Let's talk about Pausing during a tourney match

[clubbadubba]

Woah woah woah pausing mid combo to make it look cooler, eliminating any chance revan had of jumping out or ff away from the fp? That's a no no. Even if it's guaranteed, revan would be in his rights to request a video review to make sure it was guaranteed. That's just dumb (and pretty rude by the other player tbh).

And yes, we have judgement. And yes, that judgement often differs even between players who know what they're talking about. How about we all just take out our start buttons so we prevent ourselves from being ***** and pausing mid game?

 

[Zenyore]

Not exactly mid-combo. The FP would have inevitably connected. If anything pausing makes it harder for Falcon if he has to adjust the FP in one of the four directions to influence its hitbox.

Also, pausing is an in-game language. It's a way of expressing our surprise, laughters or even misfortunes. As long as it's properly timed, it doesn't have any negative impact on the game and actually makes it more enjoyable at times for both the players and watchers.

 

[clubbadubba]

Not exactly mid-combo. The FP would have inevitably connected. If anything pausing makes it harder for Falcon if he has to adjust the FP in one of the four directions to influence its hitbox.

Also, pausing is an in-game language. It's a way of expressing our surprise, laughters or even misfortunes. As long as it's properly timed, it doesn't have any negative impact on the game and actually makes it more enjoyable at times for both the players and watchers.

In order to prove it would've inevitably connected, Revan could've requested a review, which would take who knows how long. The thing is, even if, hypothetically, we could video review/TAS every pause and come up with the correct decision, that isn't a better option than players taking out their start buttons. Taking out start buttons is easily doable and is clearly the best option. If you don't do that then you are putting yourself at risk.

Online it is common (more common though no overly frequent) because its the only way to communicate mid match. On console its unnecessary as you can just talk. Not everyone enjoys pausing mid match. I (and most players I've played with) find it pretty annoying and it makes the experience much more unenjoyable as both a player and a watcher.

 

[Zenyore]

In order to prove it would've inevitably connected, Revan could've requested a review, which would take who knows how long. The thing is, even if, hypothetically, we could video review/TAS every pause and come up with the correct decision, that isn't a better option than players taking out their start buttons. Taking out start buttons is easily doable and is clearly the best option. If you don't do that then you are putting yourself at risk.

Online it is common (more common though no overly frequent) because its the only way to communicate mid match. On console its unnecessary as you can just talk. Not everyone enjoys pausing mid match. I (and most players I've played with) find it pretty annoying and it makes the experience much more unenjoyable as both a player and a watcher.

What I said (pay attention to the bold parts) :

Also, pausing is an in-game language. It's a way of expressing our surprise, laughters or even misfortunes. As long as it's properly timed, it doesn't have any negative impact on the game and actually makes it more enjoyable at times for both the players and watchers.

If I'm watching YT matches or rewatching a stream, there's no way I could have heard what Player X said to Player Y. When watching the match, however, I'd find it entertaining to know what reaction a player had after a certain in-game occurrence. For instance, in the Isai vs Boom match Apex LFs, it was unfortunate and somewhat funny when the Kongo Jungle barrel launched Boom horizontally to the stage's blastzones at his last stock IMO. The fact he paused just before the gameset was his way of saying "****" through the game. If we assume there were no cameras recording the players as they played (which is the case for many tourney matches and all online tourneys), then the only way anything can be expressed to the viewer is through in-game language.

Also, I want to make it clear that when I'm referring to Pausing, I'm talking about those quick pauses done at the end of stocks when the player double taps Start so that the pause only lasts an instant, not the kind of pause M2K pulled off on Han. I certainly doubt someone would be aggravated by a pause that only lasts an instant following a stock. If I were to take a stock from the other player in an unusual or stylish way, I'd be glad if he paused, hinting he found the kill interesting. The Revan FP would serve as an exception to this. When I actually witnessed it as part of the crowd, I found it pretty funny and many other people did, including Revan I believe.

As I said, it just adds an extra layer of enjoyment to certain moments for a lot of people.

 

[Fireblaster]

Not exactly mid-combo. The FP would have inevitably connected. If anything pausing makes it harder for Falcon if he has to adjust the FP in one of the four directions to influence its hitbox.

Also, pausing is an in-game language. It's a way of expressing our surprise, laughters or even misfortunes. As long as it's properly timed, it doesn't have any negative impact on the game and actually makes it more enjoyable at times for both the players and watchers.

Sorry Zenyore but that is the biggest load of ****ing bull**** I've ever heard. You wanna know what's an actual in game language? Playing the damn game. With two opponents constantly trying to outplay each other and essentially having a digital discussion on how to win the match. Pausing is absolutely unneeded to create "hype" or "funny" moments.

I'm sure if the tournament had set the rule in place "pausing = loss of game" and boomfan was aware of it, he would have avoided doing it. On the contrary, if boomfan knew revvan well enough that he knew he could pause at the "safe moments", revvan would just not care about the pauses and let the game rock because the rule leaves the decision at the discretion of the other guy who didn't pause.

**** your stupid argument about pausing being "an extra layer of enjoyment". If I ever run into someone that thinks it's funny to keep pausing during a match even though the pauses are "properly timed", I'll give them a warning before I tell them I'll force them to start losing stocks over their "in game language". Not everyone is okay with people constantly pausing, and a lot of people like me find it incredibly irritating playing with someone that thinks it's okay to constantly disrupt the pace of the game, even when someone's already flying into the background to a star death.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Greetings, my children! As Smashboards' savior and the future best-in-the-world of SSB64 I typically refrain from engaging in forum debacles. I know that as the guardian of this community I am supposed to stay neutral. I was originally going to stay quite and see how things played out here, however, no longer will I allow myself to sit back and watch as nothing short of sheer madness (no pun intended) unfolds in this thread. I see now that you need the word of KeroKeroppi to guide you!

Listen young grass hoppers. This entire debates is ridiculous. Why? Because there shouldn't be a debate.

If you pause, in ANY circumstance what so ever, immediately take your stock. If your pause can somehow be linked in any way, shape, or from to the death of your opponent (essentially anything other than your opponent deliberately walking off the ledge), you take two stocks.

It's that simple.

If you victory pause during the last stock of the last game of GF. Too ****ing bad. That's a stock and you lose the game. If you don't have the self control to prevent yourself from victory pausing then you deserve to be punished. Listen. I'd be the first guy to let a pause slide or lose honorably if I got victory paused in a tournament. I support the gentleman's rule. However, rules are rules. If you know that you're not supposed to pause, why on earth would you? Do that **** in frendlies.

Rules exist so that people don't have to get involved with **** like this. I can't believe some of you are actually supporting a rule that requires human judgement. I don't support Fireblaster's view that pausing should result in a game loss. But hell, that rule is still a thousand times better than the rule that essentially says "Well hey, if you're pretty sure your about to win, than **** it. Pause for some stye points."

I am shocked that this even being debated.

That is all. Kero has spoken!

 

[The Star King]

lol first paragraph, nice Star King impression dude

 

[clubbadubba]

I liked kero's post after the 2nd sentence. I'm glad he went in the right direction with his post or I would've sent some mixed messages.

 

[The Star King]

If pause = game loss then tacos is now the worst player in the world

 

[Zenyore]

Sorry Zenyore but that is the biggest load of ****ing bull**** I've ever heard. You wanna know what's an actual in game language? Playing the damn game. With two opponents constantly trying to outplay each other and essentially having a digital discussion on how to win the match. Pausing is absolutely unneeded to create "hype" or "funny" moments.

I'm sure if the tournament had set the rule in place "pausing = loss of game" and boomfan was aware of it, he would have avoided doing it. On the contrary, if boomfan knew revvan well enough that he knew he could pause at the "safe moments", revvan would just not care about the pauses and let the game rock because the rule leaves the decision at the discretion of the other guy who didn't pause.

**** your stupid argument about pausing being "an extra layer of enjoyment". If I ever run into someone that thinks it's funny to keep pausing during a match even though the pauses are "properly timed", I'll give them a warning before I tell them I'll force them to start losing stocks over their "in game language". Not everyone is okay with people constantly pausing, and a lot of people like me find it incredibly irritating playing with someone that thinks it's okay to constantly disrupt the pace of the game, even when someone's already flying into the background to a star death.

Welp, if you don't think an occasional pause indicating your opponent was caught off guard enjoyable, that's your stance on it and I respect that.

I did specify I thought it added an extra layer of enjoyment, but certainly not that anything depended on it to be enjoyable.

The fact that I'm apparently the minority here would mean that the continuum of unnecessary rules that would have to be ensued if this "pausing at the end of a stock is OK" was actually opted for by the majority can be omitted.

I hereby lose this argument and resign myself from the position of Supreme Overlord.

 

[clubbadubba]

Dibs on new Supreme Overlord

 

[mixa]

dibs is such a hilarious expression

always reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWoEjJ01uwI

 

[SheerMadness]

I always thought taunt pausing was a **** move.

If you want to taunt use the button created for taunting. Don't intentionally stop game play, that's annoying as hell.

If you taunt pause vs me in tourney I'll make you lose a stock.

If you accidentally pause vs me in tourney and it had no effect on the match I'll let you keep your stock.

 

[Zenyore]

I always thought taunt pausing was a **** move.

If you want to taunt use the button created for taunting. Don't intentionally stop game play, that's annoying as hell.

Meet SuperDoo.

 

[Olikus]

Greetings, my children! As Smashboards' savior and the future best-in-the-world of SSB64 I typically refrain from engaging in forum debacles. I know that as the guardian of this community I am supposed to stay neutral. I was originally going to stay quite and see how things played out here, however, no longer will I allow myself to sit back and watch as nothing short of sheer madness (no pun intended) unfolds in this thread. I see now that you need the word of KeroKeroppi to guide you!

Listen young grass hoppers. This entire debates is ridiculous. Why? Because there shouldn't be a debate.

If you pause, in ANY circumstance what so ever, immediately take your stock. If your pause can somehow be linked in any way, shape, or from to the death of your opponent (essentially anything other than your opponent deliberately walking off the ledge), you take two stocks.

It's that simple.

If you victory pause during the last stock of the last game of GF. Too ****ing bad. That's a stock and you lose the game. If you don't have the self control to prevent yourself from victory pausing then you deserve to be punished. Listen. I'd be the first guy to let a pause slide or lose honorably if I got victory paused in a tournament. I support the gentleman's rule. However, rules are rules. If you know that you're not supposed to pause, why on earth would you? Do that **** in frendlies.

Rules exist so that people don't have to get involved with **** like this. I can't believe some of you are actually supporting a rule that requires human judgement. I don't support Fireblaster's view that pausing should result in a game loss. But hell, that rule is still a thousand times better than the rule that essentially says "Well hey, if you're pretty sure your about to win, than **** it. Pause for some stye points."

I am shocked that this even being debated.

That is all. Kero has spoken!

You seemed less STRICHT in your previous posts. What a shame.

 

[Sensei]

The OLD pausing rule:
If a player pauses the game, the opponent may deem that player’s current stock forfeit unless there was a legitimate reason to pause in between stocks. If the pause causes the opponent to lose their stock, the pauser loses two stocks.

The NEW and IMPROVED pausing rule:
If a player pauses the game without the opponent's consent, the opponent may deem that player’s current stock forfeit unless there was a legitimate reason to pause in between stocks. If the opponent receives any unnecessary damage after the pause and before the pauser forfeits the stock, then the opponent may choose to reset the match to the appropriate amount of stocks and percentages before the pause occurred with the pauser with one less stock at zero percent.
If the pause causes the opponent to lose their stock, the pauser loses two stocks.
In the event where the opponent has 1 stock and the pauser has 2 stocks and the pause causes the opponent to lose a stock, then the pauser forfeits the match.
In the event where the opponent has 1 stock and the pauser has 3 stocks or more and the pause causes the opponent to lose a stock, then the match will be reset with both players at zero percent and the opponent at 1 stock and the pauser with 2 stocks forfeited from the total his or her total amount before the pause. For example, Player X has 1 stock and Player Y has 3 stocks and Player Y pauses and causes Player X to lose a stock, then match will be reset with both players at 1 stock and zero percent. If a TO is not present to witness the pause incident and there is disagreement between the players, then the players may call over a TO for a decision. The TO may use any reasonable means to come to a proper judgement, i.e. replay of match and testimonials of players and spectators. The TO's judgement and decision are final.

Reasoning behind the NEW and IMPROVED pausing rule:
- Removes any ambiguity
- Covers all scenarios in case of an illegitimate pause
- Promotes fairness for both players
- Victory pauses are rude during tournament matches

 

[Han Solo]

So what would have happend in M2K vs Han Solo? Would M2K have 1 stock, and I would have 1 stock with high damage?

 

[Sensei]

M2K would have had 1 stock and you 0.

 

[Cobrevolution]

but

In the event where the opponent has 1 stock and the pauser has 2 stocks and the pause causes the opponent to lose a stock, then the pauser forfeits the match.

 

[Sedda]

The NEW and IMPROVED pausing rule:
If a player pauses the game without the opponent's consent, the opponent may deem that player’s current stock forfeit unless there was a legitimate reason to pause in between stocks. If the opponent receives any unnecessary damage after the pause and before the pauser forfeits the stock, then the opponent may choose to reset the match to the appropriate amount of stocks and percentages before the pause occurred with the pauser with one less stock at zero percent.
If the pause causes the opponent to lose their stock, the pauser loses two stocks.
In the event where the opponent has 1 stock and the pauser has 2 stocks and the pause causes the opponent to lose a stock, then the pauser forfeits the match.
In the event where the opponent has 1 stock and the pauser has 3 stocks or more and the pause causes the opponent to lose a stock, then the match will be reset with both players at zero percent and the opponent at 1 stock and the pauser with 2 stocks forfeited from the total his or her total amount before the pause. For example, Player X has 1 stock and Player Y has 3 stocks and Player Y pauses and causes Player X to lose a stock, then match will be reset with both players at 1 stock and zero percent. If a TO is not present to witness the pause incident and there is disagreement between the players, then the players may call over a TO for a decision. The TO may use any reasonable means to come to a proper judgement, i.e. replay of match and testimonials of players and spectators. The TO's judgement and decision are final.

You should call it "M2K's stupid rule"

 

[rustyw]

You should call it "The SmashProPlayer rule": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mJCcGOe-BY

 

[The Star King]

You should call it "The SmashProPlayer rule": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mJCcGOe-BY

I didn't know SuperDoo used to live in Peru

 

[Fireblaster]

Reasoning behind the NEW and IMPROVED pausing rule:
- Removes any ambiguity

I disagree with this. The TO still has to decide cases like han solo vs m2k which we weren't even sure of until way after the tournament ended. Had that match not been recorded, it would have been completely up in the air as to what really happened.

I'm gonna change my own stance as well.

1) If a player pauses, his opponent has the right to gain a stock or take away his opponent's stock FROM THE MOMENT OF THE PAUSE IN A REMATCH. So in han solo vs m2k, han could have chosen to start over with both of them having 2 stocks or both being at 1 stock. The REMATCH part is important because it actually DOES remove any sort of ambiguity about the pause. This is because anything that would happen after the pause is completely irrelevant, death or not. Therefore it requires zero decision making from anyone because all it requires is that you know how many stocks each player had at the time of the pause.

2) No rules required for "winning by pause" because you literally can't do that. Even if you have 3 stocks and you make your opponent suicide his last stock with a pause, he still died after the pause so it is irrelevant. so the match is restarted with 3 stocks (pauser) vs 2 or 2 stocks vs 1

I firmly believe this rule is the fairest, the easiest to deal with and implement, and is much simpler than the algorithm of a ruleset that sensei most recently posted. Someone try to tell me what's wrong with this rule for pausing.

 

[clubbadubba]

If a player pauses the game without the opponent's consent, the opponent may deem that player’s current stock forfeit unless there was a legitimate reason to pause in between stocks. If the opponent receives any unnecessary damage after the pause and before the pauser forfeits the stock, then the opponent may choose to reset the match to the appropriate amount of stocks and percentages before the pause occurred with the pauser with one less stock at zero percent.
If the pause causes the opponent to lose their stock, the pauser loses two stocks.

Bold parts are still ambiguous. ANYTHING that happens between pause and the stock forfeit (i.e. fsmash kill, finishing a multi hit attack, edge-hogging, etc.) should be completely undone if the opponent requests it. We don't need discretion. Any damage at all after pause but before life taking is unnecessary.

 

[Fireblaster]

I've yet to have anyone tell me why my ruleset should not be the standard

 

[Shears]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphlSSv8ioA

At 11:35 pause occurs. Regardless of what may or may not have happened. A pause=stock no matter how heartbreaking and painful it may be. Plain and simple.

10lawabidingchars

 

[clubbadubba]

I've yet to have anyone tell me why my ruleset should not be the standard

if someone has 1 life and high damage, and gets headbutted by mario. As he's doing it but after the headbutt connects mario pauses. The player with 1 life is not sure whether or not he will die from the headbutt and would prefer to take mario's life rather than get a life back if he is going to live. Maybe I misread your rule but were you saying they had to decide while the game was still paused or do they get to see whether or not they will die from the headbutt in that scenario?

 

[Fireblaster]

if someone has 1 life and high damage, and gets headbutted by mario. As he's doing it but after the headbutt connects mario pauses. The player with 1 life is not sure whether or not he will die from the headbutt and would prefer to take mario's life rather than get a life back if he is going to live. Maybe I misread your rule but were you saying they had to decide while the game was still paused or do they get to see whether or not they will die from the headbutt in that scenario?

It doesn't matter what happens afterwards. As long the pause happens, the match has to be restarted with the corrected stock count. This means that pausing will automatically guarantee that your opponent's health is reset to zero no matter what regardless of whether they choose to make you lose your stock or gain one for themselves.

It doesn't matter if he was going to die or not, only thing that matters is the stock count at the time of pause and which player paused

 

[clubbadubba]

ah i see.

So under your rule health is always rest to 0?

 

[Shears]

It doesn't matter what happens afterwards. As long the pause happens, the match has to be restarted with the corrected stock count. This means that pausing will automatically guarantee that your opponent's health is reset to zero no matter what regardless of whether they choose to make you lose your stock or gain one for themselves.

It doesn't matter if he was going to die or not, only thing that matters is the stock count at the time of pause and which player paused

Does the player pausing get their health reset to 0? Or do they have to keep their health as a punishment of pausing?

I think fireblaster is on to something here

 

[Fireblaster]

ah i see.

So under your rule health is always rest to 0?

Does the player pausing get their health reset to 0? Or do they have to keep their health as a punishment of pausing?

I think fireblaster is on to something here

Both players will have their health set back to zero simply because the match is restarted and then the stocks adjusted to whatever the guy who didn't pause decides (whether he gains a stock or takes his opponent's stock).

Let's say it's player A and B both have 2 stocks and B is the one that pauses. There are two possible extreme scenarios that can occur from this (for the sake of simplicity, A will always choose to take):

• A has 0% and B has a ton of damage and/or was in a death combo and about to get killed This is the best case scenario for B and worst case scenario for A. The results would be:

1. 1. Old rule:
      A has 2 stocks at 0% while B has 1 stock at 0%
   2. My rule:
      A has 2 stocks at 0% while B has 1 stock at 0%
      Conclusion - In both cases, the pause barely changes the outcome of the match and doesn't hurt A at all. B loses his stock like he was going to. For player A, my rule = old rule.

• A has a ton of damage and is about to die while B has 0%. This is the best case scenario for A and worst case scenario for B. The results for B pausing would be:

1. 1. Old rule:
      A has 2 stocks and a lot of damage while B has 1 stock at 0%
   2. My rule
      A has 2 stocks at 0% while B has 1 stock at 0%
      Conclusion - My rule punishes the guy pausing even harder by healing player A back to 0%. For player A, my rule > old rule.

In terms of the match that continues after the pause, my ruleset is the same or a bit better for the guy not pausing. It also prevents anything extreme like someone pausing and forfeiting the match because he lost 2 stocks at once due to the pausing rule. On top of this, this ruleset requires practically zero human judgement or arbitrary decision making. Nobody has to guess what was about to happen after the pause or "what could have been" or "lose a stock from unnecessary damage" because anything after the pause is irrelevant.

 

[banze]

Liked fireblaster rule better.

Makes more sense IMO. And the fact that you choose either you gain a stock or he loses one is good to, makes it more benefit for the not pauser.

 

[clubbadubba]

Oh man you could completely troll some scrub with this rule lol.

Almost 4 stock them, then star finish them and pause as they're about to die. They get to take life back which resets you to 0%. Rinse and repeat until you've crushed their spirit and they choose not to take a life back. Sounds fun!

 

[banze]

eheheh ^
good way to join more players to the community =D
but not really!

 

[Fireblaster]

I'd like to add that if my rule is implemented, it has the option of being gentlemanned to whatever degree. If someone pauses during a star death while nothing's happening, neither player could give a **** and let the match continue. If the pause happens during a combo and nothing else consequential happens from the pause, the non-pauser could agree to just letting the pauser take his own without having to restart the match at correct stocks.

 

[Shears]

I'd like to add that if my rule is implemented, it has the option of being gentlemanned to whatever degree. If someone pauses during a star death while nothing's happening, neither player could give a **** and let the match continue. If the pause happens during a combo and nothing else consequential happens from the pause, the non-pauser could agree to just letting the pauser take his own without having to restart the match at correct stocks.

Or they could just gentlemen your rule for sensei's. Whichever is easier.

10circumventchars

 

[prisonchild]

haven't read through the entire thread but through most of it.

why are people trying to complicate things? and why are people trying to give the pauser the benefit of the doubt? you can't draw a soft line in the sand when there are so many variables. set a hard rule on either side (again, I say on the side of the rule-breaker) and enforce all occurrences the same.

everyone knows (or should know) that pausing is not allowed unless given permission from your opponent. if you pause after spiking someone you deserve to lose two stocks. if you do what M2K did you deserve to lose two stocks and in that case the match. make all loss of stocks from the time the pause occurred and stop trying to rationalize why they paused or the outcome of it.


pausing inadvertently really throws off the tempo of the match and there should be no wiggle room (or as little as possible). TAS? watching replays? the two players describing the situation to the TO? how do any of those things make sense?


that didn't come out very articulately because I am rushed but maybe i'll reword it later.

 

[Fireblaster]

It's like prisonchild didn't even read my rule or any of my posts at all

 

[B Link]

So just in case anyone's wondering, I still stand by my initial stance -- namely, "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)." I won't change my stance just because of peer pressure (like Zenyore did). Although, obviously, TOs (e.g. Sensei, Nintendude) of a tourney can decide whatever they want for their own tourney. I will note that Sensei's new ruleset does incorporate some decision-making on the part of the TOs. So it seems like he is in agreement with parts of what I've said.

I don't feel like arguing with Clubba x Cobr anymore cuz I don't feel like 1v1 debates should continue ad infinitum (they should have a limited # of replies). I understand and acknowledge why they disagree with me, and some points are somewhat persuasive, but I still am inclined to support the above stance.

Prisonchild is a new person though so time to infect his thoughts

----

To Prisonchild:

So, in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD5PdtJBhDk vwls and sextc should lose? For our community to support that is silly.

Counter-argument: But da focks would probably apply the gentleman's rule.

Reply: That's not guaranteed. What if the match was for a lot of $? $1,000? I know a lot of players who would take the W, despite whatever impact it would have on their rep.

you can't draw a soft line in the sand when there are so many variables.

What do you think about guaranteed wins like the one I link above?

pausing inadvertently really throws off the tempo of the match and there should be no wiggle room (or as little as possible).

I agree, pausing during the match (non-guaranteed-win-scenarios, non 1-1 stock scenarios) should not be allowed.

TAS? watching replays? the two players describing the situation to the TO? how do any of those things make sense?

TAS, at the moment, cannot work. I think the other two options could work though? Why is it unreasonable to watch a replay and decide from there? Maybe the two players describing the situation is a little messy, but if it's an easy situation (e.g. Luigi UpB at 300%, with no walls/obstacles to interrupt death), I don't see a problem with this. If it's a hard situation, OK, perhaps they should redo the match.

that didn't come out very articulately because I am rushed but maybe i'll reword it later.

It wasn't that bad


----

 

[Sangoku]

Wasn't there a Melee match where a dude suicided during a star KO and lost the match? No guaranteed kill until you hear "GAME SET".