Smash Smash Items

[I_AmTheReaper]

Good morning, noon, or night.

I recently made a hastily written, 1 line thread about the trident (Dreizack) in Smash. Here I intend to elaborate on that, as well as highlight some issues with some of the other items.
So, I previously stated that the trident should only have 1 use instead of 3. This is for balance between the items. Look at Rettungsschleim, for example. It has only 1 use, and is completely useless if you have any kind of horizontal momentum. You activate it and just fly straight past it. If you wait until you have no more horizontal momentum you're often to far away or below the map to make it back with a double jump. (Solutions for this include setting the players horizontal velocity to 0 when activating a slime, making the slime bigger, or making it spawn directly under the players feet instead of a few blocks below the player.) So why should the trident have 3 uses that can save you from almost any situation, when the Rettungsschleim, which can only save you around 40% of the time, has 1 use? It's a simple matter of item balance. If you're in a tight game with only 2 players left and you both have 1 life, and your opponent gets a trident, you now have to "kill" them 3 times to wear out their trident before you can actually kill them. That means you can outplay an opponent 6 times, but if they get lucky and get 2 tridents, while you get unlucky and get items like Leuchten or Zucker, you're fucked.

Which segues nicely into my next point: Leuchten and Zucker are pretty useless. Leuchten is good when there's someone hiding at the end of the game, or if you've been hit by a Tintengranate. Otherwise it provides no advantage whatsoever, and just causes unnecessary frame lag for a lot of players. Zucker is a little more helpful, allowing you to outrun opponents and have an easier time getting first hit on them, but I still find myself being quite disappointed when an item spawns and I see it's Zucker.

I made a thread a little while ago about items randomly disappearing. I was told in that thread it was actually intentional for items to disappear when you're between 70-100% knockback, but it still seems random. Since then I've been paying attention to it and I've both kept items through that range without using them, as well as lost items while outside of that range.
This system is ridiculous. If you're concerned about players holding onto items too long, give each item a time limit. 1 minute, for example. And then have a display to show the player how long they have the item for. It's a complete joke when you have a strong item, like Schweben, take some more risks, and then as soon as you need it it disappears. There's no warning, there's no counter play, it just happens and it's incredibly frustrating.
Alternatively, if you don't like the time limit idea, you can still use a system based on your %, but then you have to take into account what you start at when you collect an item. So if you're at 68% when you collect an item, then it should disappear by 138% if you haven't used it, for example.

There are too many different food items.
Before the last update, getting an apple, and especially a golden apple, felt special. It felt like you weren't really supposed to be able to lower your %, and that made it feel powerful when you could. Now, getting an apple that lowers your % by a measly 15% feels worthless. Even the golden apple doesn't feel that significant compared to the beet soup and cake. This really undermines the system. The point of the % is that it gets harder to survive the longer you've gone without dying. Being able to fairly easily get back to 0% makes that feel irrelevant.

The Extra-Leben is complete jank.
The extra life is an awful addition. It's entirely luck based. Whoever spawns closest to it gets a freebie. It can ruin the feeling of a close and tense 1v1 at the end of the game. Especially if you would've won but your opponent got the extra life. Ideally I would like to see it removed entirely. If it has to stay, however, I would like to see some kind of contested zone for it. For example you have to stand within 5 blocks of the extra life for X number of seconds alone before you get it. That way there is at least some skill involved in getting it. Or at the very least some control.

Overall, I think the items make the game incredibly luck based and frustrating.
Look at Mario Kart, for example. There, the players that are ahead in the race get relatively weak items, like shells and bananas, whereas players in the back get stronger items like bullet bills, lightning, golden mushrooms, and stars. This system helps make the game fun even if the players have varying levels of skill. It gives weaker players a chance to use items to catch up.
In Smash, anyone can get any item, and this actually does the opposite. Good players that know how to use the items effectively get an even larger advantage over new/weaker players that don't know how to use the items very well. A solution for this would be for the items to not be predetermined, but rather determined once they've been picked up.
For example, players that have 3 lives can get steak, apples, iron swords, and grenades.
Players with 2 lives can get grenades, golden apples, beet soup, diamond swords, rettungsschleime, and rockets.
Players with 1 life can get rocket launchers, cake, tridents, and fire swords.

P.S. you can answer in German. I understand it just fine. It's simply easier for me to write in English

Edit: Credit to @CrazyCyber2000 for the Rettungsschleim change suggestions

 

[Jennoii]

For example, players that have 3 lives can get steak, apples, iron swords, and grenades.
Players with 2 lives can get grenades, golden apples, beet soup, diamond swords, rettungsschleime, and rockets.
Players with 1 life can get rocket launchers, cake, tridents, and fire swords.

I know your main focus doesnt lay on those three points. But I wanted to say something about this first, while thinking about your other points to get my opinion straight.
So as you already mentioned earlier, the better the player, the harder it gets to kill him if he gets the good items. In that case your solution there would easily be overcome by the good players jumping of like one time at the beginning of the round, losing 1 live for getting better items, which they use to kill the other - in an ideal round worse - players, until they all got but one life left. Then, to also get the good items to be at no disadvantage there, the good player would jump off again, so that they can also use the good items. So even with your items depending on the lives system would be no use if the player is skilled enough to not get killed easily before he can finish off the other players.

I know that there may be hardly any round where there is but one good player in there.But it also works, if there are multiple good players. Whoever gets to die first, has the item advantage. And even if we would say, that both or all of the good players wouldnt consider jumping down just for the items, they will certainly die sooner or later so they will actually get to the point, where they'll have the good items. Even if there'll be like 6 other players full life. If they are good players, just overcome them with the good items which they cant get until they also have but one life left. If they're bad players... well they'll be dead in no time with or without items. So basically the system you proposed just changes the game to the fact, that the good players die two times befor they win, which doesnt really solve your problem of an unbalanced game.
Yeah, for sure its easier to kill off a person with one life left, since you just need to kill that person once... But the better the player, the harder it gets to even get them killed once.
It may be a solution to some rounds, but not an entirely good one.

And concerning your other points I will think about and probably will say something as well. depending on my thought process and what other people mention before me ^^

Spoiler: Auf deutsch

Ich weiß, dass dein Hauptaugenmerk nicht auf diesen drei Punkten liegt. Aber ich wollte zuerst etwas dazu sagen, während ich über deine anderen Punkte nachdenke, um mir meine Meinung klar zu überlegen.

Wie du schon gesagt hast, je besser der Spieler ist, desto schwieriger wird es, ihn zu töten, wenn er gute Items bekommt.
In diesem Fall würde deine Lösung leicht übergangen werden, indem die guten Spieler einmal zu Beginn der Runde runterspringen, 1 Leben verlieren um bessere Items zu bekommen, die sie dann nutzen, um die anderen - in einer idealen Runde schlechteren - Spieler zu töten, bis sie alle nur noch ein Leben haben. Dann, um auch die guten Items zu bekommen und keinen Nachteil zu haben, würde der gute Spieler wieder runter springen, damit er auch die guten Items benutzen kann. Also selbst mit den Items, die von der Anzahl der Leben abhängig sind, würde es nichts bringen, solange der Spieler geschickt genug ist nicht so leicht getötet zu werden, bevor er die anderen Spieler erledigen kann.

Ich weiß, dass es kaum eine Runde geben wird in der nur ein guter Spieler dabei ist, aber es funktioniert auch wenn es mehrere gute Spieler in der Runde gibt. Derjenige, der zuerst stirbt, hat den Vorteil der besseren Items. Und selbst wenn wir sagen würden, dass die beiden - oder alle - guten Spieler nicht auf die Idee kämen, nur wegen der Items zu sterben, werden sie früher oder später sicherlich sterben, sodass sie tatsächlich an den Punkt kommen an dem sie die guten Items bekommen. Selbst wenn es 6 andere Spieler oder so gibt, die noch ihr volles Leben haben. Wenn es gute Spieler sind, überwinde sie einfach mit den guten Items, die sie erst bekommen können, wenn sie auch nur noch ein Leben haben. Wenn es schlechte Spieler sind... nun, dann kann der gute Spieler in kürzester Zeit töten mit oder ohne Items. Im Grunde genommen ändert das von dir vorgeschlagene System das Spiel also nur dahingehend, dass die guten Spieler zweimal sterben bevor sie gewinnen, was dein Problem eines unausgewogenen Spiels nicht wirklich löst.

Ja, natürlich ist es einfacher, eine Person komplett zu töten, die nur noch ein Leben hat, da man sie schließlich nur noch einmal töten muss... Aber je besser der Spieler ist, desto schwieriger wird es, ihn auch nur einmal zu töten.

Es mag eine Lösung für einige Runden sein, aber keine wirklich andauernde.

Und was deine anderen Punkte angeht, werde ich darüber nachdenken und wahrscheinlich später etwas dazu sagen, je nachdem was ich mir so überlege und was andere User vllt noch so vor mir sagen ^^

 

[I_AmTheReaper]

I know your main focus doesnt lay on those three points. But I wanted to say something about this first, while thinking about your other points to get my opinion straight.
So as you already mentioned earlier, the better the player, the harder it gets to kill him if he gets the good items. In that case your solution there would easily be overcome by the good players jumping of like one time at the beginning of the round, losing 1 live for getting better items, which they use to kill the other - in an ideal round (please, just thin kof it as an example) worse - players, until they all got but one life left. Then, to also get the good items to be at no disadvantage there, the good player would jump off again, so that they can also use the good items. So even with your items depending on the lives system would be no use if the player is skilled enough to not get killed easily before he can finish off the other players.

I know that there may be hardly any round where there is but one good player in there.But it also works, if there are multiple good players. Whoever gets to die first, has the item advantage. And even if we would say, that both or all of the good players wouldnt consider jumping down just for the items, they will certainly die sooner or later so they will actually get to the point, where they'll have the good items. Even if there'll be like 6 other players full life. If they are good players, just overcome them with the good items which they cant get until they also have but one life left. If they're bad players... well they'll be dead in no time with or without items. So basically the system you proposed just changes the game to the fact, that the good players die two times befor they win, which doesnt really solve your problem of an unbalanced game.
Yeah, for sure its easier to kill off a person with one life left, since you just need to kill that person once... But the better the player, the harder it gets to even get them killed once.
It may be a solution to some rounds, but not an entirely good one.

And concerning your other points I will think about and probably will say something as well. depending on my thought process and what other people mention before me ^^

I see what you're saying, and yes, my system isn't perfect, but it's better than the current system.
And most good players won't intentionally die. In Mario Kart, would a good player intentionally become last place to get better items? No, because being in first place is better than being in last with a good item. It's the same in Smash. You try to win with all 3 lives, and only go down to 1 or 2 lives if it's too difficult. (both because a lot of players care about their stats, and because if you truly need the better items, you'll end up getting to 1 life eventually anyway)

 

[Jennoii]

I recently made a hastily written, 1 line thread about the trident (Dreizack) in Smash. Here I intend to elaborate on that, as well as highlight some issues with some of the other items.
So, I previously stated that the trident should only have 1 use instead of 3. This is for balance between the items. Look at Rettungsschleim, for example. It has only 1 use, and is completely useless if you have any kind of horizontal momentum. You activate it and just fly straight past it. If you wait until you have no more horizontal momentum you're often to far away or below the map to make it back with a double jump. (Solutions for this include setting the players horizontal velocity to 0 when activating a slime, making the slime bigger, or making it spawn directly under the players feet instead of a few blocks below the player.) So why should the trident have 3 uses that can save you from almost any situation, when the Rettungsschleim, which can only save you around 40% of the time, has 1 use? It's a simple matter of item balance. If you're in a tight game with only 2 players left and you both have 1 life, and your opponent gets a trident, you now have to "kill" them 3 times to wear out their trident before you can actually kill them. That means you can outplay an opponent 6 times, but if they get lucky and get 2 tridents, while you get unlucky and get items like Leuchten or Zucker, you're fucked.

Okay alright, I'll just start with this point first.
I agree, the trident is too strong. Personally whilst playing against good players like @Kaniggelul who know how to make a good use of the trident, I'll go around the map to the item spawn points to see whether there is a trident, pick it up and press F to delete it (or to pray, that Nuggel loses, choose whichever). It might be a tactic to prevent them from having tridents... but only for like some minutes, because as soon as there arent that many players left alive, they could just go to all the items spawn points, I cant possibly go to in 2 seconds. Which leaves them a good chance to get a trident and as soon as that happens I could just jump off as I will loose anyway. So yeah, I can totally understand your point, that we should balance the trident a little.
BUT I wouldnt go as far as cutting it down to 1 use. I personally think, that 2 uses would be good. Because sometimes when your opponent gets a good hit or your a the very edge of the map and falling down, 1 use wouldnt be enough to safe you. So instead 2 uses could be enough if your timing is right. Yes, that would be 2 more chances to live if its a minor threat to death where you'll need but one use to get back on the blocks. But it's far better than 3 uses.
Also I agree, that the Rettungsschleim should be fixed as you suggested. (either: "making it spawn directly under the players feet instead of a few blocks below the player." or "setting the players horizontal velocity to 0 when activating a slime" would be fair enough I'd say).
With both points taken care of, I would see those items as more balanced regarding each another. It's clear, that Zucker and Leuchten won't be as great as an opportunity to safe your life, but I would say it's hard and unfair to compare those items as the way they work and are intended to use are totally different ways.

Which segues nicely into my next point: Leuchten and Zucker are pretty useless. Leuchten is good when there's someone hiding at the end of the game, or if you've been hit by a Tintengranate. Otherwise it provides no advantage whatsoever, and just causes unnecessary frame lag for a lot of players. Zucker is a little more helpful, allowing you to outrun opponents and have an easier time getting first hit on them, but I still find myself being quite disappointed when an item spawns and I see it's Zucker.

You say, they are useless but in the same sentence you state their uses. So I guess they are not completely useless? One could probably make them spawn less, but then the other items, the more OP one would spawn more often.
Which I personally think is not that nice either. If every like 6th item on the same item spot spawns a grenade, a rocket launcher or a trident, the round would be over far too early and the new players - as you mentioned as well - would have nearly no chance to win, as the older and better players would know how to make good use of the good items.
So I guess, its more convenient to let the item pool be bigger with some less useful items that still have some good use, if you get them, but arent good every time you get them, so every once in a time, there can be a fight without items.

Wich I would say, is the reason, why there should be this many types of food. Okay probably not that many. But I'd still say, it's better having more than 2. Because then its easier to get down the percent when you are incredibly lucky surviving until you get like 300. Also you don't feel like its a waste to use a golden apple on 5% anymore. Before I was keeping the apple, until I had more percent, so that it would be more useful to me. Now I know its easier to get food, so I can use it more freely. Maybe we could cut it down to like 4 different types and not... 6? (not quite sure, how many we got). But I'd still say, the more the merrier to make it less possible for the most OP items to spawn. Also the cake for example is rarer than the apple or the steak, as it makes you lose more percent. So I wouldnt say the food spawns too often.

The Extra-Leben is complete jank.
The extra life is an awful addition. It's entirely luck based. Whoever spawns closest to it gets a freebie. It can ruin the feeling of a close and tense 1v1 at the end of the game. Especially if you would've won but your opponent got the extra life. Ideally I would like to see it removed entirely. If it has to stay, however, I would like to see some kind of contested zone for it. For example you have to stand within 5 blocks of the extra life for X number of seconds alone before you get it. That way there is at least some skill involved in getting it. Or at the very least some control.

Yep, agreed. That was our frst intention. I am not quite sure, but I think I remember hearing, that its not meant to be the one klick and you have the life solution but really the one you suggested as it was the one proposed. Personally I would keep the extra life, cause it makes a great opportunity to make a comeback in game, if one was really unlucky to die 2 times before really being able to pull something. And if one could just mark one point on each map, where this items spawns definetely (and only there) at halftime, it would be a much hotter spot, where more people would try to gather the later in the game we are. And as you said, I would make a timer. Probably something like in Kontrollpunkte in MP? That you have to be the only one in the radius for like 5 seconds?

I see what you're saying, and yes, my system isn't perfect, but it's better than the current system.
And most good players won't intentionally die. In Mario Kart, would a good player intentionally become last place to get better items? No, because being in first place is better than being in last with a good item. It's the same in Smash. You try to win with all 3 lives, and only go down to 1 or 2 lives if it's too difficult. (both because a lot of players care about their stats, and because if you truly need the better items, you'll end up getting to 1 life eventually anyway)

I can understand where your example comes from. But personally I wouldnt compare a race game to a kind of Battle Royal Game, cause the goal is quite different. I mean, I guess I understand your point and you got one there. But I also think, that it wont change that much. As already stated by both of us, the good players will also go down to 1 life eventually whether they want or not. So at that point, nothings changed from before except that its easier to finish off an opponent for good. So yeah probably it would be a better situation than now, but I dont really think so.
And also I would say in a fighting game it really matters more to have the better weapons than having more lives.

Spoiler: Auf Deutsch

Ich stimme zu, der Dreizack ist zu stark. Wenn ich persönlich gegen gute Spieler wie Niggel spiele, die wissen, wie man den Dreizack richtig einsetzt, gehe ich um die Map rum zu den Item-Spawn-Punkten um alle Dreizäcke aufzuheben und zu löschen. Es ist eine Taktik, um zu verhindern, dass deine Gegner Dreizäcke kriegen können... aber die klappt leider nur für ein paar Minuten. Denn sobald nicht mehr so viele Spieler leben, können die Gegner einfach ans andere der Map, wo ich nicht innerhalb von 2 Sekunden den Dreizack zerstören kann. Also ja, ich kann deinen Standpunkt total verstehen, dass wir den Dreizack ein wenig ausgleichen sollten.

ABER ich würde nicht so weit gehen, ihn auf 1 Use zu reduzieren. Ich persönlich denke, dass 2 Uses ausreichend viel und wenig zugleich wären. Denn manchmal, wenn dein Gegner einen guten Treffer landet oder du am Rande der Map stehst und runter geschlagen wirst, würde 1 use nicht ausreichen, um dich zu retten. Stattdessen könnten 2 uses mit richtigem Timing helfen.
Ja, das wären zwar auch 2 weitere Chancen zu überleben, wenn es sich um eine geringfügige 'Stürze' handelt aber es ist viel besser als 3 uses.

Ich stimme auch zu, dass der Rettungsschleim wie von dir vorgeschlagen angepasst werden sollte. (entweder: direkt unter dir spawnen oder die Velocity auf 0 setzen bei Aktivierung wäre fair genug, würde ich sagen).

Wenn man sich um beide Punkte kümmert, würde ich Rettungsschleim und Dreizack als ausgewogen in Bezug aufeinander betrachten.
Klar, Zucker und Leuchten sind nicht so eine toll wie eine Möglichkeit, sein Leben zu retten, aber ich würde sagen, dass es schwierig und unfair ist, diese Gegenstände zu vergleichen, da die Art und Weise wie sie funktionieren und wie sie eingesetzt werden sollen völlig unterschiedlich ist.

Du sagst, dass sie nutzlos sind, aber im selben Satz nennst du ihren Nutzen. Also sind sie nicht völlig nutzlos? Man könnte wahrscheinlich dafür sorgen, dass die beiden weniger spawnen, aber dann würden andere Gegenstände wie Raketenwerfer öfter spawnen.

Was ich persönlich auch nicht so schön finde. Wenn etwa jedes 6. Item auf dem gleichen Item-Spot eine Granate, einen Raketenwerfer oder einen Dreizack spawnen würde, wäre die Runde viel zu früh vorbei und neue Spieler hätten - wie du auch schon erwähnt hast - kaum eine Chance zu gewinnen, da die älteren und besseren Spieler eher wissen, wie man diese Items gut einsetzt.

Ich denke also, es ist also sinnvoller, den Item-Pool mit einigen weniger nützlichen Gegenständen zu erweitern, die trotzdem noch einen guten Nutzen haben können, wenn man sie bekommt. Zwar nicht jedes Mal gut sind, aber dadurch hin und wieder einen Kampf ohne Items ermöglichen.

Was ich sagen würde, ist außerdem der Grund, warum es so viele Arten von Essen geben sollte. Okay, vielleicht nicht soooo viele. Aber ich würde trotzdem sagen, dass es besser ist, mehr als 2 zu haben, weil es dann einfacher ist die Prozente runterzukriegen. Gerade wenn man unglaublich viel Glück hat, das man 300 oder mehr % hat. Außerdem hat man so auch nicht mehr das Gefühl, dass es eine Verschwendung ist einen goldenen Apfel auf 5% zu verwenden.
Vielleicht könnten wir es ja auf 4 verschiedene Arten reduzieren und nicht... 6? (bin mir nicht ganz sicher, wie viele wir haben). Aber ich würde trotzdem sagen: je mehr desto besser, damit die OP-Gegenstände nicht so leicht spawnen können. Auch ist der Kuchen zum Beispiel seltener als der Apfel oder das Steak, da man dadurch mehr Prozent verliert. Ich würde also nicht sagen, dass das Essen zu oft spawnt.

//

Ja, stimme zu. Das war auch eigentlich unsere ursprüngliche Absicht. Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, aber ich glaube mich zu erinnern gehört zu haben, dass es nicht die "Ein Klick und du hast das Leben"-Lösung sein sollte, sondern die von dir vorgeschlagene, weil es die ursprüngliche intendete war.
Ich persönlich würde das Extraleben beibehalten, weil es eine gute Möglichkeit ist ein Comeback im Spiel zu machen, wenn man vorher wirklich Pech hatte. Vor allem wenn man nur einen SpawnPunkt auf jeder Map auswählen könnte, an dem dieses ExtraLeben definitiv (und nur dort) zur Halbzeit spawnt, wäre das ein viel heißeres Gebiet, in dem sich mehr Leute versammeln würden, je später im Spiel wir sind. Und wie du gesagt hast, würde ich einen Timer beim Einsetzen einbauen. Vielleicht etwas wie bei Kontrollpunkte in MP? Dass man für etwa 5 Sekunden der Einzige im Radius sein muss?

//

Ich kann glaube ich verstehen, woher dein Beispiel kommt. Aber ich persönlich würde ein Rennspiel nicht mit einer Art Battle Royal Game vergleichen, weil das Ziel ein ganz anderes ist. Ich meine, ich verstehe deinen Standpunkt. Aber ich denke auch, dass sich dadurch nicht viel ändern wird. Wie wir beide schon gesagt haben, werden auch die guten Spieler irgendwann auf 1 Leben runtergehen, ob sie wollen oder nicht. An diesem Punkt hat sich also nichts geändert, außer dass es dann einfacher ist, einen Gegner endgültig zu erledigen. Also ja, vielleicht wäre es eine bessere Situation als jetzt, aber ich glaube das nicht wirklich.
Außerdem würde ich sagen, dass es in einem Kampfspiel wirklich wichtiger ist, die besseren Waffen zu haben als mehr Leben.

 

[I_AmTheReaper]

It seems from the survey that people seem relatively satisfied with the items.
If I could change just 1 thing, I would make it that items never disappear. I don't think it adds anything to the game, and it's just frustrating when an item disappears right as you need it.
I was knocked off the edge with a fire sword yesterday, and as I was pulling back my trident, the damage from the flame caused my % to rise high enough to lose the trident before I could loose my throw.

 

[I_AmTheReaper]

You say, they are useless but in the same sentence you state their uses.

My point was to illustrate how rare those cases are. It's only useful if you happen to be holding Leuchten when you get hit by a tintengranate. Because once youve already been hit by one, you have very little chance of finding Leuchten within the few seconds you're blind. And if you have Leuchten already you're very unlikely to hold on to it just to be prepared for that one niche situation. You'd be much better off getting a different item.

 

[Viquux]

Would it make sense to change the spawn mechanics, so items like the trident would spawn more often on the edge of an arena than in the middle? Players could have either the choice of taking this item more frequently near the arena end, but being more vulnerable and having a higher chance to die or staying in the middle, but having less of tridents.

(poorly used english, but want to improve it)

 

[I_AmTheReaper]

Would it make sense to change the spawn mechanics, so items like the trident would spawn more often on the edge of an arena than in the middle? Players could have either the choice of taking this item more frequently near the arena end, but being more vulnerable and having a higher chance to die or staying in the middle, but having less of tridents.

(poorly used english, but want to improve it)

It's too easy to move quickly from the edge of the map back to the center in only a few jumps. Not to mention the fact that most people will be towards the center of the map, meaning that when someone does go to the edge theyll likely be alone, at least long enough to grab an item.
However the idea of Tridents only spawning in certain areas is interesting. If there are 6 spots items can spawn on a map, but only 2 of them can spawn "Powerful" items (It could be decided which items belong in that category) it could lead to more contention around those areas.
That being said, I think that may be too complicated to implement for too insignificant a change. And I don't think it would be anywhere near as effective as simply rebalancing some of the items.

 

[flmc]

i'll give my mustard, too (sorry, german thing)

In Mario Kart, would a good player intentionally become last place to get better items? No, because being in first place is better than being in last with a good item.

As an enthusiastic Mario Kart player i feel the need to clarify that this is indeed a very popular strategy, especially in online games

The Extra-Leben is complete jank.
The extra life is an awful addition. It's entirely luck based.

Do not agree. The game is luck-based and i don't think of that as a negative per se. In my opinion its purpose is to enlengthen the game and sometimes to help decide a winner. I often find myself seeking higher vantage points on the five minute mark specifically to get the Extra-Leben quicker, and it works most of the time. So i wouldn't call it entirely luck-based but rather 'luck-inspired', maybe :D

Personally, i think that the trident needs some adjusting, just like you mentioned. A person equipped with a trident is essentially a person with an extra life, and that's just too good of an item, i think. I'd say limiting it to a single use would fix that.

personally think, that 2 uses would be good. Because sometimes when your opponent gets a good hit or your a the very edge of the map and falling down, 1 use wouldnt be enough to safe you. So instead 2 uses could be enough if your timing is right.

If you're 2 trident-uses away from the island, you don't deserve to live. That's just absurd. Limiting the trident to 2 uses is not really an improvement to the current situation, i think. With 2 uses, you can still save yourself in every possible situation.

Look at Rettungsschleim, for example. It has only 1 use, and is completely useless if you have any kind of horizontal momentum.

Potentially unpopular opinion but i'm a huge fan of the Rettungsschleim as it is. I love that you need to slow down to use it, i love that you can use it directly above people to trap them and i'm just a big fan of bouncy-ness. I get that it doesn't really help anyone from falling in most situation, though. To combat that, i'd simply add a bit of bounce (catapulting the user very high, like the one in bedwars).

I was told in that thread it was actually intentional for items to disappear when you're between 70-100% knockback, but it still seems random. Since then I've been paying attention to it and I've both kept items through that range without using them, as well as lost items while outside of that range.
This system is ridiculous. If you're concerned about players holding onto items too long, give each item a time limit. 1 minute, for example.

YES! They always seem to disappear in the moments you need them the most. Would love to see it limited to a fixed timespan, though probably a bit shorter (like 30 seconds). Would like to see some kind of item-time-left-bar, too.

Good players that know how to use the items effectively get an even larger advantage over new/weaker players that don't know how to use the items very well. A solution for this would be for the items to not be predetermined, but rather determined once they've been picked up.

I don't think you can solve the 'problem' of strong players winning against weaker ones. I wouldn't consider it a problem, either. By limiting the items based on your lives, you just open up a new realm of tactics and strategies that newer players won't know, leading to a steeper learning curve that nobody wants nor needs.

 

[I_AmTheReaper]

If you're 2 trident-uses away from the island, you don't deserve to live.

Exactly. It's incredibly frustrating when you make a really good play and don't just knock someone off the island a little bit, but absolutely yeet them into oblivion, and they still survive.