember/they disagree on the actual gameplay scenario, they should re-do the match. Hopefully no one lies about what happened -- but usually there's an audience watching so they can testify as to what really happened.

TL;DR:

My stance: If you pause you lose a stock, EXCEPT when a pause is done after the opponent is already guaranteed to lose (1-1 stock scenario only).

 

[Cobrevolution]

And what about pausing while in a z2d?

not every z2d is a z2d, though. and if we try to draw the line between "truly inescapable z2d's even with impeccable di" and "z2d's that happen because of lazy/no di/good follow up", it gets messy.

i can prevent z2d's pretty consistently vs ness/yoshi. others can't. it doesn't matter if it's "guaranteed" or not; i lose a stock if i pause in the middle of the combo.

then get 5 top players or so at the tourney to vote on it.

this is dumb don't do this

if you pause the ****ing game it's a ****ing stock, and if your opponent dies because of it you lose two. and if it causes you to win the game, you forfeit the game.

you shouldn't need a panel of judges to enforce this

First of all, through TAS, it's never questionable whether a pause causes a death or not.

i have to time samus's upb to counter moves. what if, at smashacre, instead of solo's fox's bair being the thing in question, it was samus's upb? what if, upon pausing, i was about to hit another direction, or wait another split second so i could properly counter m2k's fsmash?

It just seems like making M2K lose there is very unfair.

My stance: If you pause you lose a stock, EXCEPT when a pause is done after the opponent is already guaranteed to lose (1-1 stock scenario only).

you can't say something like "guaranteed to lose". because there are so many instances where someone is "guaranteed" and it just doesn't happen. remember when isai gimped kikoushi? and kikoushi upb'd anyway and isai still went out and got spiked and lost the game? what if kikoushi paused during the spike animation? following the rules that we have and have had, it's a stock loss and the game would've gone to isai.

i'm really not seeing why there should be exceptions here.

 

[B Link]

this is dumb don't do this

Why not? Obviously at n00b tournies they would make mistakes, but who cares about n00b tournies. We're talking apex/zenith stuff here, with people like Isai/Boom/Sensei/Nintendude who I know can come to a consensus on these sorts of things. That is, unless it's a super-rare case, which there hasn't really been in the last 14 years.

if you pause the ****ing game it's a ****ing stock, and if your opponent dies because of it you lose two. and if it causes you to win the game, you forfeit the game.

you shouldn't need a panel of judges to enforce this

Good point -- I'll re-clarify -- if one qualified person can decide, that's good enough. But if it's controversial, and the one person who gets to decide doesn't know what he's talking about, then you gotta get more top level players involved.

i have to time samus's upb to counter moves. what if, at smashacre, instead of solo's fox's bair being the thing in question, it was samus's upb? what if, upon pausing, i was about to hit another direction, or wait another split second so i could properly counter m2k's fsmash?

It seems like you're trying to say that it IS questionable whether a pause causes a death or not. i.e. Someone says: "Your pause caused my death!" while his opponent states: "No, you would've died anyway." But just because they disagree doesn't mean you can't figure it out by looking at the video. In fact, that's what Sensei and Nintendude just did, and it's clear to me as well that Han Solo would've died anyway.

In your hypothetical, Kirby's fsmash will either be guaranteed to hit, or not. If it's guaranteed to hit (and yes...you can figure this out through TAS -- there are cases whereby no matter what Samus inputs after her up-B, she will die anyway -- e.g. if she's really close and is level with kirby's fsmash) and Kirby pauses after the win was guaranteed, then the pause did not cause the Samus player to die.

If it's not guaranteed to hit, and the Kirby player pauses, and after the pause the Samus player runs into the Kirby fsmash accidently, then yes -- you can argue that the pause caused the player to die. I don't disagree with this part of the ruleset. If it causes death then you should lose a stock/redo. But if it's a guaranteed win, why punish the winner for a victory pause after the fact?

you can't say something like "guaranteed to lose". because there are so many instances where someone is "guaranteed" and it just doesn't happen.

Then that's not a guaranteed death, duh? I'm talking about last-hit Kirby dair spikes, 5 frames or so from dying in the blast zone. Are you seriously saying that there are no situations whereby a player is guaranteed to lose? Are you serious? >______________>

remember when isai gimped kikoushi? and kikoushi upb'd anyway and isai still went out and got spiked and lost the game? what if kikoushi paused during the spike animation? following the rules that we have and have had, it's a stock loss and the game would've gone to isai.

i'm really not seeing why there should be exceptions here.

"what if kikoushi paused during the spike animation?"

Not clear enough -- it depends on which part of the spike animation Kikoushi pauses on, and where Isai is (position-wise). Obviously, if Kikoushi pauses when the spike hits, Kikoushi is a guaranteed winner. If I need to explain why, you need to learn more ssb (maybe play MATTS! more).

List of people so far who are disagreeing with me: Fireblaster, cobr, clubbadubba

1 stock vs 1 stock:

-if you pause you lose

My stance: If you pause you lose a stock, EXCEPT when a pause is done after the opponent is already guaranteed to lose (1-1 stock scenario only).

It's a small addition to the rule, but important. It only comes to our attention now because Han Solo's match with M2K highlights it.

 

[clubbadubba]

Blink the problem is "guaranteed to lose" is way to subjective and it is in no way unanimous in a lot of cases. You say it is clear to you that han solo would've died, to me it is not so clear. What would be the call in that case? Sensei seemed to think he was "guaranteed to die", and I guess he's the top player at the tournament so what he would get to make the call even though a decent amount of other not quite as skilled players disagree? That's dumb. And no, I don't see how we would TAS a tournament match 100% perfectly. It is played on console. Yes we have video, but we don't have frame data, or an input history of the players. And even if we could, unless we are actually going to stop the tournament mid match and run TAS, that point is irrelevant.

You're trying to make this a judgment call when there is just absolutely no need to do so. If someone pauses right when they're killing someone then sorry they ****ed up and their opponent can take the win. If their opponent wants to be a gentleman and not take the win (I think most players would do this) that's fine, but otherwise they lose. They are only pausing because:

a) They ****ed up on their inputs. Sorry, don't **** up, and you lose. Take out your pause button n00b

b) They are ***** and are trying to either taunt you or stop you from DIing (even it a situation where there is no di recovery). You definitely lose because you're a ****.

Blink your whole stance is only coming from the fact that you think its lame that people could potentially win big matches from a pause death. Players/teams can win by penalties in other games too. In football you can win on a 10 second runoff (see the NFL rule I posted earlier). I played in a 12 inning baseball game (little league which is only 6 innings in regulation) that ended because a third base coach held out his arm to stop a runner from going home (runner was out by interference, 3 outs, game over). This happens because if you break a rule, you take the consequences, whether its the beginning or end of the game.

Two potential rules here:

-If you pause without asking permission (i.e. rule clarification, avoiding distraction, etc.) you get penalized. If your opponent dies you get double penalized.

-If you pause without asking permission you get penalized. If your opponent dies AND wasn't guaranteed to die before the pause you get double penalized.

One of those requires infinite times the amount of judgement of the other one. I understand the word guaranteed tries to make it completely objective, but we would still have to subjectively determine whether a situation is guaranteed or not. Aim for more objectivity, and the better rule is obvious

Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen. Its not going to happen.

 

[mixa]

unless we are actually going to stop the tournament mid match and run TAS

I can already picture the scene. It would be hilarious.

 

[kys]

This is a very close call and there needs to be more clarity set around this rule. After hindsight, I still stand by the decision that the pause did not affect your stock loss so M2K only lost 1 stock. As the rule stands now, it does not mention when the player loses their current stock, so that is the grey area. Is it right at that moment (Option 1) or after the buffered inputs (Option 2) ? If it was Option 1, M2K would only lose one stock and Han Solo would still have a stock left as any actions after the pause would be nullified. If it was Option 2, M2K still loses 1 stock and since his moves were already inputted and buffered that would have killed Han Solo whether M2K paused or not at that moment, Han still loses that stock and M2K would win that match. Option 1 or Option 2 has not been explicitly stated in the rule set yet so this needs to be addressed in the community ruleset.

Some other things to consider:

1. After a player forfeits a stock due to a pause, should they be allowed invincibility frames or should players reset to neutral positions and reengage battle after invincibility has disappeared? I vote for the latter.

2. If a Player A has 3 stock and Player B has 1 stock, and Player A pauses which causes Player B to lose a stock, then should Player A win the match due to having one stock left? Obviously no, Player A should forfeit the match.

3. If players have a dispute over a pausing situation and there is no TO or recording setup to witness the event, then what would solution to this situation? Tough call. I was going to suggest if we could use spectators to give a testimony for the TO, but there is always the potential for biased judgement. I think the safe way for this one is to redo the match.

4. The original main question, when does the pausing player forfeit a stock: Immediately after pausing (Option 1) or after buffered inputs/actions (Option 2)?
Option 1, if the pausing player accidentally causes more percent damage after the pause, then should they restart the match with the appropriate amount of stocks after the stock forfeit(s) and the percentage for the unpausing player at the moment of pause, and what about original stage control/position at the moment of pause? If there is a recording setup, setting up the stocks and percentage would be easy. Stage control/position should not matter as if the unpausing player was in midst of a guaranteed zero to death combo, the pausing player has already lost a stock so position would be back to neutral.
If Option 2, any additional inputs or actions after the buffered ones would not count and the pausing player would forfeit the appropriate amount of stocks and players return to neutral position.

5. Gentleman's rule? Should the unpausing player decide if they want to enforce the rule? And how would the TO enforce the anti-gentleman's rule lol. This one is sort of a joke because it is kinda of an unwritten rule anyway and can't really be monitored.

I want to hear what the community thinks about this rule and the points being discussed. I am going to implement a clearer ruleset for the next tournament.

Since no one's responded yet I'll give my 2 cents.

1. Neutral positions and reengage battle is the obvious choice here.

2. This gets into some messy gray areas. If you make a forfeit pausing rule, it should just be universal. It's not wise to implement a rule where sometimes it causes a stock loss, sometimes a forfeit. I wouldn't be opposed to restarting the match by giving the shafted player 1 fresh stock and the shaftee player taking the double stock hit. Clubba's idea is better here though.

3. Spectators giving testimony is a bad idea. If the TO is not present or can't make a decision because there was no recording, then redo the match.

4. At the point of the pause, stop the game. Take one stock away from the dude who paused. Ignore what happens after. Restart the match with the appropriate stocks for each player. The application to this for the M2K - Han Solo match would be for M2k to lose his stock for pausing, then restart the match with both players having 1 stock.

5. I have no problem letting the unpausing player decide enforcement or not. That's perfectly fine. That allows for a fair degree of flexibility, which is always a good thing.

Okay, sometimes pausing doesn't affect anything. If you meteor KO your opponent and they're drifting in the background, it's OKAY to pause then. But the only solutions are hard, fast rules or making the TO king, so it's gotta be one or the other. Loose rules that involve interpretation don't work.

 

[Cobrevolution]

Why not? Obviously at n00b tournies they would make mistakes, but who cares about n00b tournies. We're talking apex/zenith stuff here, with people like Isai/Boom/Sensei/Nintendude who I know can come to a consensus on these sorts of things. That is, unless it's a super-rare case, which there hasn't really been in the last 14 years.

because you shouldn't leave something like this up to a select few "top" players. what if top 5 agree but the next 16 disagree? they're pretty high level too but they have a different opinion.

In your hypothetical, Kirby's fsmash will either be guaranteed to hit, or not. If it's guaranteed to hit (and yes...you can figure this out through TAS -- there are cases whereby no matter what Samus inputs after her up-B, she will die anyway -- e.g. if she's really close and is level with kirby's fsmash) and Kirby pauses after the win was guaranteed, then the pause did not cause the Samus player to die.

i'm fairly good at timing the upb to counter, and if the pause means i miss it by one or two frames, someone can look at it and say "well look you didn't even start to upb yet, you were clearly going to die", which is totally wrong. same can be said for a yoshi parry. "well look you were obviously about to get hit by that attack", except the yoshi player was literally about to hit z.

Then that's not a guaranteed death, duh? I'm talking about last-hit Kirby dair spikes, 5 frames or so from dying in the blast zone. Are you seriously saying that there are no situations whereby a player is guaranteed to lose? Are you serious? >______________>

sigh, no. i'm saying people call some things z2d's when they are in theory but they don't always kill. let's say i'm recovering again with samus, low %, and i get last hit kirby daired, but i don't go very far, so i still try to upb anyway. the kirby follows me down and i upb away from him so he misses me and falls. **** like that happens all the time, doesn't it? of course the kirby could've stayed on the stage but some people get greedy despite a "guarantee" and lose the match.

Not clear enough -- it depends on which part of the spike animation Kikoushi pauses on, and where Isai is (position-wise). Obviously, if Kikoushi pauses when the spike hits, Kikoushi is a guaranteed winner. If I need to explain why, you need to learn more ssb (maybe play MATTS! more).

except, you know, if he paused, in which case, he would be the guaranteed loser.

really b link i don't know why you want an exception to the rule. i do not understand what the benefit is of allowing a pause in 1-1 stock scenarios if it's subjective and there's a "guaranteed win".

also clubba may've gotten some of my points before i could respond because dammit clubba

 

[B Link]

I usually don't care about rules, because most of the ones so far have been fine. But you guys are dead wrong here. I honestly don't think you guys even disagree with me. I would bet money that you would not be this strict with the rule if you were a TO.

If you were, this is how it would look like: Opponent is fading off in hyrule's background after a death, opponent victory pauses, and you go: "HOLD ON A SEC, THAT'S A STOCK!" Lmfao.

because you shouldn't leave something like this up to a select few "top" players. what if top 5 agree but the next 16 disagree? they're pretty high level too but they have a different opinion.

This argument can't work. If Ant-d was at the tourney, and the rest of the players were scrubs, are you saying we should consider scrub opinion? Pretty high level doesn't cut it. How far down the rankings would we go then? You gotta cut it off somewhere, mine seems reasonable enough. Top 5 or so.

You guys are severely underestimating the ability of our community to determine whether or not a guaranteed win is a guaranteed win or not.

And no, I don't see how we would TAS a tournament match 100% perfectly.

i'm fairly good at timing the upb to counter, and if the pause means i miss it by one or two frames, someone can look at it and say "well look you didn't even start to upb yet, you were clearly going to die", which is totally wrong. same can be said for a yoshi parry. "well look you were obviously about to get hit by that attack", except the yoshi player was literally about to hit z.

Most cases are not hard to determine. If they are for you guys, maybe it's cuz you guys don't understand enough about ssb, which is fine I guess. Not everyone knows how to TAS or has played situations like I have frame-by-frame. They just see Han Solo vs M2K and think Fox could've b-aired there or something, even though M2K is in the middle of F-smash animation, and Han Solo's bair has a start-up time that hasn't been initiated yet >_>

sigh, no. i'm saying people call some things z2d's when they are in theory but they don't always kill. let's say i'm recovering again with samus, low %, and i get last hit kirby daired, but i don't go very far, so i still try to upb anyway. the kirby follows me down and i upb away from him so he misses me and falls. **** like that happens all the time, doesn't it? of course the kirby could've stayed on the stage but some people get greedy despite a "guarantee" and lose the match.

You're talking about z2ds and non-guaranteed wins, so we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about guaranteed wins -- an objective concept -- and if you can't comprehend what a guaranteed win is we need to stop debating right now, go on Galaxy, and let me fsmash you at 999%. Your situation does change to guaranteed win depending on if we're near the end of your scenarios -- and if the pause occurs near the end of your scenario.

unless we are actually going to stop the tournament mid match and run TAS, that point is irrelevant.

I never even said that. Stop attacking a straw-man. I already admitted this is unfeasible -- but on the flipside you can just look at the video replay or ask good players.

One of those requires infinite times the amount of judgement of the other one. I understand the word guaranteed tries to make it completely objective, but we would still have to subjectively determine whether a situation is guaranteed or not. Aim for more objectivity, and the better rule is obvious

Tries? It does. It's not subjective if the players can correctly determine the results. Which they can, because most cases aren't that hard -- (but I guess for some people it is >_>) Just because two people can't figure out what 2+2=, doesn't mean that we should stop trying to figure it out. You still disagree? So, you realize you're saying: "Meh, our attempts at figuring out what 2+2= is subjective, so **** it 2+2=5" -- yes, this matches our scenario perfectly: "Meh, our attempts at figuring out if this was a guaranteed win is subjective, so **** it LOSER WINS"

Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen. Its not going to happen.

First of all, you’re not even a TO so LOL, I don’t need to reply to this part. Stop speaking so authoritatively, as if you are one, lmao.

Cady: “The limit does not exist!”
Clubba: “No one will ever figure out this subjective ****, **** it the limit must be 2+2=5”

--------

*Side note: Gentleman's rule could potentially replace my modified rule -- but like Sensei said, there is the anti-gentleman's rule problem -- so both have issues with enforcement anyway. Regardless, I don't like the gentleman's rule all that much because someone can be peer pressured into not taking advantage of it. Whereas, if it's solidly in the rulebooks, this problem would not arise.

 

[Cobrevolution]

This argument can't work. If Ant-d was at the tourney, and the rest of the players were scrubs, are you saying we should consider scrub opinion? Pretty high level doesn't cut it. How far down the rankings would we go then? You gotta cut it off somewhere, mine seems reasonable enough. Top 5 or so.

via zenith

1: SuPeRbOoMfAn ($205.00)
2: Sensei ($86.10)
3: A$ ($49.20) (Link)
4: Nintendude ($28.70)
5: KeroKeroppi ($20.50)
5: Stranded ($20.50)
7: Jimmy Joe
7: Rain Shifter
9: Han Solo
9: Wizzrobe (Yoshi)
9: clubbadubba
9: greginator
13: Shade
13: Cobrevolution (Samus)
13: Fireblaster
13: Skyfire

so basically, you're saying boom, sensei, a$, nintendude and kero should be the ones who make such a decision, and the rest of those people's opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration? let it also be known that chain ace and knitephox are in the pools cutoff. so despite chain ace not being a top 5 player, his opinion shouldn't matter as much as the top 5?

come on b link, letting the players decide on things in tournaments is wack and you know it. you can't have things done at players' discretion because of bias and personal feelings. that's why there are tourney rules posted before the tourney and placed around tables during it. TO discretion for each tourney, with clearly stated rules.

Most cases are not hard to determine. If they are for you guys, maybe it's cuz you guys don't understand enough about ssb, which is fine I guess. Not everyone knows how to TAS or has played situations like I have frame-by-frame. They just see Han Solo vs M2K and think Fox could've b-aired there or something, even though M2K is in the middle of F-smash animation, and Han Solo's bair has a start-up time that hasn't been initiated yet >_>

don't go all holier than thou on us. what if solo could've pulled away and used that broken ass enlarged hitbox of fox's bair to clip kirby while he was in the animation, thus, avoiding being hit? or as i said, what if it were a samus and i wouldn't be able to upb to clash?

pausing is a stock. it can lose you a game. don't do it. not even once. you thought meth was bad? pausing is WORSE.

 

[B Link]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0bfV4oX2U&feature=youtu.be

took me about 2 mins to do, would've taken 1 min had it not kept desyncing (someone needs to tell me how to fix this problem)

 

[Cobrevolution]

great! now do that for every situation and we'll be able to tell with total certainty, thanks to tas, that pausing will never affect certain moves! let's see every possible attack with samus upb in all directions next.

 

[clubbadubba]

I would bet money that you would not be this strict with the rule if you were a TO.

How much? I could always use some extra cash. If I ever host a tournament I would use my rule for pausing and enforce it to the letter.

If you were, this is how it would look like: Opponent is fading off in hyrule's background after a death, opponent victory pauses, and you go: "HOLD ON A SEC, THAT'S A STOCK!" Lmfao.

So what kind of **** is pausing in that situation unless he ALREADY ASKED PERMISSION? You're basically lobbying to allow pause taunting in tournaments then? What would probably happen in that situation is that the TO would say that's a stock, and the opponent would say nah man that's okay don't take it as long as the pause wasn't malicious.

This argument can't work. If Ant-d was at the tourney, and the rest of the players were scrubs, are you saying we should consider scrub opinion? Pretty high level doesn't cut it. How far down the rankings would we go then? You gotta cut it off somewhere, mine seems reasonable enough. Top 5 or so.

hey you know who wouldn't finish top 5? Ant-d. Even though he might have the best knowledge of anyone. Why? How good you are is not an authority on how well you are able to determine the future possibilities of a game. Sensei is better than me. He is no better than me at determining what would've happened in that han solo m2k match.

You guys are severely underestimating the ability of our community to determine whether or not a guaranteed win is a guaranteed win or not.

There is already disagreement about the m2k v han solo thing. Pretty clear that it is not a simple task to do.

Most cases are not hard to determine. If they are for you guys, maybe it's cuz you guys don't understand enough about ssb, which is fine I guess. Not everyone knows how to TAS or has played situations like I have frame-by-frame. They just see Han Solo vs M2K and think Fox could've b-aired there or something, even though M2K is in the middle of F-smash animation, and Han Solo's bair has a start-up time that hasn't been initiated yet >_>

And here's the problem. You and some other people think one way about this situation, other people with equal to and/or greater game knowledge think another way about the same situation. And that's okay, because we will NEVER no the truth about what would've happened without the pause. People can point fingers and say how dumb other people are about smash knowledge (which is what you're doing and its pretty ignorant tbh), but neither side is going to prevail as far as the truth is concerned.

Tries? It does. It's not subjective if the players can correctly determine the results. Which they can, because most cases aren't that hard -- (but I guess for some people it is >_>) Just because two people can't figure out what 2+2=, doesn't mean that we should stop trying to figure it out. You still disagree?

IF THE PLAYERS CAN CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE RESULTS is the part that introduces judgement. We are 0 for 1 on coming up with solutions that please a large portion of the community.

So, you realize you're saying: "Meh, our attempts at figuring out what 2+2= is subjective, so **** it 2+2=5" -- yes, this matches our scenario perfectly: "Meh, our attempts at figuring out if this was a guaranteed win is subjective, so **** it LOSER WINS"

Horrible analogy. 2+2 is objective. Its more like "Meh, our attempts at figuring out how this writer would've finished the book had he not died while writing it, so I won't pretend to know what would've happened." Even when another character is in the star finish animation, there is always a chance the player left accidentally suicides. A big change? No, but a chance.

First of all, you’re not even a TO so LOL, I don’t need to reply to this part. Stop speaking so authoritatively, as if you are one, lmao.

My authority comes from the people! But seriously I didn't mean to condescend. It probably be better in the future to not counter someone who you felt condescended you with more condescension.


Oh and in that video, I'm curious, how did you get it to be the exact same situation as the m2k han solo game?

 

[ballin4life]

I distinctly remember a time where, in a tournament, both players were down to one stock high percent and one hit an usmash and instantly pause reset. But some viewers (including Isai) didn't think that the usmash really would have killed.

Moral of the story: just don't pause and don't pause reset. Is it that ****ing hard? Do you really need to save 2s with a pause reset or get your "victory pause" in at the end of the game?


As far as the rules go, I think it is a bit unclear what it means for a pause to "cause" someone to lose a stock. A slightly clearer rule IMO would be "if you pause you must forfeit your stock; if you hit the opponent or the opponent loses a stock in between you pausing and SDing, then you lose another stock".

One other thing people haven't fully accounted for is that losing your stock is really bad if you're at 0%, but not so bad if you're at 200%. Maybe pausing should be -2 stocks by default?

 

[asianaussie]

**** it, just DQ whoever pauses unless it was entirely not their fault

 

[clubbadubba]

One other thing people haven't fully accounted for is that losing your stock is really bad if you're at 0%, but not so bad if you're at 200%. Maybe pausing should be -2 stocks by default?

This is why I like my rule of getting a stock back if you choose, because it makes it so that under no circumstance is pausing beneficial.

 

[Fireblaster]

I take everything back I said. Pausing should make you lose the match, period. Unless the opponent wants to gentleman and allow the match to continue. This is how it is done in the FGC. This is the fairest and simplest way to do things, requires the least effort to judge and sets a precedent that no bull**** is allowed. It also allows opponents to forgive each other for pausing if they want to allow taunt pauses or w/e.

Seriously, any good player can easily put 10 minutes and a screwdriver aside to prevent themselves from losing a match to this rule if they actually care. There is no excuse.

 

[mixa]

Seriously, any good player can easily put 10 minutes and a screwdriver aside to prevent themselves from losing a match to this rule

any player who puts safety before being able to rage quit is not a good player, SORRY

 

[Olikus]

If you were, this is how it would look like: Opponent is fading off in hyrule's background after a death, opponent victory pauses, and you go: "HOLD ON A SEC, THAT'S A STOCK!" Lmfao.

Yeah this was kind of my point. I cant undertand if TOs would allow that to count. But if The person who are losing The game takes The win after The other players victory pause. Well I guess he has to live with being withouth pride and dignity.

 

[Zenyore]

I remember two pausing instances during the WF/GF matches in STYC4 :

The first was when RockinRockinRudy upsmashed me after getting up the ledge on Hyrule. I paused out of surprise as soon as I got hit into the air (it was already at the end of the stock though, hence why it wasn't controversial.)

The second was when RockinRockinRudy (again) had a uair > Falcon Punch combo on Revan's kirby and paused repeatedly to make the FP more dramatic. I think that was fine too, especially as it was the final hit of the GF's Bo7 and had to be as heart wrenching as possible.

The only ways for these two to be controversial would have been if RRRudy had ran into a nado by accident immediately after I unpaused (then again, what is "immediately"?) or if he had missed his FP on Revan. In any case, I believe a one stock removal for both these instances would have been fair. No need for a DQ or a NO EXCEPTIONS rule as we as humans are gifted with this incredible thing called JUDGMENT.

pwn