Editing Pause
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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 83: | Line 83: | ||
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. | 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 | 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 paused the game for an unknown reason (he and his teammate had one stock left each). 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. | ||
Since the Apex 2013 controversy, tournament officials have called for stronger enforcement on the matter, clearly stating that pause must be turned off before the start of a set, and often requiring a player to give up their stock, regardless of the opponent's request. | Since the Apex 2013 controversy, tournament officials have called for stronger enforcement on the matter, clearly stating that pause must be turned off before the start of a set, and often requiring a player to give up their stock, regardless of the opponent's request. |