Forum:Why didn't they make items fair?
Now, I already posted this in Smashboards, but the community there is downright awful, so now I'm posting it here hoping for some REAL conversation.
So, items are always turned off in tournements because they spawn randomly, giving an unfair advantage to some certain players, right? Now, in Mario Kart, people in last place are more likely to get better items. So how come in Brawl, players in last place don't get better items spawned nearer to them?
Hear me out-some official from Nintendo (pretty sure its Sakurai, not sure) has said that they want new players to still be able to hold their ground against an expert. Obviously, tournemants would still turn them off, and I probably would too, unless it was my grandma or an 8 year old cousin. But still, if Nintendo wanted this, why didn't they use the Loser Gets Good Items system (from now on, lets call it the LGGI)? Yeah, we have Pity Smashes, but you really need to be losing to get those, and they only bring you up one point/stock.
As a matter of fact, this would fix other problems-it would stop camping (probably not in proffesional play), because the loser will get good items, and you might be able to steal them if you stay close. Overpowered charecters? Lets see how well they do against an assist trophy and the blasts of a ray gun while surrounded by motion sensor bombs.
I dunno, just my thoughts. I really don't get why Nintendo, with their mindset, wouldn't use the LGGI system from Mario Kart. If you really hate the idea of being able to be beat by anyone, you can turn items off. Paradox Juice (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if someone in last is getting beaten up, that person is probably moving around as it is. So even if a good item popped beside him/her, he/her would either get punch far from the item or ran past it in order to atleast try to get away from being beaten up. Unknown the Hedgehog 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Hadn't thought about that, it could easily cause the opposite to happen. Paradox Juice (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The main problem I have with items is that, at least in Brawl, they're far too easy to grab. Grabbing items in midair is fine, but you probably don't want to grab a Mr. Saturn during a dash attack or a tech. And eating while reclining is utterly useless; if anything it forces you to eat something instead of pressing A to attack and get up. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, there should be a seperate button for that. Even with customizable controls, there are problems, since attack and pick up item is always the same thing. The other thing that gets on my nerves is controlling smashes-I always do them when I'm trying to do a tilt, and you can't charge a smash attack with the D-Pad buttons. It drives me insane, it does, why Nintendo didn't let you charge smashes with the D-Pad. Paradox Juice (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
All right, here's how it goes. Item is derived from the Latin phrase itimus which can also be translated in Sanskrit to mean "that which cannot be bought using cows." So there we have it; we can't trade cows for items. How does that help? I'm glad you asked. You see, Otto von Bismark once explained to me the economic fluctuations of the secondary cow market and namely the problems he ran into while trying to emancipate Luxembourg from the pan-tyrannical rule of El Cid. You see, El Cid didn't want to take the cows, but all Otto could offer besides that were some items. Now, this may not seem like a problem, but then I was reminded that Galileo's fifth law of transitivity states that if one thing is refused for a personal reason even thought it satisfies the value of the trade, then it is of equal value to any other thing accepted in that trade or also consequently refused for personal reasons. Therefore, because the only thing El Cid had against the cows was that he was waccophobia (fear of cows), accepting the items would mean that they were of the same value as the cows and therefore could be bought using cows. This would make the Sanskrit meaningless and thus, as predicted by the Lost Dialogue of Plate, make the use of geese as messengers obsolete. Now, Otto von Bismark relied heavily of the goose trade, so he had no choice but to manufacture a higher value on the cows. So there you have it. That's why items can't be balanced. 13375poolR (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- -_-' *speechless* Metalink187 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
O_O' Umm, describe that in a manner that isn't jibberish to the human eye. Learner4 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well it's like this. When you've got two fizzles, you can make a wranog. Okay, and a yipnik is a kind of fizzle, but only when the temperature intervocalically EXCEEDS 20% humidity. So, if you've got 2 yipniks, you CAN make a wranog, but only WHILE the temperature exceeds 20% humidity, and if while you have a wranog made of 2 fizzles which are also yipniks, and the temperature goes below that, well, then, I guess we all know how that turns out per the Barbra Streisand debacle of at the 1523 World's Fair. Kaboom. Got me now? 13375poolR (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
